BOOK TWO – INDIA BOUND 

 TOPSY-TURVY

 The Irony of It All

Markand Thakar

A Skunk Publication

Book Two of India Bound

TOPSY-TURVY – The Irony of It All

by

Markand Thakar

A Skunk Publication

The entire contents of
TOPSY-TURVY -- The Irony of It All
writing and artwork, are the sole creation
and authorship of Markand Thakar

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

No part of
 TOPSY-TURVY –The Irony of It All
may be
 reproduced, stored in a retrieving system, or transmitted in any form
 by an electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recordings means, or otherwise,
 without the prior written consent of the author.

Except for historical and explicitly documented happenings and individuals:
any similarity between the characters in 
TOPSY-TURVY – The Irony of It All
and any persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Printed and published in India under
Indian Copyright Registration # L – 18229/99
Updated Copyright 2006 by Markand Thakar
Printed in the U.S.A.

Though likelihood for war and peace,
Is often ever present,
And peace on earth acclaimed in song --
 It’s war that gives us glory.

TOPSY-TURVY

India Bound – Book Two

Preamble
 
	Upon arriving at the airport, the economy-class passenger joins a slow-moving queue at the airline’s check-in counter, deposits his luggage and obtains a boarding pass. Then, after a lengthy and boring wait in a mammoth, ever-expanding, somewhat-sterile terminal: one devoid of any definable personality, he, with an over-stuffed tote-bag in hand, boards a gigantic Boeing jet (Air Bus’s planes, until recently were limited to smaller, copy-cat versions).

	In addition, when traveling abroad the traveler is accompanied by a weightless item of an uncertain size: his cultural baggage. It passes undetected through the airport’s most advanced and powerful X-ray machines: with scarcely a voyager aware of its very existence. But, like his shadow, it tags along wherever he goes – becoming visible only when stimulated by external forces.

*

	For some years prior to my initial visit to India, I busied myself by attempting to take inventory of my own cultural baggage: that repository of events one accrues during a lifetime of living. By now, we’re all very-much aware of the Freudian conceit, whereby a client, by reclining on a couch in the presence of an all-knowing professional auditor (for some hundreds of hours at a cost of twenty to fifty times the minimum wage for hoi polloi), bares his thoughts and emotions, with supposedly-cathartic results – as he scrolls through the near-forgotten vignettes stored in the recesses of his mind. Having my own conceits, and an unwavering belief in my own sanity, I refrain from utilizing the professional services of the shrink: that all-knowing, middle-class practitioner of the occult science of psycho-blather who learned everything he knows about life from his own middle-class upbringing and from books and lectures by professors who, in turn, learned everything they knew from their own middle-class upbringing and the books and lectures by their professors.

	 As a do-it-yourself person I believed that somehow or other I could, propped up on a rickety stool, or seated in a corner of an offbeat bar, muddle through my own recollections of those minor mental traumas that clutter up one’s psyche, and that are considered to affect our thoughts and how we live our lives. Perhaps as proof of my ignorance, I feel satisfied that I’ve accomplished the same or better results than had I reclined on a sofa and prattled to one of those learned lay-confessors who, in New York, assist the run-of-the-mill, extremely-ambitious, under-endowed over-achievers to rummage through their cultural baggage in an effort to find the root cause of their anxieties

	The attempts by those reclining in a shrink’s office to locate the source of their real or imagined emotional problems may not vary by any appreciable degree from my efforts to identify the inputs that led to my then, Euro-centric view of world events. It was a concept instilled from infancy and formalized in public school. It was indoctrination into a world view that was narrowly limited to that part of humanity's communal past that manufactured the conception of a benevolent, modern-day Northern Europe, along with its New World spin-offs.

*

	The Lord’s Prayer: Give us this day... was mumbled by one and all once a week at assembly. This was at a junior high school on Manhattan’s West side -- located just below Columbia University; and it took place during the very early, WWII war years. This was when everyone was supposed to be God-fearing, although, even then, I couldn’t figure out why I should be afraid of our “Father” Who art in Heaven. That all students, as good, American, generic-type near-Protestants, were required to recite that supposedly non-denominational Christian prayer, brought not a word of protest from those thought to be ethnic Catholics (at the time poor children deemed uneducable by the nuns were denied admission to parochial school – so they tended to fill the classes for the duller students) or ethnic Jews (coming from highly-motivated, well-to-do, middle-class families but denied access to private schools -- they made up the majority in those classes for brighter children).

	Just about everything taught in grade school was consistent with, or avoided refuting the facts as presented in the Bible’s Judeo-Christian mythology (causing Bible-thumping fundamentalists to find no fault with that era’s teaching agendas). No mention of anything of an historical, archaeological, political, social, scientific, economic, theological, philosophical, linguistic or aesthetic nature was made (even in their simplest terms) unless supportive of a Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian, materialistic concept of right and wrong. Colonialism was considered morally fitting and proper – and praised for conveying civilization to the ignorant Heathens. The exception to the rule was when Europeans attempted to colonize the Western hemisphere – in which case the Monroe Doctrine declared colonization (at least by the Europeans) evil. 

*

Those deliberate distortions of history were done to rationalize the status quo of the time, which included the continuing subjugation of those peoples whose histories were being deleted from the archives of humanity's progression into the twentieth century. By making the citizens of their colonies historyless, landless, moneyless and often-prideless -- the colonizing powers, with their superior armament, could continue draining the wealth from the economies of their “possessions”, while at the same time bemoaning the need for their having to maintain the “white-man's” burden. 

*

	The entire conception of race, so imbedded in the European psyche, is quite selective. In just about any popular book involving the races of man, when an illustration of a Euro-Caucasian appears, he is blond, fair-complexioned and blue-eyed, yet, in viewing paintings and photographs taken from life of those Euro-Caucasians who have excelled in science, art, music, philosophy, literature and in just about any other field you can think of, as often as not they’re seen to be dark-eyed, dark-haired and far from white-skinned. And, although the physical characteristics displayed by Indo-Caucasians and Mediterranean Euro-Caucasians have far more in common with each other than do North Europeans with their Southern counterparts, Europe’s Mediterranean peoples seem only too keen to disassociate themselves from their Indian cousins and accept the idealized version of the Nordic European as being representative of themselves. Colonialism, with its handmaiden bigotry, had relied on a healthy dose of racism to rationalize its existence – and the world is still very-much affected by it. 

*

	All peoples manufacture histories that work to the advantage of the dominant segment of their nation’s population. History in American schools was taught as if the makings of our modern world came into being miraculously in the then-intellectually-barren Medieval Europe (a kind of Immaculate Conception that allowed Europe, with its unlettered masses, to give birth to all worldly knowledge). All other peoples, those belonging to cultures refusing to adopt the mythological history of the Old Testament’s Hebrews as their own, or those folks not enumerated in the Book’s listings of the ancestors of Adam and Eve, were given short shrift. Being considered either God-forsaken or subhuman, they were considered fair game by the rationalizing, God-fearing followers of the Judeo-Christian and Catholic religions. Even today, the greed-motivated, Euro-Caucasian wielders of superior weapons-technology use a similar rationalization to justify the neutralization of the abilities of any recalcitrant native populations that attempt to remain free of the West’s greed motivated domination.

One might contrast the earlier attempted economic ruination of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and Hussein’s Iraq with the economic and moral support given to such supposedly-democratic nations whose governments have, at least in the recent past, been suppressors of their minorities and often of their own poor, such as Rhee’s South Korea, Fujimori’s Peru, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- amongst others. 

WHY GO?

	Over the years, I had read enough about India and its culture to become aware of the numerous self-serving, subjective distortions implicit in the various works that Americans were being exposed to (with Herman Hess's "Siddhartha" being the one exception that comes to mind). The books I cracked were English translations of the philosophical ponderings by Teutonic advocates of the not-totally-illogical proposition that the Germanic tribes were related to the Sanskrit-speaking peoples described in India's ancient texts. Their assumptions were based on the realization that Sanskrit is the oldest known, if not the root tongue of the entire Indo-European language group, which includes not only those of Germanic origins (English being the most notable), but also every other major language spoken by the vast majority of folks from Bangladesh on west to Europe and then on to the Americas.

*

The concept of an Indo-Aryan peoples has been totally discredited as a result of Germany’s willing acceptance of Hitler’s claim that her people were pure blooded Aryans -- as his rationalization for the barbarisms committed by the Master Race against the “mongrel” Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other folk deemed undesirable and therefore were  guilty of contaminating their homeland: that Central-European expanse with a people having Alpine, Nordic, Mediterranean, Slavic, Semitic, Indo-Caucasian, Lithuanian, Mongolian, plus who-knows-whose-others, genetic origins.

*

	Everything I had read about India worked far more to confuse than to elucidate.  Despite this, I had concluded that India’s firmly-imbedded, indigenous prehistoric civilization must be the uniting element behind her modern-day, Indo-Dravidian, Indo-Aryan culture. And, when that was subjected to the overlay of a diversity of genetic and cultural inputs, the result of over three thousand years of successive invasions, immigrations and occupations, it was to give the wide range of peoples indigenous to the Subcontinent as varied a gene pool, and then some, as the equivalent-in-size modern-day Europe. 

	Between the scholarly tomes that tended to confuse more than enlighten, and the agenda-driven newspapers and periodicals, along with the condescending, Anglo-centric, well-written pot-boilers like A Passage to India and Kim (with their caricatures of Indians much like those of Jews in Ivanhoe and The Merchant of Venice and Italians in The Godfather and Romeo and Juliet), I realized that if I really wanted to get a true picture of what that country and her people were all about, I could no longer put off going to India.

	It had become impossible to accept the preposterous premise espoused in both the politically-correct and the rationalizing-of-the-status quo, agenda-driven publications that infer that for the past fifty thousand years, or so, the entire population of the world was in a state of intellectual, evolutionary suspension -- hanging around in the far-off corners of a flat Earth, waiting patiently for the progeny of a North-European olio of sundry, invading, Eurasian, barbarian hordes to become enlightened, so they might, by doing their God’s bidding, murderously enslave the heathens in order to lead them out of their abysmal ignorance of the One-and-Only-God's Grace.

And, so I went!

*

Flight to India -- New York to New Delhi

	It was in the latter part of October, 1991 that I boarded a United Airlines flight (coach-economy) at New York's JFK bound for New Delhi – by way of London's Heathrow airport, over which the plane kept circling and circling. In looking down, nothing other than a fluffy blanket of cottony-looking gray stuff could be seen. Eventually the plane broke through and then, as if a miracle, a landing strip loomed up but a few hundred feet away. Within a matter of seconds the plane landed and was taxiing to its assigned gate.

	London’s much joked-about, eternal cloud cover caused a delay in landing of close to two hours, which damn near caused me to miss my connecting flight on Gulf Airlines.  But, by running a country mile through Heathrow's labyrinthine corridors, while carrying a good-sized, carry-on bag, winded, and with all of ten minutes to spare, I managed to make the flight (an impossible post-9/11 accomplishment  due to all the new security checks).
	
I was assigned an aisle seat next to an attractive young woman. In the course of making small talk, she mentioned she was involved in funding for a British art academy. Since I was vaguely aware of its mythology, if not its history, it led to our having a pleasant conversation. Between that, and the seemingly endless serving of meals, snacks and drinks, plus my many intermittent cat naps – the many hours of the first lap of the circuitous leg of the journey from London to New Delhi passed quickly.

	En route, while making the scheduled stop in Bahrain, an unanticipated change of Boeing jets was made. The plane then proceeded to Muscat to pick up additional passengers. The majority of those travelers from London had appeared to be Western-garbed Arabs; they were now being replaced by a diversity of polyglot, exotically-attired, Indian laborers and technicians – apparently returning home after fulfilling their contractual terms of employment.

	Despite their obvious expressions of pride and individualism in the way they dressed, the new Indian passengers seemed a subdued lot. At first I assumed that it was merely the manifestation of an aloof nature – or, perhaps, a sign of a contemplative anticipation of their return home. In addition, since on other occasions I had noticed that passengers who fly infrequently often had doubts about the air-worthiness of the plane, which resulted in their exhibiting a similar demeanor: one of introversion and of a resignation to their fate, I assumed that this too could be the cause of their withdrawn and submissive appearance. 

	Nevertheless, after having traveled extensively throughout a good part of India (some three-and-a-half years over the course of twelve years) I realized that none of those reasons could have accounted for their display of such an overly deferential manner. It was an attitude that, after coming into contact with any number of middle- to lower-income, middle-class Indians (those most apt to seek employment in the Persian Gulf), could only be ascribed to the effects of something almost sinister; which I attributed to their forced submission to the strict laws of Islam -- all in accordance with the self-serving interpretations of Islamic law made by one or another of the West’s tolerated, if not hand-picked, rulers of the water-poor, oil-rich nations of the Persian Gulf.

*

Culture Bias

	As I recall (this was before the post-WWII breakup of the British Empire) it was only in geography classes that the cultures of the Heathen inhabitants of lands militarily- and economically-controlled by the West, were discussed.  At the time we students were taught, as fact or by inference, that none of the peoples of those colonized lands, or their cultures, were consequential in bringing about the intellectual and material advances of the modern world. At best, their sole worth was implied to be in their ability to supply the raw material enabling those European quoters of Chapter and Verse to give it value. Never was the fact mentioned that the industries of the pre-colonized Subcontinent had been deliberately destroyed: this, in a successful effort to monopolize the value-increasing process of manufacturing and marketing the final finished products.

	Despite the inequitable results of mercantilism (a system that prevented the development and often brought about the destruction of indigenously-owned manufacturing industries – which was applied to the peoples of Europe’s pre-WWII colonies), that system was accepted when not lauded, as a good thing in American classrooms. This was the same mercantile system that was damned by America’s founding fathers for its intended economic enslavement of the citizens of the original thirteen colonies – and was a major cause, perhaps more so than that of taxation and lack of representation, for America’s revolution against England’s wealthy bourgeoisie and their puppet German King.

*

By the late nineteenth century the military supremacy of Europe’s colonizing nations, unrestrained by any moral considerations, was so powerful, that in China’s case, despite her having a strong central government, a somewhat common language and a unifying racial makeup, she couldn’t prevent the loss of her sovereign rights over her vast domain (until the first decades of the twentieth century no European in China was subject to her laws). Moreover, China was forced to cede her major port cities to foreign powers; and, it was not until the last year of the twentieth century that the Chinese were to retake complete control of Macao from the Portuguese (in July of 1997 the Chinese had allowed the Brits to withdraw peacefully from Hong Kong before retaking control of it).

To maintain their domination over the colonies, Britain, along with her satellite, fellow-colonizing nations, resorted to the use of propagandistic tactics considered despicable when employed by Germany during WWII, which, of course, they were. The Brits, with intentions no more benign than those of the Nazis, relied on a combination of cunning and well-placed barbarity to gain and maintain control of the wealth and destinies of alien peoples. And to maintain a moral stance while doing so, the people in the colonies had to be denigrated.

Since India was the “Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire” (if not its essence) everything connecting India’s glorious past to her contemporary inhabitants was either ignored or denied. And, so, never mentioned was the long and extensive penetration into what was known as Greater India, by Hindu merchants -- who, in doing so, spread the Subcontinent’s ancient Indian culture throughout much of Southeast Asia. That area of Indian influence (that of both Hinduism and Buddhism) included the entire Indian subcontinent, which besides India included what is now Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Myanmar; Java, Bali and Sumatra the major part of what was the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia); and much of what was French Indo-China (namely Cambodia). Nepal, numerous princely states of India and Thailand, of Anna and the King of Siam fame, were the only South or Southeast Asian political entities that had been directly influenced by Indian culture that managed to remain more or less free of direct foreign domination. 

There’s an obvious parallel between the peaceful dissemination of India’s culture throughout South and Southeast Asia and the way early Christianity and the Mediterranean culture was spread throughout much of Europe. In both instances the religion, music, art, literature and ethics (plus dance and theater in India’s case), were all disseminated without the use of armed aggression. In both instances, their civilizing effects were great – perhaps too great, because both were made vulnerable to the greed-motivated incursions from within and without by barbaric hordes of one stripe or another.  

*

Apparently, prior to the end of the Victorian era, a gentlemen’s agreement appears to have existed between England’s supported- by-colonialism’s-profits, recently-created intelligencia and the economic and political powers that be, whereby virtually all information would be withheld from widespread publication, if it could possibly negate the concept that North Europeans had an intellectual and moral superiority over the native populations of their colonies. In an effort to enforce that policy, as a means of maintaining her rule in India, by the latter part of the nineteenth century the Brits had set up a secret police force and propaganda machine that could have rivaled that of Adolf Hitler. 

Nevertheless, it must be conceded that colonized peoples were given some credit: China, with having built the Great Wall and inventing the firecracker (which was then adapted by the West as an effective means of murdering one another); India was acknowledged for her being the home of the “Mogul-built” Taj Mahal and for her supplying the world with the black pepper berry (which was then so effectively used in the manufacture of salami); Persia (Iran) was credited with having acted as Alexander’s gateway to the borders of India; Mesopotamia (Sumer, Babylon, Iraq) with having been the captors of the Biblical Hebrews; and Egypt, with having built the pyramids, for supplying Marc Antony with a royal lover, and for being the land where Moses was found in a reed basket. 

*

	Whether the demeaning distortions of reality taught in American schools (the results of both commission and  omission) were due to teachers' blindly-following text, their own ignorance or their deliberate, albeit possibly believed-to- be-benign, teaching of what they knew to be untrue, the end result was the glorification and rationalization of colonialism -- which acted to justify the continuing exploitation of subject alien peoples, one based on the concept of a Euro-Caucasian,  superiority – with all of its racist overtones.

	This added to the problems of those people whose lands were being occupied against their will by our future WWII allies. It was next to impossible for the colonized peoples to defend themselves against the racist propaganda issued clandestinely by British undercover channels. The propaganda campaign was intended to rationalize the commonplace use of the most-advanced weaponry of its time to stifle the attempts by the colonized folks to free themselves from the plight of being the “white-man’s burden”. It was due to the genius of Gandhi that he could see through England’s attempts to dehumanize the colonized peoples as a tool of governance – and, then, single-handedly managing to turn world opinion against the Brits by unmasking colonialism’s  innate evil. 

*

	When still in high school it was difficult, if not impossible for a student to imagine that deliberate distortions of facts were being taught, let alone the motivations for their having been made. But, in retrospect, it’s obvious that we were lied to, or perhaps brain-washed would be a more accurate term. In no way can a young student even consider that any part of the curriculum being taught (no matter how insignificant it might have seemed at the time) was calculated to validate the virtual, world-wide enslavement and character assassination of alien peoples (as well as the rationalization of various forms of bigotry-based practices in our own country).  But why was it done? The only possible answer seems to be – to enhance and protect the wealth of a small clique of the West’s most affluent and influential citizens. 

	Though the motivation behind the deliberate distortions of fact, as taught in the classroom, was way beyond my comprehension, I began to doubt the objectivity of our teachers and textbooks – especially with regard to India (and by extension, to all currently- and formerly-subject nations). I recall seeing a picture in a grade school geography book that related to India. It depicted a huddled mass of impoverished, sullen, unkempt, scrawny, dust-covered, dark- skinned humanity (so-called-liberal publications continue in this practice to this day, but with an updated agenda in support of a new breed of colonizers). Since I grew up in that children-are-to-be-seen-and-not-heard era, I accepted the veracity of our school texts and teacher's word without question.  But, I was well aware that neither my Indian father (a relatively-fair-skinned, high-caste Hindu, a writer and linguist who arrived in America during the first years of the last century), nor any of the few Indians I had met, resembled in any way those pitiful and down-trodden peoples depicted in the school's textbooks. 
	As the years passed, I became aware that there were, indeed, many dark-skinned Indians (many of whom lived in poverty) – though I failed to see that that made them different, let alone inferior.

*

The exercising of every possible kind of bigotry, whether based on ethnicity, religion, race, or you name it, was not only legal in America until the latter part of the twentieth century, but was the norm throughout much of America. (In New York, co-op boards have been established that routinely, and legally, continue to circumvent the anti-bias laws, as they go about promoting and protecting the bigotry-based valuations of residential real-estate.) During the earlier part of the twentieth century only the well-to-do and wealthy could avoid being subjected to the crueler effects of one form or another of bigotry, although, neither fame nor fortune would have served as a total deterrent if you had a dark skin or were a woman.

Laws enacted, in the last half of the twentieth century, making bigotry-based actions illegal (unless practiced in a private club or protected as a religious practice) have accomplished their goal, at least to some degree, though in many instances they’re taking a long time to have a meaningful effect. Moreover, the practice of bigotry, though considerably diminished, remains ubiquitous: it’s still very much alive, well and living in America – but, for the most part, with a change of players: as the members of each once-despised group are superficially accepted by the dominant society, they tend to become even more abusive towards the most recently denigrated group than were their former oppressors. Albeit, with one major difference, their actions are now without the force of law – except, that is, when bigots themselves become the enforcers of the law.

There was, still is, and probably will always be a social and economic underclass that’s made up of a majority of all Americans: those with every conceivable ancestral background. They’re being deprived of a total equality of opportunity due to the effects of money-talks politics. Yet, there are those amongst them with North European origins (the likes of a Liddy or Ollie North), who, while in many ways being as poorly used as the latest groups of much-despised immigrants and minorities, are, nevertheless, convinced that their having been shortchanged was due to the influx of those “inferior” foreign and domestic elements into American society. Their belief that they, and only they, are “Real” Americans – has them willingly give their lives to serve those they believe to be fellow “Real” Americans, such as Reagan and Nixon. (The unjustifiable, irresponsible, post-9/11 invasion of Iraq has allowed a new generations of underemployed youths to willingly die while serving the needs of Bush-little and his super-wealthy supporters – because they believe them to be fellow “Real” Americas). 

*

	In retrospect, it now seems obvious that pre-WWII textbooks were, and may very well still be being used to further the interests of the reigning, politically-powerful, self-serving determiners of what America's national interests are. Since their interests coincided with those of the colonizing nations, they were best served by adopting a school curriculum that would rationalize the subjugation of militarily-weaker, alien peoples, and the destruction of their competitive industries. (Americans dabbled in colonialism for a time, but to our credit, we didn’t have our hearts in it – although, economically we did attempt, with much success, to dominate Latin America.)

	 A variation on that theme is being applied by America's current super-rich (foreign and domestic) to suborn our own citizens, whether or not Euro-Caucasians, but almost always those from the lowest eighty percent of America’s income earners. By the late 1990’s; sixty-five percent of the tax reductions accrued to the benefit of one percent of all Americans. Neo-colonizers, both physical and economic continue to claim it’s necessary to subjugate peoples of alien cultures in order to advance and protect their own national interests, i.e., those dominant within its dominant society.  

*

In respect to the first invasion of Iraq in 1991, although it’s quite possible that Saddam Hussein would have proven intransigent and that the massacre of those Iraqi troops would still have been necessitated, that Papa Bush (definitely no Jimmy Carter), acting with the rubber-stamp authority of the UN, made no attempt to talk to him before authorizing the massacre in the desert, does make one wonder whether or not both religious and racial bigotry didn’t play at least some part in his otherwise money- oil and politically-based (disingenuously-labeled-moral) decision. To understand why Moslems feel they’re under siege, one need only consider that when the Israelis invaded Lebanon, with heavy casualties inflicted on that nation’s Moslem population, Reagan looked the other way; and nearly twenty years later, a part of Lebanon was still in the hands of the Israelis – all in defiance of the UN. (Papa Bush, unlike his son, realized that any attempt to occupy Iraq would be foolhardy.  Nevertheless, a fool attempted it.)

*

While adding hypocrisy to the felony of theft, the colonizing powers, prior to, and during WWII, claimed those occupied- against-their-will lands offered them little, if any, financial benefit. Though the despicable lies voiced by Nazi Germany's wartime propaganda-making machine were obvious, a more subtle form of propaganda was being voiced by America’s honorable Allies: those nations whose colonies the Axis powers had had the audacity to steal. The kicker was that the West’s colonizers contrasted the land-grabbing attempts of the Axis powers by claiming they were evil, as against theirs, our Allies, who were merely doing God's work by taking on this unprofitable responsibility of the white-man's burden – which they would gladly relinquish once the war was over.

As promised, America, in the case of the Philippines, did just that; in the aftermath of WWII we unequivocally ceded control of that nation to the Filipino people – whereas, unless the colonies of our WWII allies proved too costly to retain, they never relinquished control over them. The Dutch did, however, give up their murderous efforts to regain control of Indonesia, but only after America advised them that if they didn’t, they wouldn’t get Marshall-plan aid. 

*

The lives of some fifty-million people were lost during WWII (the overwhelming majority coming from the poorer citizens of the various countries involved in the conflict – in addition the Brits contributed to the starvation deaths of two to three million Bengali Indians). This was for the primary purpose of allowing the major colonizing nations, our Allies: the English, French and Dutch, to deny the Axis powers the opportunity to relieve them of their awesome burden: one requiring that the wealth of their colonies continue to be funneled into the pockets of their nation’s wealthier citizens.

INTRODUCTION

	For those unfamiliar with The Panchatantra, it’s an ancient Indian book of animal fables, the tales from which are commonly misattributed to Aesop and Fontaine. In addition, The Thousand and One Nights, The Decameron and The Canterbury Tales all owe their format to The Panchatantra and, though not a deliberate attempt on my part, so too, at least in some respect, does TOPSY-TURVY. 

	In no way is the describing of India’s inputs, of which the Panchatantra is but one of many, into what is considered world culture (currently it’s with a very definite Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian bias) intended to highlight India’s culture and contributions at the expense of others. However, due to the contemporary, historical world-view, which focuses almost exclusively on Europe’s achievements (though often of a dubious moral nature), it would be next to impossible to correct the unintentional, when not deliberate, distortions of fact currently promoted by Western apologists for the greed-based materialism of the past, i.e., colonialism, and for its potential replacement: the New World Order, without bringing a whole range of Western hypocrisy to light.

	Perhaps it’s a belief in the idealism associated with a Jeffersonian approach to democracy that triggered my focusing in on the concept that all men are created equal. Though, to bring that point home I felt it necessary to attack the smug, self-satisfied and complacent attitude of ethnic and racial superiority that pervades our modern materialist world – and that has the effect of oppressing the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings. Although there are numerous exceptions to the rule that all people are basically decent, those exceptions are not concentrated in any special racial or ethnic grouping. And, so, in order to make available a reasonable opportunity for all folks, the world over, to attain the basic necessities of life, it’s sometimes necessary to puncture the inflated conception of self (based on one’s ethnicity, race, nationality, income, religion, caste, class, ancestry or whatever) that has so many folks believing they have a right to deny the opportunity to partake in the better things in life by others.  For those unmoved by an appeal to decency, it must be stressed, that unless there’s at least the glimmer of hope that a modest degree of prosperity can be attained by all people, with a fairly equal chance of success, the world will never be an easy place to live.

*

	The ongoing theme of TOPSY-TURVY is: what, if anything, makes Indians different from other folks? As an artist, I might state my reasons for starting a painting, and then go on to discuss the technical problems and happenings during the course of completing it. But, I normally refrain from describing the painting in detail or stating its meaning. If an artist feels the need to tell a viewer what his painting means, he’s admitting that both he and the painting were failures: he didn’t have the ability to commit his intellect and emotions to the canvas. For better or worse, my attitude, as the author of TOPSY-TURVY, is no different than when I do a painting. Perhaps, upon your reading the book from cover to cover, you can determine, to your own satisfaction, whether or not Indians are any different from other folks. 

Author’s Note

	Racism has been used as an excuse by the West’s colonizing nations to exercise their acquisitive natures; skin pigmentation, though excusable as a means of identification, has been used as a justification to dehumanize alien peoples and thereby allow the “moral” followers of the Judeo-Christian religions to engage in a level of rationalized depravity rarely seen amongst civilized peoples. As a result, it was necessary to debunk a great deal of the very structure of the West’s much-touted moral fiber in order to illustrate the degree of barbarous oppression and hypocrisy that was put into play to maintain the colonial system. In doing so, the reader’s indulgence is requested. Much like the doctor who re-breaks a bone in order to set it straight, to counter the obviously self-serving and erroneous conclusions promulgated in the current Euro-centric approach to world history, I found it necessary to demolish some of the most cherished, yet hardly credible contentions now widely accepted by the overwhelming majority of supposedly well-educated folks, the world over. 

M.T.

VOLUME ONE

CHAPTER ONE

Part One – Hyderabad

	On the second-floor landing, silhouetted against the cool fluorescent light that illuminated the free-form, steel and concrete, spiral stairway, stood a very tall, young and attractive, Nordic-looking woman. She was accompanied by an Indian man: clean-cut, middle-aged, middle-class, small of stature, and dressed in an up-to-date, smartly-tailored suit.

	Four young men, clerical workers from the closed- for-the-day office of Andhra Pradesh Tourism, who had been intent on playing carom: a board game that required the skill of a pool shark and the dexterity of a tiddlywinks player, turned as one to face the new arrivals.

	It was evening; Nance (Nainsink Tagore) was sitting in the dark, beyond the halo of light given off by the insect-enticing, bare bulb dangling above the seated, carom players. And, by following both their play and their sudden shift of focus, he joined them in gazing at the newcomers.

	The couple appeared oblivious to their audience as they engaged in what appeared to be a deep and involved conversation – though they must surely have been fully aware of the stir their entrance caused.

	In New York, she and her companion would scarcely be noticed. Although, the way she combed her blond hair into a kind of loose and fluffy upsweep, one that made her appear even taller than her near six feet, would hardly make one believe being ignored in any part of the world was her intention. Her companion, for his part, with his alert and twinkling eyes, was obviously enjoying their being the center of interest; he was well aware of being cast in the romantic lead opposite his female companion – who was, especially in the heartland of India, most-assuredly considered an exotic creature.

	However, all the fantasizing proved to be just that. There was no romantic liaison. The gentleman was J.P.S. Dutta, a medical doctor from the nearby maternity hospital; the fascinating young lady was but a university student named Astrid Hubbel who, as part of her graduate thesis, was in India to observe and report on Indian maternity-room techniques. Her advisor at the German university she attended was an Indian professor, a woman who had been associated early-on in her career with the hospital in Secunderabad, Hyderabad's Siamese-twin-like, sister city.

	It was her professor who had approved, and suggested the topic for the young woman’s thesis. As a favor to his past associate, Dr. Dutta had interrupted his busy schedule to greet Astrid Hubbel at the airport and escort her to the Yatri Nivas -- a government-run hotel. He had reserved a room for her there because: it was reasonably priced, both she and her possessions would be somewhat safe, and it was within an acceptable walking distance to the large, modern hospital where she was to pursue her studies. 

	That she turned out to be a bright and attractive young woman was but small compensation to the busy doctor. However, when he considered that he’d have been equally obliged to expend time and energy in seeing to the welfare of an unimposing or homely girl, he did count his blessings.

*

	Now, there would hardly be sufficient reason to introduce the lady into our story at this time, if not for the return of Dr. Moti – as exuberant as ever – notwithstanding the rebuff he was to experience – one Nance was to be witness to.

	His first encounter with Dr. Moti occurred a week before the onset of the Ayodhya riots. It was in the early evening; as Nance was sitting in the outdoor, upper-deck, dining area of the Yatri Nivas. He was sipping a cup of scalding-hot, Indian tea – when, as he swatted mosquitoes with his free hand, an Indian gentleman seated few feet from him, started one of those typically Indian-to-foreigner conversations: "You're from?" Upon Nance’s polite response, he, seemingly without calculation, made him aware that he was Dr. Moti, with a doctorate in naval architecture, who had been called in from Bombay (now Mumbai) to assist in placing the huge granite statue of Lord Buddha on its water-encircled pedestal situated a kilometer or so from shore in Hussain Sagar: Hyderabad's expansive lake.

	In retrospect, Dr. Moti’s English was almost too good: he had an extensive vocabulary and used it grammatically; but, despite the apparent ease with which he spoke, it was also rather studied: a little like a bright, American college student's French. Nevertheless, at least initially, he gave the impression of being a man of some importance. He accomplished this despite his being average in height and having rather unpleasant features: something like a dark-skinned caricature of a toothy Teddy Roosevelt. In addition, he had a decidedly un-upper-middle-class muscular body: one that was apparent, despite his wearing a freshly-ironed, pinstriped, cotton, seersucker suit: the Western attire of a well-dressed, Indo-Raj professional.

	As the evening wore on, Dr. Moti told of the barge carrying the huge statue of Lord Buddha capsizing, and how it caused the monolith to be unceremoniously deposited at the bottom of Hussain Sagar – where it rested for many a month. This was in line with an article in The Hindu, one of the many excellent, Indian, English-language newspapers, all of which had rehashed the events leading to the then much-publicized, new attempt to install the statue. Dr. Moti spoke with much authority, stating: had he, the renowned doctor of naval architecture with his extensive knowledge been called in sooner, the earlier disaster, the overturning of the barge with its sacred cargo – would have been averted.

	Had Dr. Moti left well enough alone, his claims to professional excellence would have been accepted without question. But, realizing his stated profession was one of many that Nance knew absolutely nothing about, he proceeded to cite, in detail, his assignments in America. This is when he blew it: he proceeded to describe his expertise as a driver by detailing his maneuvering of a rented car from JFK International Airport through New York's downtown traffic – and then on to New Jersey. For Nance, as a native New Yorker who has ridden and driven in Manhattan's traffic since his childhood, it was obvious – that since Dr. Moti was on his first and only trip to America, he was elaborating on the truth, to say the least.

	Nance concluded that Dr. Moti’s deceits, if indeed they were, were of a self-deceptive nature. So, with his still-unflagging, Western conceit, Nance was sure that Dr. Moti was going out of his way to impress him with his bona fides as a doctor of naval architecture and convince him of his stature as a respectable and trustworthy citizen. This left Nance with conflicting emotions. On the one hand he felt flattered that Dr. Moti thought him important enough to impress, and yet his zeal in doing so made Nance a little wary of his motives.

	Wary or not, since Nance enjoyed listening to him as he wallowed in the grandeur of what appeared to be a make-believe, illusional world, he ignored Dr. Moti’s overblown concept of self. Moreover, there was something about Dr. Moti that was almost likable, and his attempts at deception, if this they were, seemed so transparent that he came through more as a pathetic character than a dangerous one. And so, despite Nance’s gut feeling that he was being conned, he decided to stay on friendly terms – at least until he could figure out just what, if anything, Dr. Moti’s game was.

	A few days after their first meeting, Dr, Moti knocked on Nance’s door and advised him of  his imminent departure: he said his job was done and that he was flying back to Bombay the following day. He then went on to invite Nance to join him for dinner at the Hyderabad Club. He claimed to be a member of the Bombay Club which would afford him the use of the Hyderabad Club's facilities.

[Clubs like these can be found in India's major cities, as well as the escape-from-the-monsoon-and-heat, summertime, mountain resorts. These are the remaining vestiges of the clubs once reserved for the exclusive use of British officers, high-ranking officials and their no-Indians-allowed guests. However, since the takeover of those clubs by India's own privileged classes (the Indo-Raj), in the aftermath of the claimed-to-be-bloodless-and-amicable de-colonizing of the Subcontinent, only the nationality of their elitist membership changed.]

*

	Dr. Moti and Nance left the Yatri Nivas at about 8 PM, and walked along S.P. Road: a 6-lane, asphalt-paved roadway with a pedestrian-barring, median-divider. They walked for a few hundred feet, until they came to an opening and crossed to the other side of the road. Having avoided paying for the extra kilometer or so, Dr. Moti hailed a nearby three-wheeler; they then rode south towards the intersection leading to the Hyderabad Club.

	Dr. Moti, in an effort to avoid being seen exiting the déclassé auto-rickshaw, had the driver stop a short distance from the entrance, and paid the fare of six rupees. He then nonchalantly led Nance through the gate. Once in, he suggested they take in the grounds. As they walked, he spoke of the importance of the club. It occupied the former administration buildings and officers' quarters of the British Raj. It had been part of the military compound established by the Brits to ensure the loyalty of the Nizam of Hyderabad to the royal house of Hanover-cum-Saxe-Coberg-Gotha-cum- Windsor, as well as to the moneyed boys of London.

	As they made their tour of the green-lawned grounds, he pointed to those places he thought of special interest: the bath house, the outdoor barbecue stand with its picnic area, and the main building that housed the restaurant and clubhouse; all of which were now being put to good use by the Indo-Raj: the members of India's very-own, privileged upper middle-classes.

	Dr. Moti spoke occasionally to a guard, or one of the lower-level employees, but always slightly more authoritatively than seemed necessary. His show of pretense was just that, he was reluctant to enter the restaurant until reasonably sure he wouldn't be refused service. Accordingly, he queried a guard stationed nearby, and was advised that written permission from the secretary would be required.

	Thereupon, with Nance in tow, he strode to the administration building, and climbed a flight of steps leading to the secretary's office. The secretary was tall, relatively fair- complexioned, and decidedly Indian. He spoke perfect English with a typical Indian cadence, but, with a slight British accent. There’s a snobbishness amongst many well-to-do Indians, whereby the British accent is often affected; Indians speaking English with a more distinct and obvious Indian rhythm or, worse still, with an American accent, are often looked down upon as being plebeian Johnny-come-latelies.

	They were asked to be seated. Dr. Moti then introduced himself and went on to explain how he was a member of the Bombay Club, which he believed to have a reciprocal membership agreement with the Hyderabad Club, and that he had asked Nance, an American, to dine with him at the club as his guest. Unfortunately, he went on, he had neglected to take his Bombay Club membership card with him. 

	At this point, the secretary, while never losing his poise, and with a show of great civility, politely asked Dr. Moti for his membership I.D. number. This was when the good doctor flunked out. He could have logically blustered: “I have no idea what it is -- if indeed I was assigned one,” which would have been the only sensible response to the request – especially from Nance’s viewpoint: right or wrong, he thought Dr. Moti was lying through his teeth. 

	But he didn't; instead, with emphasis on each syllable, he stated a most improbable series of numbers, perhaps in an attempt to cow the secretary with his importance. Upon hearing the numbers: one, zero, zero, one, the secretary gave him a long searching look, made up his mind, then, politely but firmly told the doctor that under the circumstances he would be stretching his authority if he permitted him and his guest, to have free run of the club's facilities.

	Thus dismissed, Dr. Moti stalked out, but Nance held back for a moment to make indelible the memory of what he thought a very Indian encounter. And, although he had considered giving support to the doctor in his seemingly-harmless game, he was entirely too absorbed in the goings on to attempt to affect the outcome. 

*

	Dr. Moti's stated reason for inviting Nance to the not-to-be-realized dinner at the Indo-Raj’s Hyderabad Club, was that he was leaving the next day for Bombay. So Nance was both surprised and pleased to run into him at the hotel a few days later – he was basically a very decent man, and Nance enjoyed his company. Though Nance thought that Dr. Moti might be using him, he, most assuredly, was also using Dr. Moti.. In answer to Nance’s query, as to why he didn’t go to Bombay he made up what seemed to be a cock-and-bull story about his luggage being misplaced – which caused him to miss his plane, and that he was unable to get another flight to Bombay -- none of which would have been an unusual occurrence. Moreover, Nance had read about there being labor trouble at Indian Airlines, as perhaps did Dr. Moti – he always managed to interweave his apparent fantasies with some vestige of truth.

CHAPTER ONE – Part Two

	As an American with an Indian father, Nance found it self-demeaning for present-day Indians to concern themselves with the question of whether or not any particular non-Indian, high-placed or not, is or isn't a friend of India. Notwithstanding, he thought he should mention, without resorting to irony, that he considered himself a friend of India. Although he felt nothing but good will towards the country and her people, this might not always be apparent. From the tone of Nance’s voice when conversation with Dr. Moti, one could easily read a hostility towards that much maligned nation – despite her most ancient of continuing, living civilizations.

	It would be appropriate, therefore, to mention, at this time, some of India's contributions to the making of contemporary universal culture – virtually all of which have either been forgotten, or ignored – when not misattributed. Some six billion peoples, worldwide, have come to believe all modern-day, scientific and industrial accomplishments originated in Europe – a few hundred years back – rising Phoenix-like from the ashes of Europe’s constant involvements in land-grabbing wars.

*

There were no copyright laws when India's intellectual property was acquired by the rest of the world. No payment was made for its use. And, as often as not, the products of her creative genius were attributed to others, either through ignorance, or from a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

European philosophy is said to have its roots in its scientific approach -- yet that ancient Indian creation, the zero, didn’t enter European thought for over a millennium after Aristotle came up with his treatises on logic.

Besides inventing algebra and the decimal system, with its concept of zero; Aesop's and La Fontaine's fables and Kipling's Jungle Books -- along with Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and Garfield, plus The Decameron and the Thousand and One Nights, all had their conceptual beginnings in the Indian classic: the Panchatantra – with much plucked outright from it. Chess, craps – and note the lower-case “p” in pachisi the granddaddy of all modern-day board games, which includes Monopoly with its registered trademark, and its capital M, all had their theoretical origins in the Indian subcontinent. 

Another way to learn of a country's contributions to world culture would be to consider her languages and her religions:

Sanskrit is the oldest of all Indo-European root languages, which includes Latin, Greek, Persian, German, and Slavic, along with their offshoots. Sanskrit’s Indian beginnings go back nearly four-millennia, to the earliest Aryan invasions. Sanskrit, through its derivative Indic languages – brought about by the changing needs of time and place, is still spoken by the overwhelming majority of the billion-plus people now populating the Indian subcontinent. Dravidians, with their culture going back at least some 5000 to 8000 years to its Indus valley, Harappan roots, were the source of India's other language grouping that’s spoken by some two hundred million people  in South India and by millions in Sri Lanka and Baluchistan.

In varying degrees, the culture of all Indians, not only followers of Hinduism, the now-prevalent religion of India, resulted from the assimilation of the constantly intermingled cultural baggage, moral codes, ritual practices, mythologies, superstitions and histories of the ancient Harappan and Aryan peoples – along with a good-sized dollop of those belonging to the earliest of India's indigenous population: a peoples with a very real carbon-dated time of existence. The influence of the major guest religions: Mohammedanism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism range from modest to almost nothing on the Indian psyche – much as in America, where, despite her being a young nation, and despite there being a separation of church and state, virtually all religions practiced there are subjected to the influence of an agnostic cum Puritanism ethic. 

[Few Westerners, even amongst those who are aware of the existence of Lord Buddha, as well as many of Buddhism’s adherents, worldwide, are aware that He was born an Indian and a Hindu. And, even amongst the enlightened, few are aware of the symbiotic relationship, what with their common ancestry and massive cross-contributions of ethical, moral and spiritual concepts, that exists between Hinduism and Buddhism. And still fewer Christians are aware of just how much of those ancient Indian concepts were absorbed into early Christian theology.

[It's not the author’s intent to play up India’s contributions to world culture to the detriment of others; all peoples have produced major players in bringing our planet to its current state – for better or worse. The mentioning of India’s contributions is merely an attempt to highlight the fallacy inherent in the currently-accepted, worldwide concept of a Euro-centric, world history with its Judeo-Christian morality that’s being used to justify the inequities resulting from the West’s greed-motivated, disproportionate accumulation of the earth's bounty.

[Besides this being morally abhorrent, it’s based on the misconception that the scientific and artistic accomplishments of the modern world are solely the products of Euro-Caucasian hard work and ingenuity. And this sentiment is nothing but self-serving hogwash being disseminated by those in the West who have an awful lot of un-Buddheo-Christian deeds to atone for.] 

*

[It seems appropriate to comment on the recent testing of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan. There are, of course, many inputs that brought about India’s atomic-bomb testing: one of which was China’s supplying Pakistan with the ability, both material and technical, to develop their own bomb. It then became incumbent upon India to make Pakistan realize that in event the bomb was used against India, India would retaliate in kind. The other, and possibly a far more pressing need, was for India to gain the respect of her own people, as well as of the world. (Although there were those who were disturbed, for moral reasons, by their atom-bomb testing, for the most part, when a negative reaction was voiced, it didn’t appear to have a moral basis.) Despite her having a sixth of the world’s population, and having the sixth largest economy in the world, her representation in the United Nations is no more than that of Iceland, San Marino or Liechtenstein. And, so, it seems reasonable to ask: Is the worth of one European really equal to that of a thousand or ten thousand Indians? Whatever the consequences for India for having tested the atomic bomb, it may very well prove to be to both her and Pakistan’s ultimate benefit. One can see the possibility of the formation of a “Federation of Independent South Asian Nations” – which would not only benefit all those nations of the Subcontinent, but the stability of the world, in general.] 

*

With the monsoon season over, months on end go by with no rain at all; then, a fine dust permeates the atmosphere – along with one’s lungs and throat. A cup of boiled, sweet, milky, spiced Indian tea is an ideal though, perhaps, unlikely antidote. Waking from a late afternoon nap, Nance left his room intending to have a cup of that throat-soothing tea. 

	Upon entering the patio he was greeted by Dr. Moti, who asked him to join his party for drinks. Although alcohol consumption was allowed in Hyderabad, at least at that time, drinking by the hotel’s employees was frowned upon. Nevertheless, Dr. Moti, as well as Peter Desai, one of the managers of the Yatri Nivas run by Andhra Pradesh Tourism, had been doing some heavy drinking. As Nance walked towards them, Peter Desai began pouring him a drink from a half-filled bottle of made-in-India scotch – which he withdrew from its superficial hiding place: a paper bag stashed under his chair. Perhaps it was the sight of the unmistakably-decent Peter Desai, with his smiling and honest face, who, by his presence, made Nance realize that he might have been too quick to judge Dr. Moti a bit of a fraud – or perhaps it was the prospect of meeting the attractive, tall, blonde woman, whom he’d seen arrive a few days earlier, and who was seated alongside Peter Desai, but in all likelihood it was a combination of having a drink put in his hand and the fact he was bored, that made him accept Dr. Moti’s invitation.

	Dr. Moti, playing the bon vivant host, introduced him to Astrid Hubbel. She appeared to be enjoying all the attention she was receiving. Meanwhile, Peter Desai, who had acknowledged Nance’s presence when he handed him the drink, said nothing – he was in the process of getting pleasantly plastered.

	Before Nance arrived, they’d sent one of the boys to buy another bottle from the nearby liquor store. (It's an accepted practice for Indians to call other Indians, grown men employed in the lower echelons of service-type occupations, by the denigrating term “boy” – no doubt one of the many relics of the British Raj that the wannabe Indo-Raj seems so keen on retaining.) While awaiting his return, Nance fetched an open bottle of Scotch from his room. He had poured a drink from it the night before – rationalizing it was better for his throat than tea.

	As the evening wore on, Nance realized that the tall blonde wasn’t one of the typical, nouveau-middle-class, foreign tourists. Although she was most assuredly conscious that her fair complexion and height made her stand out, she gave no indication that she considered herself superior to her Indo-Caucasian hosts (as so many Euro-Caucasians seem to do). Perhaps it was in talking to her Indian mentor in Germany that made her aware that, though she was being accepted as a social equal by a member of India’s professional classes – in her home country she was both money-wise and socially, merely a run-of-the-mill German, albeit, in her case, with above average intelligence, education and ambitions.

	Dr. Moti, in an obvious attempt to gain Astrid Hubbel's sympathy, was holding forth on India's problems in providing her sons and daughters with the many amenities of life: those which have only recently become accepted as necessities in the West. In doing so, he gave voice to every cliché ever uttered about poor India. His hackneyed observations, though bearing the stamp of authority by reason of their long-accepted usage, had lost their relevance to modern-day India and her problems – just as assuredly as has the now-defunct British Empire.

*

For Nance, playing the devil's advocate tended to force others to make a strong defense of their opinions; and it forced him, when playing that role, to do likewise. Though the result was usually just a painless learning experience, as well as an enjoyable battle of wits, his attitude has been known to antagonize others – if and when the discussion turns into an argument which they sense they're losing – and if it occurs in the presence of someone they're trying to impress. It's then that his passive nature, along with a two hundred pound bulk, serves to prevent an otherwise-stirring conversation from turning into a brawl.

*

	While interjecting an occasional "I hate the English," and "it's all the fault of the bloody British," Dr. Moti expounded on India's colonial past and the effect it still has on the economic and social problems that continue to beleaguer the nation. There was, of course, much truth in what Dr. Moti said. However, Nance had come to the conclusion that a woe-is-me dwelling on the evils of the past was a self-defeating course of inaction for any nation or peoples to take, and that what India needed was a definite break with her colonial past, and that precludes using it to rationalize her inability to deal with the present. That Dr. Moti was using the same time-worn excuses, used by so many apparently well-meaning Indians: that which stressed the West's admittedly rapacious, forcible expropriation of India's wealth, was counter productive. And Nance was outspoken in taking him to task on that point.

[Nevertheless, this doesn't mean India shouldn’t be reimbursed for the greed-caused deaths of millions of her people; the destruction of her industries and the wealth stolen from he. A fair compensation would be so great that it would trivializes the multi-billions of dollars claimed against Nazi Germany by Russia, the Holocaust survivors and the rest of Europe combined. Only the American Indian and the African Negro have suffered a comparable loss of dignity, life and wealth at the hands of an alien people – as did the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. 

[The forced acquisition of the capital from their colonies provided the wherewithal for the development of the universal culture that is now dominated by an overly-materialistic West. It was the rapacious exploitation of India that provided London’s bankers with the capital base that financed England’s industrial revolution. Sophisticated Indians have been heard to claim: the reason why so many from the Subcontinent go to England is to see and benefit from the wealth stolen from their ancestors.]

	The presence of Astrid Hubbel had the effect of polarizing their positions. Nance’s attempts at getting the better of Dr. Moti were, perhaps, due to his love of a good argument. Then again, it may very well have been merely an attempt to convince Astrid Hubbel of his brilliance. She was the only game in town; young, middle-class, Indian women with similar attributes are not known to frequent hotels – no matter how innocent the purpose.

	

CHAPTER ONE – Part Three

"You – what right have you to tell me or any other Indian what I should say or how I should think? You're an American! You have neither the soul of an Indian nor an understanding of our culture!"

	Yeah, Nance thought, he must be feeling threatened – though, it was obvious that there was much truth to his claim. 

"Perhaps you’re right. Though I have an Indian name, it’s been damn near a century since my father left India."

	Reading his conciliatory manner as a sign of weakness, he, after assuring himself that Astrid Hubbel and Peter Desai were taking it all in, pressed on with a taunting, 

"This father of yours who ran away from his motherland – just who was he, and what did he do?"

	Nance ignored his calculated insult; resisted the temptation to tell him to go fuck himself and, while showing no emotion, responded to his intended put-down as though it required an answer – by addressing all three present: 

"My father was a Kshatriya, whose people moved down to Kachchh from Rajastan in the sixteen hundreds. Out of Mandvi, a tidal port with access to the Arabian Sea, they sailed their ships to Zanzibar – much as Indian merchants had been doing for over four thousand years.” 

	Nance paused, looked directly at Dr. Moti:

 “Those early Indian seamen had sailed from Dholavira and recently excavated Lothal, which, you’re no doubt aware, is now a landlocked port. And, both those Harappan cities were located in Gujarat, as is modern-day Kachchh Mandvi. I’m probably rehashing what Indians have always known; nevertheless, I think Ms. Hubbel should be made aware that for the last half-century of their occupation of India, British scholars, in lockstep with their colonialism-rationalizing politicos, deliberately avoided substantiating, for public consumption, evidence of India’s ancient civilization. As a result, the port city of Lothal, with its advanced culture -- one that predates by some two millennia the time when Brits were still painting themselves blue – had to await England’s face-saving withdrawal from India before the excavation of the site by Indian archaeologists could begin.”

*

	Dr. Moti, aware he was losing center stage, made an attempt to break in, but Nance had no intention of giving him the chance. He had asked the wise-assed question, rhetorical or not, and Nance was going to make him listen to him as he pored it on: which he intended to do with all the self-serving elaborations he could think of. Unexpectedly, however, before he could proceed he received the support of the slightly-tipsy Peter Desai who, though quiet until then, urged Nance on – while Astrid Hubbel diplomatically requested Dr. Moti not to interrupt. And, so, Nance continued on his merry way:

"Shortly after the turn of the century, the negative impact of the British occupation on the economic well-being of my father’s family and on his own self-esteem – plus an accumulation of personal tragedies, caused my father to make his fateful decision to see the world." 

	It was here that Dr. Moti broke in again:

 "This all sounds so melodramatic. Just how did the British affect your father and his family? And what ills could possibly have befallen him so dire as to cause him to desert his birthplace, the homeland of his ancestors since India's antiquity?”

Peter Desai broke in, 

"Leave him be, let him tell it his way."

Dr. Moti smiled grimly and poured himself another drink. And Nance, after appraising his audience continued:

"The development of Bombay into India's major port, and rail hub, which allowed the Brits to control the distribution of India's agricultural and natural resources, and bring about the finishing touches to their deliberate destruction of India's ancient cotton manufacturing industry – all had the effect of making the tidal port of Mandvi superfluous. As a result, over the years, his family stopped replacing their ships when damaged by storms or lost at sea."

	Then, suddenly breaking into his own story, he again spoke directly, but not unkindly, to Dr. Moti – and, as an afterthought, with a glance, he included Peter Desai:
	
"Although most Indians were aware, needing no reminder by Mahatma Gandhi, that India once had a thriving cotton industry, few, which I would wager includes you, doctor, are aware that dungaree, calico and chintz, are all terms, well-known in the West, for different types of  cotton cloth that originated in India." Then, turning to Astrid Hubbel, he continued: "And in Europe, and in America, where a Dungaree-Doll and a Gal-In-Calico were the subjects of joyful songs, and chintz gave rise to the derisive slang term 'chintzy', almost nobody knows of their Indian origins, let alone of the destruction of India's cotton industry."

**

About Hobson-Jobson

Hobson-Jobson is a work using: this size type, of some thousand pages of two columns each. It resulted from a correspondence between two Englishmen, Henry Yule and A.C. Burnell. Much as Galileo had believed that scientific truth and God were One – two centuries later, Yule and Burnell, as did their contemporary, Charles Darwin, believed that truth and the British Empire were one. And, so, despite their blind faith in the Empire, which manifested itself in their attitude of racial superiority, they also sought the truth, and prided themselves in their honest approach to a principle – in this case one based on free trade. And, despite their being influenced by a Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian morality, one that rationalized the conquest of inadequately defended countries and the subjugation of their people, which they were well aware required the use of terror to maintain their domination over the economies of those alien lands, their bent on telling the truth, as they saw it, was to manifest itself in “Hobson-Jobson”. (However, by the end of the nineteenth century that dedication to the truth by British intellectuals, in general, was to fall victim to the demands of England’s national interests.) 

Men with principle, after allowing for time and place, such as: Yule and Burnell, shouldn’t be confused with those racists like Rudyard Kipling who catered to the bigotry of his readership by touting the white man’s burden – which also served as an excuse for his family’s having benefited from the military occupation of India – which he knew full well to be in support of the continued plunder of India. In Kipling’s favor, however, it must be said that he was merely mouthing the racist attitudes then being disseminated by the Brits, as a tool of governance.

*

In the aftermath of WWI, the British Parliament helped create the racist atmosphere that allowed for the massacre in 1919 of a thousand men and boys at Jallianwala Bagh. It was but one of the many desperate attempts by the harried members of a crippled empire to maintain their hold over India – using any means at their disposal. In what proved one of the last gasps of their dying empire, they planned and carried out the abominable premeditated attack (without warning – as is usual when acts of terrorism are carried out) against some ten thousand unarmed Indian civilians whose crime was listening to a speech chastising the Brits for their duplicity – the Brits had reneged on their implied promise of home rule. 

The effects of their despicable action were such that it solidified the then-disparate groupings of Indians, often with conflicting agendas, into uniting to raise their demands from home rule to outright independence. Despite the massacre proving to be a self-destructive action for the Brits, it was but one of a series of their century-long, desperate attempts to maintain their economic and political stranglehold over India and her people.

*

The below is a direct quote on “Piece Goods” (standard sizes of cotton textiles)
 from Hobson-Jobson  –  published in 1886

Piece Goods. This, which is now the technical term for Manchester cottons imported into India, was originally applied in trade to the Indian cottons exported to England, a trade which appears to have been deliberately killed by the heavy duties which Lancashire procured to be imposed in its own interest, as in its own interest it recently procured the abolition of the small import duty on English piece-goods in India.*

*It is an easy assumption that this export trade was killed by the development of machinery in England. We can hardly doubt that this cause would have killed it in time. But it was not left to any such lingering and natural death. Much time would be required to trace the entire episode of “ancient history.”  But it is certain that this trade was not killed by natural causes:  it was killed by prohibitory duties. These duties were so high in 1783 that they were declared to operate as a premium on smuggling, and they were reduced to 18 % ad valorem.

*

From James Mills “History of India” of 1845 – quoted in footnotes on page 705 of Hobson-Jobson:

“It was stated in evidence (in 1813) that the cotton and silk goods of India up to this period, could be sold for a profit in the British market at a price 50 to 60% lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70 or 80 percent on their value, or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory duties and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have been stopped in their outset, and could hardly have been again set in motion, even by the powers of steam. They were created by the sacrifices of the Indian manufactures. Had India been independent, she would have retaliated; would have imposed preventive duties upon British goods, and would have thus preserved her own productive industry from annihilation. This act of self defense was not permitted her; she was at the mercy of the stranger. British goods were forced upon her without paying any duty: and the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competitor with whom he could not contend with on equal terms.”

CHAPTER ONE – Part Four

	For emphasis, and as an excuse to gather his thoughts, Nance paused, and then, to Dr. Moti, he said challengingly:

"You asked, what could have happened to cause my father to leave India?  Well, if you believe what I’ve said so far was melodramatic, wait 'till you here this: some twenty years prior to his departure his mother died giving birth to him: he was her only child; later, in the course of five years: his young bride died before their marriage was consummated; his father died – he had been obligated, as you are aware, to tend to the rituals involved upon his father’s death – and then the last of their vessels was severely damaged in a storm."

	After pausing to refill my glass, Nance looked around to find a surprisingly sober-looking Peter Desai, the Teutonic near-Amazon, Astrid Hubbel, and a much-subdued Dr. Moti, all intent, if not eager, to hear him tell of his father’s doings. This had him questioning his knowledge of him: as an Indian, a Hindu, a Kshatriya. Just what did he really know about his father? What made him tick – the man who unwittingly founded an American dynasty, one now into its fourth generation?

"I know little firsthand about my father. He died in New York City during the Great Depression. He was but fifty-four, and I hadn’t yet turned eight. I have a vague recollection of him as being: trim, strong and tall; round-faced, balding and with a full mustache. I picture him now, in silhouette, sitting near a window at a small table – a Mongol, number-2 lead pencil in hand, writing on yellow paper at the only space clear of the clutter of his many books and magazines with their strange scripts. I also recall seeing him sitting on the window ledge, taking in the doings of the street below – as he deftly rolled a cigarette."

	Though Nance had heard but few stories about his father, he decided to tell one of them he thought capable of giving an insight into his makeup. Though, by relating it, his intention was more to help him picture the inputs to his own early life, than for the edification of his audience.

"As a young apprentice in his family's shipping business, my father sailed out of the Gulf of Kachchh, and into the Arabian Sea, bound for Zanzibar. On this, his first sea voyage, he refused to eat or drink in the presence of the low- or non-caste members of the crew, turning his back to face the side of a bulkhead. As was sure to happen, a passing sailor chanced to cast a shadow on him as he was holding a cup of water – thereupon he promptly poured the water overboard.

"An uncle," he paused here to explain to Astrid Hubbel, that in India, no matter how distant an older male relation might be – he was called uncle. Peter Desai nodded in agreement – but Dr. Moti added, that since there was no designation as such for a cousin in India, those called cousins in the West would be considered brothers, and all their children, and those of the entire extended family would be nephews and nieces, who would then, out of respect, call all older males Oncle and older females Auntie. He then added that those uncles were usually of the same Jat as the nephews and nieces – which seemed redundant to Nance. He had always thought that relatives belonged to the same Jat.

"An uncle," Nance continued, "who witnessed the youth, who was to become my father, tossing the water overboard, admonished him, explaining he'd have to forget his caste practices while on board ship, or their drinking water wouldn't last the trip."

[As a Hindu who left the Subcontinent, each time, upon his return to India, he was required to cleanse himself in a religious ritual which had the effect of restoring his caste status. Gandhi had refused to do it, and thereby earned the enmity of Brahmans within his community.]

	Nance paused for a long drink of scotch and tepid Bisleri, checked to make sure his audience was still with him, and continued:

"There was, perhaps, a lesson to be learned from his uncle's admonition. And when traveling, this bit of advice: to forget his obligation of caste and the rituals of religion appears  to have been heeded by him, but it was apparent that in his day-to-day habits my father never forgot his Hindu upbringing. He remained a strict vegetarian, practiced yoga, cast horoscopes, believed in reincarnation, was a man of peace, and would only bathe in a squat position in an unstoppered bathtub, with the water running." Then, directing his attention solely to Astrid Hubbel, he explained how most Indians thought the taking of a hot bath was stewing in one's own body filth – but his father did allow that taking a shower was an almost acceptable alternative to bathing in the Indian fashion. This time both Peter Desai and Dr. Moti smiled knowingly. He then continued, "and in the end, while still following the rituals of his religion, he died – penniless; and, he was then cremated: as all good Hindus are."

	Astrid Hubbel had shown signs of wanting to break in, but waited until Nance paused to refill his glass. Then, in a haltingly slow, exacting manner that one associates with the way educated Germans speak English: a stilted pattern of speech resulting from Germany’s strict schooling – one that made them fearful of making a goof.

"I would take exception to this bathing in a tub business," she said in the 
	
Nance, after stating that he didn’t blame her, went on to wax poetic:

"Though, back in the States, I much prefer a good hot shower, I have often relaxed in a steaming tub of water. But, here in India I feel a lot cleaner after bathing in a squatting position. You should try it, Ms. Hubbel. Pouring liter-sized pitchers of warm water over my soaped-up body and head, makes me feel cleansed of all impurities. I feel I’m communing with the Gods of Atheism as I watch the sudsy water flowing from my lower extremities and swirl towards the drain destined to carry away my sins to the nether lands of Hell.”

	Ignoring his bad poetic ramblings, Astrid Hubbel cried out, 
"No, no, no, what I wish to say is, how can Indians be so conceited about their cleanliness when they bathe together in small still-water lakes and polluted rivers?"

	Thereupon, in an attempt to regain control of the gathering, . Dr. Moti blustered:

"We do not need you, an American, to defend India or any of her practices, I think that either Peter – or I, myself – is more capable of speaking in India's behalf," 
	
This brought Peter Desai to his feet, a little wobbly. And, while managing to maintain his ever-present smile, he drunkenly declared:

 "I may be a Christian, but I'm an Indian first, and I say, without feeling in anyway a traitor to India, that I love America. It is a good country and, from what I have read, most of her people are good people. –– I have listened to you speaking to Indian guests and their children, and I think you are a good man. And, even if you were not your father's child, and even though I have heard you say you are an Atheist, I feel only love for you." 

And then, turning to Dr. Moti, 

"I do not mind if he speaks for me about things Indian, or anything else."

"Hush up, you’re drunk, you don't know what you are saying." 

After scolding Peter Desai for his alcohol-inspired tribute to Nance and America, Dr Moti, having reasserted himself, felt he had free reign to either ridicule Peter Desai and Nance – or respond to Astrid Hubbel. He chose to answer Astrid Hubbel's question. 

"You are probably referring to the universally-known public bathing that takes place in such venues as the holy waters at Varanasi – perhaps you might know it as Benares, as it was called in the past."

	When speaking to Astrid Hubbel, Dr. Moti’s attitude, though not exactly fatherly, displayed a slight air of condescension.. Yet, when he turned to assure himself that all were aware of just how erudite he was, Nance realized, to his surprise, that as he became more familiar with Dr. Moti’s mannerisms, even with his pompous airs and graces, he was gaining  respect for him – to the point of actually liking him.

"Here, at Varanasi, the two rivers, the Varuna and the Assi merge with the Ganga, the most sacred of India's rivers. And it is what occurs here, and similar venues, throughout India that you must be referring. It is the sight of countless Indians, many of whom despite having been converted to Christianity, wading waist-high, fully covered, often with foreheads painted in vivid colors identifying themselves as adherents to one or another avatar of India’s ancient Gods, as they pay homage to the river’s perpetual regeneration of the land – and their connection to it, by bathing and submerging themselves in the life-giving rivers of India –– which provide for so much of both the spiritual and material needs of the Subcontinent’s burgeoning population.”

	After a short pause to insure himself that he had center stage, Dr. Moti added: 

“Public bathing in India is a continuum from their ancient, Harappan, river-based tradition – whereby the river, as the source of the basic necessities of life, was worshipped. Though  this sort of bathing was primarily a religious exercise – since the resulting cleanliness, for rich and poor alike prevented their being overly susceptible to the many diseases associated with urban living, bathing  became a daily Indian ritual.”

Nance didn't know if he impressed anyone else, but, even allowing for what he thought was emotive bullshit, Dr. Moti’s erudition impressed him.
	
Astrid Hubbel, ignoring the intent of what Dr. Moti was saying – which was that bathing in rivers such as the Ganges had more to do with religion than with hygienics, told him he was evading the issue – and persisted:

 "I have read that ashes, along with the residual bones of the cremated corpses, from both the crematorium and the funeral pyres, are sprinkled – right there in the river, in the same place, where all those people are bathing and washing themselves."

	Since the alcohol had allowed for a feeling of camaraderie – with a concurrent relaxation of the taboos on the sort of subject matter ordained by the arbiters of polite, middle-class society – Nance, butted in: 

“Hey, let's not make this into a chauvinistic thing. I don’t think you have to attempt to defend the efficacy of the manner in which Europeans bathe –– by denigrating how Indians do it. After all, you must be aware that in the West it’s not uncommon for the bereaved to spread the ashes of their cremated loved ones from planes flying over European and American cities. And furthermore, on any rush-hour subway ride in New York one probably swallows more infectious bacteria than from brushing one’s teeth in the waters of the Ganges."
	
Here, a much agitated Dr. Moti broke in, 

"This is why I asked you not to speak on India's behalf. Only an American could compare bathing in the Ganga, with a trip on a crowded city train."

	Now Peter Desai stood up, and turning his ever-smiling face towards Dr. Moti, said, with an alcohol-induced slur: 

"I too, think that the comparison is unjustified, but since he is an Atheist, I do not take offense – and besides, his knowledge of the West does show just how hypocritical Europeans are in their judgment of India."

	Using the halfhearted support of Peter Desai as an excuse, Nance went on as if no interruption had occurred: 

"But, since the vast majority of riders on New York's subways, as well as the bathers in the Ganges, have, over the years, developed an immunity to the germs they're continually exposed to, they tend to stay healthy." 

Nance then went on to explain that, not only was he an Atheist, but despite the obviously exhilarating and healing effects (psychologically-caused well-being?) afforded Indian bathers as a result of their Gangetic, religious experience – he had great difficulties in accepting the concept of shrink-think. As Nance went on, he was sure that he was out-pedanting Dr. Moti. Nevertheless, to bring things back to earth, Nance went about expounding on a more mundane subject:
 
"Getting back to comparisons of secular bathing, bidets are standard bathroom fixtures in France, as well as in the best and the many of the worst hotels throughout Europe. And, although we insecure, middle-class Americans are a prudish lot, our most expensive hotels also provide bidets for their guests.  –– Indians are just a little less hypocritical and a little more democratic than their fairer-skinned brethren when it comes to adopting a means of washing. –– Besides, Astrid, if baths and showers really did the trick, there would be no need for bidets." 

 “Perhaps you are right; but I do not think bidets are meant to implement the bath, but rather as a convenient, temporary substitute.”

 Then, ignoring Nance, she turned to Dr. Moti, and, while cocking her head, nodded in a manner that pleaded with him to continue his discourse, which did have the effect of changing the subject.

	Dr. Moti, believing Nance was out of favor with Astrid Hubbel, which he attributed to the matter-of-fact way he had expressed the mundane functions of humanity, continued in his attempt to retake center-stage. In doing so, Dr. Moti, supposedly to elaborate on the religious aspect of Indian life, took off on a tangent about the spiritual aspect of India's ancient religious architecture and related artwork.  He spoke of the exquisitely carved, immense, monolithic sculpture, the Kailasa temple at Ellora, with its expansive courtyard, surrounding cloisters and colonnaded walkway. He spoke of the more than one hundred years which was required to cut the vision of the temple free from the confines of the huge solitary segment of living rock – inch by inch they carved statues, pillars, ornamental portals, walls and terraces, all the while working their way down a hundred feet to its perceived foundation. He went on to tell how this marvelous feat was accomplished by innumerable artisan-priests toiling well over a thousand years ago; all of whom were supported by the local ruler, a Hindu – as were all involved in bringing the Kailasa temple to life. He went on to state how Buddhists, Jains and Hindus, all Indians, coexisted for over a thousand years at Ellora and nearby Ajanta: a period that began centuries before the onset of the Christian era.

Dr. Moti’s discourse, as far as Nance was concerned, was merely an attempt to show the superficiality of Nance’s knowledge of India's heritage to that of his. And, although Nance conceded, at least to himself, that Dr. Moti succeeded in his endeavor, he still thought the doctor’s knowledge on the subject was but one-layer deeper than his own – which he knew to be pretty shallow.

*

An Encounter at Ellora’s Kailasa Temple
As related by Nainsink Tagore

I was sitting on the ledge of the balcony of a colonnaded recess overlooking the main temple building of Ellora's most famous cave (that was not really a cave): the Kailasa Temple, when the Englishman interrupted my thoughts.
 
As was my wont, before making even a pen and ink sketch, or a watercolor (during my travels I take took no photos), I would project myself as a participant in the making of the artwork, or as a citizen in attendance at the temple, palace, fort or what have you, then under consideration – living and worshipping, what with most ancient works catering to the religious hang ups prevalent at the time of their making, in the midst of the finished work.  It was at a point when I had just begun contemplating the artistry and grandeur of this huge, over-a-thousand-year-old, carved-of-a-single-stone manifestation of mankind's innate spirituality, and his will to manifest it, when he broke in with a trite:

”You have the best view from where you're sitting – I'll come back later, after you've moved on, and take a shot of the temple from here."

I turned around and observed this camera-wielding tourist hovering over me.

"No need -- I can get up for a minute."

"No, no," he protested. "I now see I can take a photo from where I’m standing."  

 Thereupon, he backed off a few feet, pointed his camera and took his shot. Then, what with the spell's being broken, one word led to another and I joined him in conversation; we began to speak of India: what we had seen and what we missed, and of our experiences – both good and bad.

The Englishman appeared to be in his late thirties, just shy of six feet tall, hardly athletic looking, yet not flabby either. He was tanned, but fair of complexion. Perched on his head was a broad-brimmed, bush- country hat that, when removed, revealed a much thinned-out pate of dirty-blond hair – and except for being somewhat large-of-tooth, had fairly regular features. He was clad in a most audacious attire. Though it was made in India, I’ve seen no Indians so dressed. His appearance was most disconcerting: he was wearing gaudy, cotton pajamas, both the top and bottom were deluged with a plethora of swirling, multicolored designs: the shirt with blues and yellows; the pants with oranges and greens: perfect for summer wear, weight-wise, in the Subcontinent, and in the West this pseudo-Indian attire – though never in the brash colors so many Western tourists seem prone to wear, are used almost exclusively as bedclothes – or adapted for use in high fashion. On his feet he sported a pair of solid British, made-in-China, walking shoes. And an Indian multi-colored, cloth bag: the kind specifically made for tourists, dangled at his side, its strap crossing his chest: shoulder to waist.

The Englishman stated he was thrilled with India, and how sorry he was that his two-month stay was coming to an end. His speech pattern seemed that of a well-educated, upper-class Englishman – but I couldn't be sure; I'm not sufficiently aware of the nuances imputing social status that permeate British society – what with its still-stratified-by-diction caste system.

The Englishman had that self-assurance once indicative of men empowered by the simple fact of their being subjects of the then reigning German King or Queen of England – but now a totally misplaced and anachronistic display of hauteur bordering on that of a ludicrous burlesque. Nevertheless, it's an attitude that many upper-income and high-caste Indians not only seem to admire, but strive to emulate – most notably the vast majority of members, and would-be- members, of India's ubiquitous, elite, neo-Raj, private clubs.

For the most part, he was traveling on the cheap. So, the Englishman's haughty affectations seemed especially misplaced: the nuances of his posturing would, most assuredly, be lost on Indian bus drivers, those traveling second-class, hawkers and the clerks in those cheap hotels frequented by the typical, Euro-trash druggies – and where he often lodged. What with English being the second language for the vast majority of educated Indians, even they appear unaware of the demeaning intent manifested by the inflections of voice and affectations in attitude expressed by so many Westerners – either that, or cultured Indians politely ignore the slights, intended or not, implied by the tone of voice and subtle choice of words used by so many Western gentlefolk.

The Englishman had no comprehension of just how preposterous his attitude of superiority towards the various members of India's multitudinous, wide- ranging middle class was – the vast majority of whom were completely oblivious to his display of pomposity that catered to his ego-building needs. However, what amazed me was that, despite his obvious, albeit only slightly condescending attitude towards Indians in general, he was much put out by their considering him as merely a source of revenue – and not as the friend-of-India that he so proudly claimed to be.

During the course of our conversation, he mentioned he had used innumerable rolls of film, as he photographed every point of interest he had seen during his two-month stay. He said he intended to fill numerous albums with his photos; and in doing so, he would always have reminders of his stay in India.

He then referred to the voluminous traveler’s guide that he pulled from his bag. It was one of those tomes purporting to advise the reader on the how-to-go and what-to-see in every thought-to-be point of interest in India. He advised me how he would read up on the next place he intended to visit, and how this determined what photos he would take at each site. Whether or not he was aware of it, the subjects of his snapshots, as seen by him through his Raj-colored glasses, became little more than illustrations of what he had read the day before – thereby, however unintentionally, reinforcing his own, as well as the negative Western view of India and her peoples depicted in his all-knowing travel guide.

[Intentionally or not, these travel guides almost always end up bringing about a-me-against-them adversarial attitude on the part of the reader towards his Indian hosts.  What most tome toters actually learn is not so much what to see in India and how to get there, but rather how to get by in India as cheaply as possible –period.]
*

Nevertheless, for all his British ness, he did come out with a strong anti-Brit statement; he condemned latter-day-Empire Brits as barbarians for carving their initials into the murals at Ajanta and on the statues of Ellora. No doubt he expected more from his more-modern-day, fellow Brits than he did from the earlier Judeo-Christen-Brit railroad builders and religious zealots amongst the Portuguese Catholics and Mogul, Turkish and Arabian Moslems – all of whom combined to destroy vast portions of the physical manifestations of India's ancient historical and artistic heritage.

Although he was not to say anything else that was negative about the British, he did go on to state that all Indians are intelligent. I told him that despite my finding his conclusion complimentary, what with my having an Indian father, I thought that Indians, in general, though a verbal lot who held learning in high esteem, were, intelligence-wise, neither more nor less innately, intellectually endowed than any other arbitrarily-grouped peoples. As a case in point, I related a happenstance regarding a lady from Tibet that I had been witness to while on a slow-moving elevator at the Ashok Yatri Nivas in New Delhi.

*

The Lady from Tibet

A Mongolian-featured woman, attired in a non-Indian ethnic dress was standing in a corner of the elevator when I, along with an Indian couple, entered:

Indian Gentleman, turning to Mongolian-looking woman: "You're from?"

Mongolian looking woman: "Tibet."

He: "Japan?"

She: "No, Tibet."

Indian Lady: "Ah, Japan."

She: "No, Tibet."

Indian Wife, knowingly to Indian Husband: "Japan."

At this point we all exited as the elevator reached the ground floor.

*

The Britisher and I continued talking for a few more minutes and then he went on his way, and I went back to my preliminary-to-drawing and -painting reveries.

*
   
After finishing my pen and ink cum water color of the view from my perch on the ledge overlooking a segment of the Kailasa Temple, I returned to the parking lot and woke the driver of the three-wheeler hired for the trip to and from Ellora.

As the auto-rickshaw puttered along, its under- powered motor struggling to fulfill its intended purpose, Daulatabad Fort loomed up at a distance – it was an imposing structure located on top of a large hill with sheer, perpendicular sides – with added protection from attack provided by a series of fortified, ground-level barrier walls. As we passed the turnoff leading to the fort, on the highway leading back to Aurangabad, the driver of the auto-rickshaw slowed down, indicating his intention to get something from a nearby marketplace. As the vehicle came to a halt, I couldn't help but notice the Englishman, all decked out in his gaudy attire, standing by the side of the road. With a show of delight as he recognized me, he came running towards the three-wheeler; and, with pleading eyes, asked if he could join me. He said he’d taken a bus from Ellora to visit the fort, and when it came time to return to Aurangabad, not knowing where the bus stopped, he was unable to flag one down – despite his frantic efforts. I, of course, welcomed him, and, moving to one side of the bench-like seat, made room for him.

While waiting for the driver’s return, we made small talk which eventually led to his telling of an experience he had had in Jaipur – a city, much like so many tourist-attracting destinations, worldwide, that’s known, perhaps unfairly, for its overzealous hawkers who continuously hound the weary, naive and confused visitor.

*

The Brit’s Story

“Upon arriving at the bus terminal in Jaipur, I hired an auto-rickshaw to take me to a specific hotel. The driver, probably deliberately, but possibly as a result of a misunderstanding, took me to a different hotel, but one that apparently had a somewhat similar name. As I was arguing with the driver, a motorcyclist came by and offered to help settle the dispute. After listening to both of us, he advised me to pay the driver and, since it was on his way, he would take me, on the back of his motorcycle, to the correct hotel – at no cost to me.

“During the course of the ride there were innumerable stops due to traffic jams; it was during these stops that the driver spoke of a bag of diamonds that he had with him. He said he was trying to find a way of getting the jewels out of the country. When we arrived outside my hotel, he responded to my skepticism by pulling out a small pouch from a concealed pocket in his jacket. He opened it, and then asked me to select a diamond at random; which I did. He thereupon went to a car parked nearby and, using the gem that I believed that I had arbitrarily selected, scratched the surface of a side window of the car – the ability of the gem to scratch the glass, he claimed, was proof of the diamonds’ bona fides. He then advised me of his need for cash, and how he was hoping that I might help him get the gems out of the country – and on to London where he had a partner.”

*

I continued to listen to his tale without interrupting him. But when he went on to tell how he was finally asked by the motorcyclist to give him a sum of money should he agree to be his accomplice – as a sign of good faith; after all, he said, he was entrusting the Englishman with a valuable cache of jewels – I could restrain myself no longer. I burst out laughing.

"That's the oldest con-game going," I said.  "I have no sympathy for the simpleton who falls for that kind of ruse – only a greedy, unscrupulous and credulous dolt could be roped in on a deal like that."

He then, belatedly, joined in as we both proceeded to have a good laugh.
*

As we neared his hotel, he opened his bag and pulled out a little black book, and asked if I'd give him my address, saying he'd like to send me a card and let me know where he'd be staying. In that way, he said, if or when I next visited London, I could contact him – at which time he'd have the opportunity to repay me for the favor of my having given him a lift. I told him it was not at all necessary – but, nevertheless, gave him my address.

When he again opened his bag to replace the address book, I noticed a small pouch with a drawstring pulled tightly. But, a ray of light managed to pierce a small opening in the pouch – causing a glitter of light to sparkle forth. And then I recalled just how hollow his laugh had been when he ho ho'd at the obviousness of the sting operation – after I pointed it out.

My immediate thought was that he was the greedy dolt who had been taken in by the con artist. And that he had given the Indian motorcyclist a goodly sum of money for a bag of cut glass – but hardly a fraction of what the contents of the pouch would have been worth if real diamonds. Either some sort of sleight of hand maneuver would have been made when the car window was scratched, or a different pouch containing zircons or cut glass would have been switched for the pouch with real gems. No doubt, the Brit would have found the London contact to be fictitious and, he, having been involved in smuggling, couldn't very well complain to the authorities – in India or in England.

But, then, on further consideration, perhaps I was the intended victim, and he – the Brit – the con man!

CHAPTER TWO – Part One

	It became more and more obvious, as the evening wore on, that Dr. Moti was only interested in relating to Astrid Hubbel. In doing so, he rambled on, expounding on India’s ancient history, stating how it was made indelible in her admittedly fabulous temples, forts, palaces, statuary, prehistoric sites, and on and on, ad nauseum. He was in the process of explaining that Ajanta was the site of the famous hand-carved, rock temples with their fabulous wall paintings, and went on to say how Elephanta, as exhilarating a sight as it is, is perhaps better known only because of its close proximity to Bombay.

	Now it was Nance’s turn to attempt to take center stage: 

"I find everything you say very interesting. However, what the hell does all this have to do with the price of fish in Madagascar? I thought you were going to enlighten us ignoramuses about the religious aspects of communal bathing in India?" 

	Thereupon, Dr. Moti, while regarding him with disdain said:

"If you will all have patience with me, I will attempt to elaborate on just how germane Indian art and architecture is to India's religions and to her Gangetic bathing practices."

	At this Nance arose, mumbling to himself, "Oh shit!"  He rose, yawned, and stated that he hadn’t slept well the night before. Then, while smiling politely, said his good-nights to all and strolled off to his room.

	On the way, Nance ran into John (one of many young Christian Indians who had learned English at church-run schools) who worked at the Yatri Nivas – and asked him to bring a mosquito-repellant to his room.. Shortly thereafter, John, carrying two smoking green coils, entered Nance’s room. He secured them on their little metal stands and placed them on a stand next to the bed, said good night, and left.

*

[Hussain Sagar, the large lake that’s surrounded by the sister cities of Secunderabad and Hyderabad – is a breeding ground for mosquitoes]
  
	Upon Nance’s arrival at the Yatri Nivas, he couldn't decide which was more bothersome: the damned mosquitoes or the smoke from the coils intended to keep them at bay. He finally opted for the coils, reasoning, since he didn't smoke, his lungs could probably absorb the incense-like fumes emitted by those dull-green spirals without its being an overly carcinogenic experience – besides, he was intrigued by the sight of the beautiful, serpentine patterns that formed as small segments of ash fell to the surface of the night stand. Moreover, the two malaria tablets he took weekly, and the repellent that he rubbed on his exposed parts nightly, didn't prevent the machchhars from buzzing about his head all night long.

[Mosquitoes and feral dogs, along with the ubiquitous long-horned cows, are found throughout much of India – the exceptions being those places naturally uninhabitable for them. As to cows and dogs, one might think the heavy-traffic sections of major urban centers would preclude their presence. However, unless dogs are carted away – as they are in areas of some of India’s big cities – and cows trucked, herded or worried away, they have free rein to go where they wish and when they wish. 

 [Pesticides were used extensively during the first decades of India’s independence, which nearly eliminated the threat of malaria there. Nevertheless, between a lack of funds and then   the use of DDT was banned  – when added to her people’s Ahimsa tradition, that of non-violence, the control of the country’s mosquito population appears to have been left to natural forces: a method now gaining favor as a means of pest control throughout the world – though it’s not known to be for ethical reasons. As a result, at dusk, the sky fills with the sight and sounds of birds swooping over lakes and wooded areas feasting on clouds of insects. The only drawback to controlling the growth of her mosquito population in this manner is that a significant number of them must survive – in order to breed future meals for the birds. Since the female survives on human blood, there are those folks, even in India, who are understandably concerned about the prospect of being part of this particular food chain – no matter how unethical that may sound.]
*

	Upon leaving,, John neglected to close the door. It was after ten, and any mosquitoes intent on entering the room would have already succeeded in doing so. Nance, realizing this, left it open. And then, after fixing himself a drink, attempted to do one of those British-type, ever-so-cutesy and very difficult, at least for an American, crossword puzzles which most English-language newspaper in India seems obliged to carry.

	Realizing,, after struggling for some time, that he wouldn’t be getting more than the few obvious words he had already inked in, he decided to call it a day. It was then, however, that Astrid Hubbel showed up at the open door. Nance, though he appeared surprised –shouldn’t have been. He was aware that there were only two air-conditioned rooms at the Yatri Nivas, and that, logically, Astrid Hubbel would be occupying the other one – which was located next door to his. And, he had left his door open. 

 [Few non-Indians stayed at the Yatri Nivas; the tourists who did, tended to be middle-class, Indian businessmen and professionals – who, for the most part, were accustomed to the heat. Moreover, although the temperature throughout much of peninsula India tends to remain on the high side all year long, during the winter, there’s no reason for anyone to incur the added cost for air conditioning. Though it’s a nominal expense – at least in dollar terms; a ceiling fan is all that’s really  called for.] 

"I think, perhaps, the doctor was rude to you, and I would leave when you did, but he did send the boy for rice and dhal earlier in the evening – before you came by. And he did not let me pay. I thought I must stay a little longer to listen to him speak. ––– The meal, it was very simple, but tasted good."

"Thanks for your concern, but Moti really isn't such a bad sort, and I probably deserved it. ––– If you haven't had your fill of both talk and alcohol, perhaps you'd like to join me for a drink?"

“Ja –– I will join you, but first I must go to my room for a few moments.”  

	Readying for her return, Nance dumped his dirty laundry, old newspapers, travel brochures and whatnots on the extra bed, washed his face and combed his hair. Then, realizing he had only one chair, brought one in from the balcony.

[Until the onset of the 1990’s, air-conditioning in India was but little more prevalent than it had been in pre-WWII America; as a result, most hotel rooms and apartments were built with attached small, open-air balconies. Overhead fans could be found in all rooms of middle-class dwellings and hotels, and often on the balconies as well.]

	Nance placed both chairs in front of the wide open door in full view of anyone passing by – all eight rooms in that sector opened onto a large circular hub from which anyone interested could see into his room. He seated himself and assumed what he considered a nonchalant pose – just as Astrid Hubbel returned. Her use of the term freshen-up was merely a euphemism for the obvious – she appeared exactly as she did when she left. She had made no attempt to change into something comfortable, let her hair down, or make herself alluring. 

	For Nance, Astrid’s politely-prim attitude could have been a characteristic of the modern German woman – or perhaps, merely a pretense. In either event her very proper demeanor made sense – she was, after all, traveling alone in an alien land. 

Nance had come to India to experience India – if it was an amorous involvement he had wanted, he could have remained in New York. On this intended-four-month stay in India he meant to immerse himself in figuring out the Indian psyche: what made her people tick. Yet, a romantic interlude with an attractive and intelligent young woman such as Astrid Hubbel, Romantics, even as the years go by, tend to feed their egos by pretending they’ve maintained their masculine appeal. And, despite her somewhat prim appearance, intentional or not, she still managed to display the attributes of a sensual woman – one universally considered desirable.

Regardless,, when she reentered the room wearing the same prim and proper, ankle-length peasant skirt and long-sleeved, closed-neck blouse, emotionally, in its erotic sense, he didn't seem to care one way or the other. He’d been in India, on this trip, for more than a month. So, considering her offer of friendship, it wouldn’t have been out of the ordinary if he maintained an amorous interest in her, even if only manifested by his attempting a gentlemanly and halfhearted flirtation. Nevertheless, despite her many obvious physical attributes, unless Nance was kidding himself, his interest in her was to have a female presence that he could relate to intellectually rather than just emotionally. It was due to his apparent disinterest in her feminine attributes that was to bring about the unexpected ending to an otherwise uneventful day.

CHAPTER TWO – Part Two

	Nance rose as Astrid Hubbel reentered the room. And then, turning towards his makeshift bar (a space on the desk he had made by pushing his partially-unpacked luggage to one side) on which he had placed a bottle of scotch, two bottles of Bisleri, and two freshly rinsed glasses – he began with an awkward: 

"I have the same brand of scotch we were drinking before, but I can only offer you warm bottled water as a mix." 

To which, she said something to the effect that it would be fine. He then raised a glass to eye level and, while pouring slowly, asked her to: say when. She waited until there was a good inch in her glass before stopping him. He then poured an equal amount for himself and topped both drinks off with the tepid mineral water.

	Since their mutual acquaintance with Dr. Moti had triggered this tête-à-tête, it was quite natural that they began by speaking of him. She stated how, earlier in the evening, shortly after returning from the hospital, he had come to her room to invite her to join him and Peter Desai for dinner on the patio. She welcomed the invitation, and joined them shortly thereafter – at which time he made dinner arrangements. While waiting for the food to be delivered, he mentioned, in what was apparently his standard routine, that he was a naval architect involved in the placement of the Buddha on its pedestal in Hussain Sagar. She then told how Moti spoke at great length about his association with the Bombay Club, which gave him access to the Hyderabad Club. By the time the food was delivered, and they had eaten their fill, he had asked her to join him at some future date for a picnic on the grounds of the Hyderabad Club. She told Nance that she had made a tentative agreement to go with him; he was such a good host and his description of the picnic grounds made the prospect of her going very enticing.

"Do you think it is safe for me to go alone with Dr. Moti?"
 
"I wouldn't put much faith in anything that Moti claims to be, or what he claims to have done, but I don't believe for an instant that there's anything at all sinister in his makeup – and, despite my run-ins with him, I think the good doctor is, though pathetic, a decent sort."

"Ja, but I have been told by people who say they know about such things, that if I travel alone in India, I must not talk to, or accept food or drink from strange men. They say I could be drugged and violated, and perhaps even sold into slavery."

	Nance was amused by her gullibility and made comment that she seemed to have made it safely through her first few days in the wicked Orient. She became indignant, realizing he was poking fun of her naiveté – after all, even she had to be aware of her imposing, Amazon-like stature. And, as a woman apparently in her late twenties, she was hardly an imperiled, impressionable, teenage ingénue.

"I did not worry when here – because Dr. Dutta, from the hospital, advised me that this hotel would be safe – and today, Mr. Desai, one of the managers of this hotel, was present when I did drink and take food."

 [Having grown up during the years between the two world wars Nance was aware of the bad-mouthing of India – which he realized was the result of England’s attempt to maintain her empire. (To this day, negative views of India, her history and her people continue to be disseminated by America’s mass media.)  So, besides his attempts to satisfy his curiosity as to what his father’s country of birth was like – he was determined to ascertain whether or not India and her people deserved the bad press they were getting.  It didn't take long to conclude that an unwarranted negative view of the Subcontinent and her people was being deliberately disseminated.] 

	Nance, surprised that Astrid Hubbel had felt the need to make excuses for what he had intended to be nothing more than a witty response to her naiveté, felt the need to apologize: 

"I'm sorry; I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. But really, all you need do is use common sense, and take the same precautions when dealing with strangers in India as you would in Europe. After all, in Europe or America, I doubt you’d hang around the slums and sleazier downtown districts of a city at night; travel in the last car to the last stop on a subway at three in the morning, or invest your money in a scheme proposed by a chance acquaintance. Yet, Western-oriented, middle-class tourists have the conceit to believe that they have the right to go anywhere and do anything whenever they wish – amongst the very peoples who were impoverished as a result of the West’s military subjugation and economic exploitation of their country. And, mind you, the West rationalized their doings by claiming differences in skin pigmentation gave them the right to turn their colonies into company-store-type operations. 
	
“Moreover, if Euro-Caucasians were to think of their Indo-Caucasian brethren – and all peoples for that matter – just as fellow human beings, the world would be a better place for everyone. And as a case in point, I'll tell you a story involving a countryman of yours: a tall, strapping, youth named Rolfe.”

**

“I was eating dinner at an outdoor cafe in Khajuraho. Seated at the same table were two Europeans: one a stocky, Christian German woman who appeared to be in her early forties, and by the way she spoke English, more as if learned from American GIs while catering to their carnal needs, than from a university – which, correct me if I’m wrong, would be indicative of her lower-class background. Her dinner companion was a Belgian-born Jewish woman in her late sixties, who spoke English with a stilted, decidedly-studied, trying-to-be-very-proper, British accent – in America, she and her accent would be considered phony.

“I listened to them as they vacillated between poking fun at India for her poverty and strange ways, and with their telling tales of their shrewdness in getting the better of India's tradesmen, back-alley money changers (with whom they illegally dealt), hotel keepers and baggage handlers: called coolies by the baggage-handlers themselves, and with an air of condescension by the well-to-do amongst India's own ever- growing middle class – as well as by the two ladies sitting opposite me. That these women, despite their disparaging remarks, could also mention pride fully, that over the years they continually return to India for prolonged stays, was, at first, a little disconcerting. But, then, after giving the matter some thought, I realized they came to India to re-inflate their egos – egos that were continually being battered by the realities of their relatively lowly social and economic statuses when at home in Europe.

“It was then that the tale’s protagonist: a tall, curly-haired, hardy, yet awkward and gangly European youth entered the outdoor cafe and sat at an adjacent table. His accent, when ordering his meal: a vegetarian tali, which included soup, chapatis and desert, and cost less than a dollar – was the cue for the German woman to turn and engage him in conversation. After they spoke for a few minutes, she asked him to tell her Belgian dinner companion, in English, what had happened to him. In an educated, but nevertheless thick, German accent, I overheard him state that he had been drugged and robbed by an Indian man, and the police would do nothing. This seemed to please the two ladies; and since it confirmed their already verbalized low opinion of all Indians, they asked no further questions. However, I was curious as to how it came about, so, after apologizing for intruding, I introduced myself. Thereupon, after his telling me his name was Rolfe, I asked if he would tell us how it all came to pass. And, after some hesitation, he did.”

*

Rolfe’s Story – as related by Nance
 
Rolfe told us he traveled from Bombay by bus to Goa. There he stayed at Anjuna, an inexpensive beach resort, where he met many Europeans: mainly Germans and Italians, but moved on after a few days. He said they were mainly old hippies, drunk on cheap, strong Goan beer, who hung out on the beach all day long getting burned black; and they were very decadent, and probably perverted. He inferred they were also very intellectual – and when not ignoring him, they made fun of his youthful ignorance. He left Anjuna for Panaji. Since he had his backpack with him, when he arrived at the terminal, he bought a ticket for the first south-bound bus with an available seat.

[Bus fares are cheap in India, and regular buses can be jam-packed. For a slight premium, a reserved seat on a “luxury” bus can be obtained -- and it’s usually necessary to buy the ticket well in advance.]

The destination of the bus was Cochin. And it was the Indian seated next to him, he said, who drugged and robbed him. Here he stopped, as if to say his story was complete, but I urged him on. “I'm intrigued, how on earth was he able to do it?” 

Despite showing slight signs of embarrassment, the German youth continued; and the ladies, with faces beaming with smug smiles of satisfaction, resumed listening to this confirmation of their moral superiority over the depraved Indians.

He then went on to say, by the time the bus arrived in Cochin, he and this young Indian man, he never mentioned his name, after managing to converse in English for several hours during the course of their day-long journey – this despite their very different accents – realized they had much in common. The Indian, who was slighter in build and perhaps a year or so older than Rolfe, was a dental student en route, by way of Cochin, to his home in the southern-most part of Kerala.

Here again, the German youth paused – apparently in need of encouragement from the ladies to continue. They had assumed his reticence to proceed was from fear of boring us, so, although for very different reasons, I joined the ladies in pressing him to go on with his story.

His description of what followed was incoherent, at least to some degree. At first, I thought it due to his inability, when discussing more complex matters, to use English effectively – which may have been partially true. However, what became apparent, as he continued, was that the major cause of his incoherence, at least at first, was due to his attempt, consciously or not, to obfuscate the details of what actually transpired.

Perhaps it was that his tale of woe had served him well in the past that had him continue. No doubt, the telling of it was a means of acquiring the sympathy and attention of mothering, and possibly of not-so- mothering ladies – much as it was doing then, in the presence of the two women; they were unquestionably accepting him as the virtuous white knight who vanquished the deceitful and perfidious Asiatic heathen. Or, perhaps his continuing with his story was due to a self-righteous belief that as a German and a good Christian, he could do no wrong. Of course, it might very well have been merely a simple case of youthful naiveté that had him relate the story, apparently as truthfully as he could – oblivious of any possible self-deprecatory implications. 

As he went on with his tale, he told how – when the bus reached Cochin – he suggested that they tour the south together. The Indian youth agreed, saying that it might be fun to join him – and since his parents weren’t expecting him this soon, he could spend a week or so to tour that part of India with him. But, he said, he’d have to travel as cheaply as possible. This suited Rolfe just fine; he said that he too wanted to spend little. 

The German youth went on to add that since many Indians had difficulty in understanding his heavily- accented English, and he knew no Indic languages, he was pleased that this young Indian dental student would be accompanying him. Smugly, he stated how, since his companion was fluent in Malayalam, the language spoken throughout Kerala, he thought he had, besides a traveling companion, acquired both a translator and a guide at his disposal – at no cost to him. Rolfe indicated that he thought the Indian youth was flattered by the arrangement. Whatever their motivations were, they left the bus at Cochin with the intention of being traveling companions.

Together they went sightseeing, using Cochin as their base. There they stayed for three nights at a tourist home, where the price for a single room was half that of a double; and, the question of their sharing a room never came up. However, on the fourth day they left Cochin and ended up in a town with a name he couldn't pronounce – which wouldn't be at all surprising, it could have been Pathanamthitta, Kottayamanddukki or some other exotically named place. In all events, when it came to getting a room for the night, they were advised at the hotel that the cost for a single would be the same as for a double – all rooms having twin beds. With his money running low, the Indian youth suggested they share a room. At this, our German raconteur told us, he became very suspicious – he seems to have had the same advisers as you, Ms. Hubbel – and let the Indian youth know he had no intentions of sharing a room with him – I assume he used the same superior tone of voice then, as when relating his tale to us.

When I questioned Rolfe as to what his Indian companion’s reaction was, he said he sensed the dental student was hurt. Nevertheless, he said he was adamant.

The German youth went on to relate how, after dropping their gear in their respective rooms, they went out to eat. He said there was no evidence of a change in their relationship. And, after they ate their dinner of fresh fruit and masala dhossas – large, folded, paper-thin pancakes with a spicy potato filling – the Indian dental student said he had to buy something at the nearby pharmacy – and Rolfe went on alone to the hotel.

He said he felt a little guilty, when in the morning the Indian youth came to his room and brought him tea – which, he said, in a condescending manner, he took to be a friendly act of forgiveness. He drank the tea; and said he recalled getting tired and that his vision soon became blurry. It wasn’t until evening that he woke. He tried to rise, but felt dizzy and remained half awake in his bed – until he realized what had happened. He had been drugged. Looking over the second bed he saw his wallet and hip pouch, with their contents spread out over the blanket. As his head cleared, he counted his money. It was all there – as was his passport and the receipt bearing the numbers of the Travelers Checks. What was missing, however, were the checks themselves. But, even in his befuddled condition our German hero realized he’d be reimbursed for their loss.

He then said he got up; bolted the door; ate some of the black bread he had brought with him from Germany and...

[Here Astrid Hubbel interrupted Nance’s narration, saying, “Yes, I know that bread well. It comes in a hermetically-sealed, plastic wrapper; and I too did bring many packages of it with me in case of emergency.” Nance acknowledged her remark with an unfairly-sarcastic, “I'm sure you did, Ms. Hubbel,” as he continued to relate the German youth's tale.]

After eating, he said he went back to sleep. Then, with much pride, he told us how, because of his being young and healthy [I could almost hear him add: and a member of the master race], he awoke the next morning feeling no ill aftereffects.

He said he reported the incident at the police station. Then, after filling out a long and detailed account of the incident, an English-speaking detective accompanied him to the scene of the crime. Before entering the hotel, the police officer, having been told by our hero that the dental student had made a purchase there the night before, stopped with Rolfe at the nearby pharmacy. The officer questioned the owner. The pharmacist told them a young man, claiming to be a dental student, had purchased sleeping tablets the night before. The dental student said they were for a friend suffering from a bad toothache, and that he was in great pain; he bought enough to put his friend to sleep. The German youth continued by telling us that the policeman then asked if the dosage could have been lethal. The pharmacist appeared to consider the whole matter a joke; in responding, he laughed, saying no, not in the least. Thereupon, Rolfe, showing he was somewhat perturbed, advised us that they left without the detective first citing the pharmacist for his having abetted the crime.

At the hotel, the clerk advised the officer that the Indian youth had checked out late in the morning. Then, the clerk, realizing the envelope turned in by the cleaning woman earlier in the day might prove important, gave the policeman a bulging, letter-sized envelope. Upon opening it, the detective found a mound of mutilated paper. When pieced together, he obtained twenty almost complete traveler’s checks. Since each had a face value of one-hundred Deutch Marks and this was the amount the German youth claimed was stolen, the policeman, after taking note of their numbers, turned the envelope with the mutilated travelers-checks over to him.

Rolfe then related how they went to his room – at which time he answered all the police officer’s questions. After which, the officer put away his pen and notebook, got up, gave him a long and unpleasant look – as if he, Rolfe, had been the culprit, turned around and left the hotel room. He said he ran after the detective demanding, he arrest the Indian dental student, but all the policeman did was stop, turn towards him and say, “fool!” and then continue on his way.

The ladies then joined him in condemning all Indians for being liars, cheats and incompetents.

*

CHAPTER TWO – Part Three

"I do not know what to say, except, if you are comparing me to that stupid young man just because I too am German, you are very wrong. I think they too are bigots, who are prejudiced against people just because they look like, sound like, or come from the same land as others who have, maybe, done something very wrong. They are as bigoted as those prejudiced against a person because he walks with a limp, has eyes that slant or has a darker skin." 

With that little monologue, Nance realized that Astrid Hubbel had just done a pretty-good job of putting him down. As long as Nance had thought his little jibes were going over her head, he had given no consideration as to how they would affect her. As a result, her repudiation of his innuendoes, by laying a charge of reverse bigotry on him, had the multiple effects of: gaining his respect for her intellect and causing him to feel like a heel – all of which made it difficult for him to find a suitable response. So, after one of those pregnant pauses that seem to go on forever, Nance tried to turn the whole thing into a joke: 

"Hey look, normally, when a person gets sore at me for calling the shots as I see it, I tell them simply, 'If the shoe fits, wear it’. But you beat me to the punch by treating me as if I were a shoe salesman who's trying to sell you shoes that don’t fit – because he doesn't have your size in the style you want."

	At this she laughed, while telling Nance that she was more offended by his caller her Ms. Hubbel, than by what he had said – adding:

“And so, now I would like that you begin to call me Astrid."

	Nance told her, with much relief, that he’d be more than happy to do so. But, refrained from adding that he appreciated her having such a forgiving nature; after all, he was being a wise ass by pairing her with the smug, punk, Nazi-like youth – just because their German upbringing caused them to exhibit, in common, so many of the very same obviously environmentally-bred characteristics.

	Without waiting for a reply, she went on:

"Before this, I did not call you by name, because Mister Tagore, like Herr Tagore, is much too formal. But, if you do not mind, I will now begin to call you Nainsink."

“That suits me fine, Nainsink or Nance, if you’d like.”

The few drinks they had had were making it easier for them to talk – and find a common ground. Consequently, the formalities of a Mr. and Ms. Encounter came to an abrupt halt. With the help of their having imbibed the mellow, but not all-that-weak, Indian scotch, the tensions present when Astrid first entered the room vanished; she was turning out to be a regular sort, not at all the aloof, Wagnerian-type woman Nance had pictured her to be. A feeling of mutual trust was building, and it appeared that they were getting to like each other. It was, under the circumstances, as non-sexual a kind of liking as one could expect; there remained the sort of unease that’s present when there's a potential for an amorous encounter, and which is, as often as not, not particularly welcomed by one or the other, if not by both parties involved.
	
Had Nance not found Astrid Hubbel a desirable and attractive woman, it’s doubtful that he would have invited her in for drinks. Yet, unless he was seriously kidding himself, he felt no carnal desire for her: he just wanted to be in the company of femaleness. 

	As the years pass, providing one has had a more-or-less-satisfying sex-life, the anticipation of yet another bout with what was once an exotically-erotic experience loses much of the anticipatory excitement of the past. There’s a parallel to this when one is very young and the mere presence of an unrelated female is enough to stimulate desire. However, when this very basic urge is satisfied, a new sexual encounter, at least for the nonce, is no more a priority for the average youth, than it is for a mature person who is sexually-content, for whatever the reason.
*

The Librarian

It was in Japan. Nance was but seventeen years old and a Pfc. in the US Army of Occupation. It was during the years 1946 and 1947, and with cigarettes costing six cents a pack, and sex going for two packs a pop, the overwhelming majority of soldiers in that primarily-teenage army, Nance included, availed themselves of the services of the then ubiquitous Japanese whores, with unrestrained frequency. Yet, when the camp's library was opened, they would hang around the librarian: a young woman, not overly attractive, and in those days, thought to be as sexless as a nun – just to get a chance to talk American to a female who they could relate to. And, since they had all grown up during the sex-is-dirty WWII war years, the librarian played an additional role. She was the virginal girl portrayed in the very moral movies of that day: the girl every serviceman left behind – the girl envisioned as being the ideal future bride of Norman Rockwell's All-American boy. And, by dint of their being soldiers, each one of them had been indoctrinated into believing that he was that boy.

CHAPTER TWO – Part Four

	Considering the where, when, and with whom the conversation was taking place: in Nance’s hotel room; in the exotic city of Hyderabad; late in the evening; alone with the attractive Astrid Hubbel – that their talk turned ever so serious, seemed quite out of place. It touched on the moral values that existed in India, as contrasted with those in the West. In doing so, Nance brought up the contrast in the treatment of dogs, both feral and domesticated – which exemplified the ideological differences that separated the two cultures: 

"At first glance, one could assume Indians grossly mistreat their ubiquitous feral dogs. During the heat of the day, dogs can be seen lounging around in all but the commercial sections of many big cities. Few bother to feed them. If a dog’s run over, few seem concerned. Dogs are chased from food stands, often with a feigned or real kick, brandished stick or a tossed stone. 

“Conversely, it’s not uncommon to see a dog, sensing the lowly status of the poorest-of-the-poor children, those who go about collecting scraps of paper, assert its dominance by attacking the smallest and weakest amongst those unfortunates. There are even instances reported of such children being badly mauled and even killed by dogs. Furthermore, in the less populated urban and suburban areas of India, just as in suburban and rural America, when going for an early-morning or late-evening stroll, it’s the wise man who carries a stout stick to ward off the potentially-dangerous approaches of feral dogs.”

 
A Dog Is Dying

A Dog is dying – she’s very old,
A Great Dane – a brindle
My wife’s dog – and my dog,
But really – she’s just my youngest son’s,
Whose dog she’ll always be.

The children are now fully grown,
They no longer live at home.
But Brunhilda (that’s her name),
Remained with us to wait
For their return.

She is, and always was,
Completely unaware of death,
At least she seemed to be.

She chewed our shoes,
Destroyed our couch, our chairs and beds.
She went for little dogs,
And attacked our gentle next door neighbor.
It was a nuisance – to say the least:
To take her on our motor trips;
 To rush on home so she could go;
 To walk the dog on rainy nights;
To mop the floor when we were late.

And now she’s going,
And soon, she will be gone.
But, then – maybe she’ll get better.

***

	After a short pause, to make sure he wasn’t losing her, Nance continued: 

"Yet, in India, dogs are allowed to roam free – occasionally killing unwanted rodents, as well as making life difficult, if not impossible, for feral cats. Meanwhile, untreated diseases, malnutrition, dog fights, and the wheels of motor vehicles – all contribute to keep the feral dog population in check."

"But, Nance, you cannot possibly be saying that this is a good thing?"

"Hell, no! But in the West, in those nations counted amongst the more civilized, just about every urban center has an ordinance prohibiting dogs, feral or not, from running loose. Organizations are established to rid our civilized Western communities of the annoyance of having a feral dog population. As a result, the ubiquitous, euphemistically-called, Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been created. And what do these organizations do? With Christian charity they put those unwanted animals to sleep – translated: they are killed."

"When you say it so bluntly, you make me feel very guilty for being German."

"You shouldn’t. I had no intention of making this into a particularly German thing. Although, Germany's application of this same kind of logic to Gypsies, Jews, Slavs, invalids and other undesirables in the past, could very well cause Germans, and Austrians, for that matter, to think twice before killing any living thing. Moreover, it wouldn’t be out of order for certain Germans to own up to a healthy dollop of guilt for continuing to harbor and rationalize their bigotry-based attitudes.

“As living proof that Germany’s racist heritage is alive and well and thriving in your Fatherland, one need only witness the bigoted manner displayed towards her Turkish population. Moreover, when passing through Frankfurt’s international airport, I’ve witnessed that bigoted demeanor in action due to the overbearing and condescending attitude displayed by German customs officials towards in-transit, Indian-passport holders – though not towards Europeans, no matter what country they were from, or what passport they displayed." 

"Well, if you were not saying that this self-righteous, mindless destruction of our fellow creatures – in the name of orderliness – is a German thing, what other people did you have in mind?"

"As a matter of fact, I was thinking about my own country, America, where, I know for a fact that millions of unwanted dogs are routinely put to sleep – every year."

	Although, initially, Nance had had thoughts of a possible romantic encounter with Astrid – he had no trouble in accepting the turn of events – it had become a stimulating intellectual encounter. And, as he was enjoying it – he went on:
 
"My initial intent was to illustrate how the attitudes that different peoples have towards death, are either caused by, or contributed to the makeup of their cultural baggage. And it doesn't really matter which came first. Questioning whether you get a chicken from an egg or egg from a chicken is nothing but philosophical masturbation.

"So, I think we should consider the prevalent morality, whatever it may be, that permeates the peoples of the Indian subcontinent – and then contrast it with that of the prevailing Judeo-Christian, Bible-based morality that emanates from the subcontinent of Europe. By doing so, should be able to uncover the reasons for their differing so: on the value placed on the lives of all living things – man, beast or whatever.”	
		
"Nance ––– I call you Nance because I find you much too American to be called Nainsink ––– you appear to condemn the West for destroying their unwanted cats and dogs. Yet, by looking kindly upon Indians for allowing dogs to roam free, you are deliberately ignoring, what I have been told is a fact, that in India those feral dogs are often rabid and, as you said, are known to attack children."

"I’m not talking about the overall benefits, or lack thereof, of a given morality. What I’m trying to do is determine the motivation for the difference in attitudes. What I see in India is an acceptance of the nature of dogs, and, as such, they’re allowed to do their thing – for better or worse. Now, then, in the West the various aspects of a dog’s natural inclinations are deliberately magnified through selective breeding – and, though often done to enhance their benign traits, there are pedigreed dogs deliberately bred to attack and kill other dogs, other animals and even humans. Moreover, it’s routinely reported how children, as well as adults, are bitten, maimed or killed by pedigreed, non-feral, well-housed and well-fed, bred-to-attack dogs.

“And, although this might seem a non sequitur, there must be some connection to what we've been talking about and the fact that a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was not set up in England until half a century after a society was established there to protect cattle – which, by the way, the British did only after their having been exposed, if not to the always loving, at least the accepting attitude shown towards animals in India."
	
"I do not wish to be made responsible for attitudes and deeds that I do not agree with, and that I have never engaged in. I, too, do not like the killing of unwanted animals. I, too, do not like their saying that killing them is a good thing. That is hypocrisy. But, I think there must be much hypocrisy amongst Indians also. ––– Please, do not interrupt me. ––– You mention Europe as being a subcontinent. In our schools we are taught that it is a part of the same land mass as Asia, but when you call it a subcontinent, I think you are trying to make it less important. Why?"

"First things first – it may appear that I'm biased in favor of India and her people, and perhaps I am, but it’s not intentional. As to Indians being hypocrites, I doubt that they’re any more so – or less for that matter, than the individuals amongst any other peoples. And this is what I'm driving at: all peoples are intrinsically more or less the same. That people believe that their ethnic differences are indelible is invariably the result of their having been indoctrinated with that notion – at times unintentionally, but usually deliberately:  in the form of some sort of propaganda.” 

	And then, before giving her a chance to respond, Nance countered her plaint that he was trying to down-size Europe's importance by calling it a subcontinent:

"Your being bothered by this, reminds me of a scene in the musical, 'The King and I’, in which the King questions the accuracy of a world map that shows his country, Siam, as the relatively-small country that it actually was."

"How can you possibly compare the attitude of that ignorant, nineteenth-century Siamese tyrant with me, an educated, twentieth-century European?"

	In trying to keep the conversation from getting overly confrontational, Nance suppressed an urge to burst out laughing. Instead, he answered her question as calmly and in as matter-of-fact a manner as I could: 

"You should really stop and listen to yourself – then you'd realize the implications inherent in your question. But, you’re not alone; many people, the world over, would be equally indignant – which would only go to show you just how prevalent the bigotry-based, Euro-centric world-view is.

“In addition, identifying Europe as a separate identity from the rest of Asia, even if it only means calling it a subcontinent, feeds European self-interest. It allows for the continuance of the colonizers’ propagandistic, self-serving, based-on-myth contention that the civilization of those folk from the western extremities of the Indo-Eurasian land mass developed miraculously from an innate, self-generated body of knowledge and genes. 

“The fact is, of course, that Europe has a population ranging from those of early Mediterranean stock to those folks who emigrated from the more eastern areas of Asia – there being no Himalayas to prevent their doing so. The Urals, about one-fifth the height of the Himalayas, are but an arbitrarily designated barrier: much like Churchill’s Iron Curtain that he shrewdly-calculated could be used as a formidable psychological barrier to the spread of Russian socialism. Like those of Europe’s century-earlier colonizers, the fostering of a concept that immutable differences exist between East and West has been proven to be detrimental to the best interests of the world at large.

“Since it’s only within the past ten- to fifteen- hundred years that Germano-Slavic Europe began to emerge from its barbaric past – the Judeo-Christian, Euro-centric, racist-based, contention of its gene-based cultural superiority – as manifested in the rationale employed by the likes of a Cecil Rhodes and his fellow greed-motivated, squatting colonizers – is obviously nothing more than self-serving nonsense.

 “What did civilize Central and Northern Europe’s yahoo population was the constant influx of the wide-ranging Mediterranean culture – and that culture previously intermingled with and absorbed that of South and East Asia –along with that of North Africa. The barbarians of North Europe were to adopt every aspect of those alien cultures, including: literacy, ciphering, printing, music, art, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, cotton and silk textiles, sugar, spices, wine, coffee, tea, gunpowder, bananas, citrus fruits, iron, money, pasta, farming, mathematics, the orchestra, history and religion. And Rome’s influence over the rest of Western and Northern Europe was such that, during Europe’s Dark Ages, Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar were, in Alpine communities, thought of as One. 

“You can go on and on as to what Germanic Europe received from the culture of old-world civilizations: from the making and use of soap to the use of coal and the fork. Until the inputs of Islam and those following the Crusades reverberated throughout Northern Europe – it was intellectually and culturally a wasteland.”

	Nance was half expecting Astrid Hubbel to take offense for his putting the West down. But, instead, she added: 

“You must also mention – if not for the British and the Conquistadors ravaging the ancient civilizations of the Americas, there would be no potato pancakes, pommes-frites, tomato sauce, polenta, Belgian chocolates, vanilla ice-cream, paprika or stuffed peppers – or tobacco-generated lung cancer – or syphilis; although, perhaps that was one of the many  benefits that Europeans bestowed on the American Indians.”

	Astrid’s German accent, slight though it was, made it difficult to tell whether she was being sarcastic or supportive. As a result, the look she gave Nance: one of a faintly-disguised respect confused him. Nevertheless, aware that she wasn’t terribly offended by what he said, he went on without a qualm.

"Look – I'm bothered by the universal lack of a fraternal commitment. And I'm thinking – if we knew where Indians were coming from – then we might see that the dominant Judeo-Christian morality which currently prevails, worldwide – the one both you and I, and a good sized hunk of humanity were exposed to ever since we were born – ain't so hot. And then, maybe we'll stop judging others on the basis of the West’s strictly-subjective standards – which appear to be supported by the wealthy elite – not only in the West, but worldwide – as a means of rationalizing the subjugation of all the less fortunate peoples – whether residing in or out of their own countries."

"Well, in Germany we are now taught that we should accept the ways of different peoples, and that many of our values in the past were very wrong, or like you say, ain't so hot." 

	Astrid’s attempt to lighten up their talk, though appreciated, was ignored. Nance was using her to clarify his thoughts. In doing so, he began to consider her more and more as a sounding board for his thoughts – than as a playmate in a game of social banter.

"Maybe so, but since so many Germans, though patently not anti-Semitic, are still vocally hostile towards Gypsies and Turks – as scapegoats for the shortcomings of their politicians and losing, overly-ambitious wannabes – when added to Europe’s silent majority standing by, as Moslems were being ethnically cleansed from the former Yugoslavia, what's being taught in your schools still ain't so hot.."
	Though he wasn't consciously trying to get her riled, he could see that he was stirring up of her adrenaline. And with more emotions than she’d shown so far, an obviously irritated Astrid Hubbel countered:

"Why do you only mention what is happening to Turks in Germany and Central Europe? Why not tell of how the British treat their Pakistanis? –– or how the French treat North Africans? –– or the way the Israelis treat Palestinians? ––  or, for that matter, your America’s hatred of Iraqis – a hatred so great you willingly murder  them by the thousands.?”

"I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was hitting home as hard as I was. But try as you want, you won't be able to erase the world's thinking of Germany as a nation of barbarians. And it goes back to the sinking, by a German submarine, of the Lucitania in 1915 – when over a thousand, innocent civilians were killed. So I think it's more pressing for Germany to manifest a humane treatment to her minorities, than it is for others."

The world now ignores the sinking of the Lucitania – a barbaric act, wartime or not, accomplished in the name of national interest. Yet, the sinking three years earlier of the Titanic, resulting in fifteen hundred deaths – due to an excess, even for those times, of greed, stupidity and Anglo-European hubris – has been immortalized.  

"Perhaps you are correct, and as a German I mist accept the guilt of my ancestors – but let us not forget that England, Turkey and Israel, along with many nations throughout the world were at least as guilty of murdering people in the name of national interest, greed or whatever you wish to call it. ––– Now, though, I would like to hear you tell why Indians treat their dogs the way they do."

"That's a fair question ––– I see the reaction of most Indians, no matter what their professed religion, to the plight of both feral animals and the paper-scavenging children, to be a fatalistic shrug of indifference. Whereas, aside from an outward show of pity or distress on the part of many Europeans, there isn't a hell of lot of difference, as far as both the dogs and children are concerned, between the display of fatalistic acceptance by Indians, and the emotional show of despondency by Westerners in similar situations."

"Nance, you are again inferring that Europeans are being hypocrites. This time when they show pity for a dog who has been run over, or for an undernourished child. And I do not feel this is fair. I, and many other Germans with whom I did speak before coming here, do honestly and sincerely hurt when we see the poor children in India."

"I'm sure that Europeans have a vast reservoir of love to offer the world's poor. After all, to paraphrase what’s said of God, they must love the poor, otherwise, why would they have impoverished so many?"

"Nance (she said while laughing), it's getting very late, but I would really like to know what it is you believe makes Indians think so differently from Westerners."

"Well – despite the fact that all generalities tend to be wrong when applied to individuals, and by even attempting to give the reasons for their differences, I’m leaving myself open to ridicule, I'm going to plunge in and give my opinion as to why the billion or so people who occupy the Indian subcontinent act and think the way they do. But in an effort to mitigate the pooh-poohs you might be tempted to give my obviously presumptuous attempt, I’ll try to lay a foundation for my conclusions.”

CHAPTER – THREE – Part One

"Before tackling the question of why the peoples living in the subcontinent of India think differently, if indeed they do, from their fairer-skinned fellow Caucasians: most notably those folk who populate the subcontinent of Europe, and who are generally thought to be physically-stronger and mentally-weaker than their Indian counterparts – it's a good idea to keep in mind that all humanity had its origins in the very same unique and isolated amoeba-like beginnings. And, it was from this minuscule tad of matter, as billions of years elapsed, that our simian ancestors evolved. Then, but only after the passage of tens of millions of years of environmentally-adaptive mutations, birth was eventually given to our particular branch of anthropoids.

"Now, as a layman, the conclusion I come to, after an admittedly-superficial evaluation of the many self-serving, often-contradictory, supposedly-scientific theories being kicked around worldwide – and that’s without even considering the Bible-thumpers' nonsensical, creationist theory [now reincarnated as: intelligent design] – one on a par with pre- through post-Renaissance-Europe’s legally-enforced, absolute and incontestable belief that the earth was the center of the universe – is that the individual races didn't come into existence until many more millions of years elapsed. And, that didn’t occur until something like from – fifty to a few hundred thousand years ago.”

"Yes, I have studied much biology, and anatomy, and even some anthropology; and I have been taught that what you say is true – except that which you say about Europeans’ intelligence – which is, I think, what you call a wisecrack. But why do you go back so far?"

"It’s to show our intrinsic oneness. –– And, by the way, you didn’t complain about my saying that Europeans were thought physically stronger than Indians. ––– Perhaps you folk in the medical profession, excluding those in it solely to make the money and run – but including those who swore to abide by the dictates of the so-easy-to-make-a-pun-of Hippocratic oath, are aware that the variations of the intensity and proportion of the only three pigments present in the make up of all us humans: red, yellow and brown, account for what most societies these days consider the most significant aspect of man’s makeup. Yet, skin color is the least significant of the superficial variables by which races are determined.”

“Yes, but how does that detract from the fact that color and race are used interchangeably?”

“I see your point, so maybe we should take a good look at what’s not taken into consideration. All those folks in the West, regardless of such noticeable, physical difference amongst individual adults of the same sex, such as: the consistency and color of their hair ranging from near white to yellow to brown to what appears jet black, as well as a whole range of reds – whether or not straight, wavy or tightly-curled; or their having a height ranging from over seven-feet to under five-feet tall; or having dark-brown, hazel, blue, green or gray eyes; or their having freckles, a peaches-and-cream complexion, or a dark, sallow Mediterranean one, or their weighing from under a hundred to over three-hundred pounds – to name just some of the more obvious differences – as seen in every possible combination of overlapping traits, are universally considered as belonging to that racial mishmash known as Euro-Caucasians, Europeans or whites. 

“Moreover, despite the prevailing Euro-centric concept of just what an ideal normal person is, as a medical student you were probably made aware that gene-based, racial differences, though they sometimes make individuals more prone to certain diseases are, with but a handful of exceptions, essentially meaningless when treating virtually every aspect of an individual’s mental, physical or disease-caused ailments. But, that hardly addresses the multitude and variety of warped ideas that the overwhelming majority of people, the world over, have about the significance of observable racial and ethnic differences, let alone their pea-brained ideas about the origins of man – no slight meant to you as a woman."	
	
"I do not think you are sexist; it is not necessary to use sarcasm on me ––– but tell me, why do you talk about races when it is known that almost all Indians and Europeans belong, essentially, to the very same race? [Alcohol had Astrid Hubbel speaking more freely] Though I must admit, that in Germany, the Caucasian is always shown as a modern-day Siegfried: tall, blond, and fair-skinned – and I must also admit, often with an insipid expression on his face. But I have never seen him shown as a Mediterranean type, and I do believe that it would be unthinkable to even consider showing him as an Indian, even one of the many with a Mediterranean complexion."
	
"Well, only acknowledging the existence of non-Nordic- or non-Alpine-type Caucasians, is obviously a great improvement over considering them fit only for enslavement, or to be made into soap – as your countrymen were doing back in the not so distant past: a time when even many dark-haired and brown-eyed German Christians were having their Aryan credentials questioned – which may account for the unwavering  commitment to Nazism by so many non-Aryan-looking members of the ruling Third Reich."

	Astrid Hubbel, accompanied by a slight watering of her eyes – possibly the result of liquor-induced emotions, pleaded:

 "Nance, please, please do not blame me for all the horrible things those vile and demented Nazis did."

[Until the late 1970’s, it was next to impossible, in America, to meet anyone, German-born, who was not an apologist for Nazi-Germany’s actions. However, by 1980 the de- Nazification program, along with Germany’s rise as an economic power, had taken effect – and, young Germans coming to America tended to be fair-minded and unassuming. Nevertheless, within a decade after the unification of Germany, a resurgence of bigotry appeared amongst a significant minority – one is hopeful that it’s merely the result of a temporary rise in unemployment. ]

"I'm sorry, truly. I apologize. But, even though racism has been used for centuries, worldwide, in attempts to stir the masses into supporting national interests, as an American, every time racism gets mentioned, Germany's, and Japan’s WWII atrocities come to mind. Of course, in all fairness, notwithstanding the fact that England’s most voracious colonizing activities were accomplished when figurehead German Kings, and one Queen, sat on the British throne, Germans, as a nation were not themselves party to the near-total decimation, of some fifty million indigenous peoples, throughout the entire Western hemisphere. 

“Those non-German apologists for the plundering Europeans who butchered America’s indigenous population to the point of near-extinction, claim they were an improvement over the Aztec rulers and priests who engaged in horrendous, barbaric religious practices – depravities, sanctified by a God-appeasing priesthood, of a kind so vile they rivaled those then being performed during Europe’s inquisition – deeds also committed in the belief God’s work was being done.”

[The bigoted apologists for the Bible-rationalized rapacious depredations in the Americas ignore the simple fact that the Aztecs, with their advanced civilization, whose ethical standards were no worse than those then prevalent amongst Europeans, didn’t come to Europe to do their dastardly deeds. Had the Aztecs invaded Europe seeking treasure, while murdering all who got in their way and enslaving the remaining men and boys and raping their women, then – perhaps – those rationalizing Europe’s greed motivated descent into barbarity, during its devastation of the Americas, might at least have had the approval of their Old Testament God with His Mosaic, eye-for-an-eye morality].

“Only Iberian Catholics, along with the Judeo-Christian colonizing Brits, managed to equal, if not surpass, Germany’s pre-WWI colonizers, in the premeditated, murderous subjugation and denial of respect for the individual rights of long-civilized alien peoples. Why? Because those peoples were militarily weaker or had passive natures that deemed them inferior – and when stirred to defend themselves, they were totally out-armed. 

“The Spanish and Portuguese bestowed their murderous doings with a claim of religious purpose – which brought disgrace to both the Iberians and the Catholic Church. However, Britain’s ruling classes had the cunning to enact legislation making lawful the atrocities committed by their well-armed henchmen: whether or not directed against the peoples in their non-white colonies, or their very-own, low-born, fellow Brits at home or in their former penal colonies.”

"I have no doubt that what you say – is true about the perfidy of the British. But, I do not understand why Germany and her people are even now singled out, and still held responsible for misdeeds more than a half-century old. Germany has paid some one hundred billion marks to Israel to compensate the Jews. And we have given much assistance to our Gypsies."

"Well, at least Germany accepted responsibility for their heinous acts, and attempted to compensate the progeny of those whose lives they’ve destroyed – which is a hell of lot more than one could say about the British. Nevertheless, except for the all-too-obvious fact that all the marks in the world won't resurrect those millions of people so unmercifully-destroyed as a direct result of Germany’s premeditated barbarity, I doubt if any amount of marks can ever make up for the humiliation laid on Gypsies, Jews and invalids as a result of their having denied them an existence as human beings. In addition, in the case of those self-deluding Jews, the Nazis made their claim of being chosen of God even more preposterous than it ever was or ever could be – which was, of course, the secondary, if not the primary reason for Hitler’s application of the final solution.”

[The irony of Germany’s disassociating themselves from Jews, and then attempting to annihilate them, is that it gave Jews a unique, racial identity – one they never really had before. Adolf Hitler is probably more responsible for the establishment of the religious state of Israel than any other individual. He had designated Jews as a race and then persecuted them for belonging to it – this, despite the obviousness of their belonging, genetically and ethnically, to a whole range of individual and overlapping groupings of German, Slavic and Mediterranean Europeans, as well as Levantines, North Africans and West Asians – much like (while allowing for a whole range of varying degrees of each of those inputs) the vast majority of Europe’s Christian population. Few, if any, Jews fit the Nazis’ caricature of them: that of a shifty-eyed; hook-nosed; sallow-skinned, money-grubbing, immoral, near-non-human. Nevertheless, it’s still considered the one-size- fits-all description of those professing the Jewish faith. And, in the West, some of the best-known theatrical interpretations of Dickens’s Fagin fit that description to a T.]

	Astrid Hubbel, while shaking her head in disbelief, uttered:

"Were we really capable of such base and vile actions? Is it truly possible that we German peoples did such things? We, who include such great men as: Durer, Goethe, Beethoven, Brahms, Handel, Haydn and so many Bachs and Strausses, and innumerable philosophers, and scientists who contributed so much to modern thought, medicine and technology – could we have done such utterly heinous deeds? ––– Though I know it’s true, it is still impossible for me to contemplate our having done those horrible things!"

"Don't you see what I'm driving at? –– No, of course you don't. By your accepting responsibility for the actions of a people arbitrarily assigned to the ethnic grouping called Germans: the result of your all residing in a specific contiguous, German-speaking section of Europe, albeit, with the exception of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, invalids and now Turks – you, personally, feel you must bear the guilt for actions taken by your people – to whom you believe you’re genetically as one. And since you’re obviously proud to count yourself as one with the great German composers, artists, scientists and thinkers – which, though a commonplace, is nothing but an ego-building absurdity – I guess it's only logical for you to also assume you're responsible for the misdeeds of German cretins.” 		
"Well, is that not what you are doing? ––– Am I not a German? And, in truth, perhaps not today, but in the past, was I not proud of Germany's military prowess?  Did I not look down upon Turks? – It is now considered unacceptable for us to show a belief in our superiority towards other peoples. But, I, too, could not comprehend why Turks were not able to be like Germans!  And I, too, joined with others in saying that if only Turks behaved like Germans – we would surely not treat them with such disdain. Never did I question our attitudes towards Turks – nor the conditions under which they lived: no chance of citizenship; working at menial, low-paying jobs no German would have; unfamiliar with our language and customs; and away from their women and the influence of familial ties. It was as if we said: if only Turks were German we would treat them with respect.”

	Astrid Hubbel paused, fixed herself another drink, and continued in her soul-searching monologue: 

"Even if you do not blame me, I do. But now I am a mature woman: I am thirty two; I have traveled much and have even been to your America. I listen to you because you are making much sense, although you make me very annoyed when I think you are talking down to me – though, perhaps, because of my past naiveté – or worse, I do deserve it."

"Hell no, of course you don't. You're only getting a taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end of a bigotry based on the misconception that ethnic differences have their roots in people’s genes. When you take the trouble to think about it, I’m sure you’ll realize that what we consider ethnicity is merely a deceptive observation of what are obviously only transient group adaptations – of both a physical and mental environmental nature. And, it’s this that gives every societal grouping its thought-to-be concrete form – which, any intelligent and thinking person must surely realize has little more significance for the human being – than the change of a background color has on the genetic makeup of a chameleon. 	

	With a look, and a voice consistent with that of one receiving God's revelation, Astrid Hubbel spoke up: 

"Now I think I see just how we Germans were able to treat those other peoples so wretchedly. We made no allowance for their differences, and instead magnified them. We invented this myth of the ideal German, while ignoring the vast genetic and cultural inputs to the German ethos from the world at large. And, then, to compensate for our own shortcomings: those made so very obvious by the very presence of the freedom-loving Gypsies; the equal-in-competence-to-us Slavs; the at-least-as-highly-motivated-for-success Jews; and all those sickly, crippled or unmanly Germans – we attempted, with much success, to annihilate them."

“Yes, and since Jews belonged to one of largest populations murdered during WWII, those who lost loved ones are justified in demanding retribution – though some, especially those now living in America and Israel, usually those who were least affected, are often annoyingly and self-servingly overly vocal in demanding remuneration..”

	Astrid, construing Nance’s stating that some Jews were using the Holocaust as a convenient excuse for unwarranted demands – countered:

"There is no excuse capable of rationalizing or condoning Germany's actions –– or making less of her guilt. But I must admit, although with numerous exceptions, I find many Jews difficult to like -- perhaps it is but a latent prejudice, but so many  seem to be always striving – they are much too competitive."

“As to your feelings about Jews, I don't think it's a question of liking them or not, it’s for making soap out of them that Germans are condemned. –– Although this is not meant in any way to mitigate the horrors of the Holocaust, the very concept of Judaism, which, to their credit, has its followers using whatever abilities they have, and then some, also makes entirely too many of its adherents hard to like.”

Nance had no intention to dissect the psyche of Central Europeans. However, the symbiotic relationship that exists between Europe’s Germano-Slavic Christians and her Germano-Slavic Jews is such that it’s become almost impossible to mention colonialism’s past, with its European roots, and its continuing effects on the prevalent money- oriented morality now being accepted by nations worldwide – without considering the interaction that existed between those two ethnic groups. 

	If not rapt in his thoughts, Nance might have construed Astrid’s smile, along with the slight cocking of her head, as an invitation of a different sort. But instead, he took it as an indication that he go on:

"In modern Western society, the persistent drive for material gain is pervasive. If the pursuit of riches is by a person with little natural aptitude in his chosen field who also happens to belong to one’s own ethnic grouping, his aggression is ignored, even if it ends in failure – and praised, if it’s successful. However, when practiced by someone from outside the community, no matter what the outcome, it causes resentment – and, when the outsider belongs to an identifiable minority not one’s own, it invariably causes a resentment towards all belonging to that minority grouping.

“In America, when that resentment manifests itself towards a Jew and by implication towards all Jews, it’s called anti-Semitism. Now, although the unfairness of this for the vast majority of Jews is obvious, it’s no more unfair than the resentment always displayed by the losers from amongst the earlier arrivals in America (which included Jews) towards the most recent group of striving-for-success and economically- successful immigrants – currently, a goodly portion consist of Latinos and the former residents of East and South Asia. Nevertheless, no other people have given themselves a specific label to describe the bigotry laid on them, one varying little from what all minorities have been and continue to be subjected to in America – one that ranges from displays of condescension – to a denial of access. 

 “It’s because Germany, in her recent past, used that display of competitiveness on the part of some Jews, as an excuse to attempt the annihilation of an entire people: a heterogeneous people, at that. And then, in post WWII years, many Germans used that claimed-competitiveness in an attempt to mitigate their own guilt for their past horrendous actions. So, when anti-Semitic sentiments are expressed by Germans – it can’t be viewed in the same light as when voiced by others."

"You are implying that those racist attitudes have become an essential aspect of German ethnicity, is that not so? –– You have also said that ethnicity is something illusory, is that not so?  If so, is it not also true that my being a German is merely an illusion?  And if my being a German, living where some of my ancestors did for as much as two thousand years is an illusion, then how much more illusory is your thinking of yourself as an American – when none, other than the American Indians, have been there for more than a few centuries?"

"Hey, look, just for now let's not drag America into this. Americans can be faulted in every which way, so let's not go off on a tangent – but just for the hell of it, I'd point out that many of those folks now considering themselves German, were only made aware of their German-ness by your Bismarck – who played on it as an excuse to bring them under the control of Prussia – and that didn't take place 'till well after America's war of independence. Incidentally, I might add that the concept of the Anglo-Saxon was only adopted by the British powers-that-be as a copy-cat measure of that taken by Bismarck – and for the same reason: to make special an otherwise heterogeneous peoples, to better manipulate them. What’s more, the term anti-Semitism, was first used by a Jew to describe the results for those Germans who were excluded from the new-found definition of a German – and to give themselves an identity; this, despite the fact that the vast majority of Germany’s Jews were far more German or Slav than they were Semitic. And, remember, all that came about as a result of attempts to unify Germany – which was not accomplished until damn-near a century after the American Revolution." 

[The basis for Astrid Hubbel’s doubts of there being a truly American identity, had its roots in Nazi Germany’s WWII propaganda, and appears to have been accepted in Germany as fact. And, now, with American politicians and advertising agencies, as well as those in nations worldwide playing on, and up to, the national and ethnic origins of all Americans – the Nazis seem to be on the way of proving themselves clairvoyant. 

[Astrid Hubbel’s attitude made it difficult for Nance to keep his very-American upbringing and experiences, from birth to the present, from affecting his outlook on just about every given subject. In addition, he had very personal reasons for believing that both Germany’s super-race Christians, as well as their chosen-of-God, German-Jewish countrymen (who were living in Central Europe at least as long as Parsis have lived in India) were both equally guilty of practicing racist bigotry. There can be no doubt that they affected each other ethically, and, until the recent reactive resurrection of the near-dead language of Hebrew, Yiddish was accepted as the language of European Jews – and Yiddish is a dialect of German. 

[At their worst, at least until the establishment of the religious state of Israel, German Jews were not overly prone to support the use of lethal means, at least directly, when manifesting their particular, self-serving brand of bigotry. Nevertheless, by the late 1900’s, in Israel, as well as amongst a bigoted vocal minority of her supporters in America, one could find Jews who voice a “solution” for dealing with their Palestinian problem that doesn’t vary a hell of a lot from the means used by the Nazis for solving their Jewish ‘problem.]

	Nance paused to give Astrid Hubbel a chance to respond: 

“Perhaps you are right to say I should not mention America, but I know that when I was in America, you also have a preferred Anglo-Saxon people, who many call WASPs – I think sometimes a little derisively. And, I think that they too, in America, adopted the term Anglo-Saxon to give a unity to all those claiming ancestry to the original settlers. This, I believe was to enable the landed and richest Americans, many of whom were of English or Dutch Protestant ancestry, to use those poor and uneducated Americans who had, or wishfully believed that they had, ethnic backgrounds similar to their own – into doing their bidding.” 

“There’s no question that there’s a hell of a lot of truth to what you’re saying. But, we really should try to keep America out of this for the nonce – even though America was and still is affected by everything that’s ever happened in Europe. It’s just a different story.”

*

WILLIE’S STORY – as Told by Nance

Willie was born into a still-very-German, well-off, Midwest-American family. His physically-challenging condition challenged their concept of manliness. That his only desire was to be an artist – an occupation his parents considered suitable only for dilettante women, effeminate men and Bohemians – most likely East- coast, foreign-types at that – all very un-German, as well as un-American types – led eventually to his making a complete break with his parents.

*

Willie became a true survivor. He lost his studio before the enactment of the Artist-In-Residence laws, which could have enabled him to remain in his downtown Manhattan loft. However, for a decade after arriving in New York, it was during the tumultuous 1960’s, loft living was illegal – artist or not. Building owners were well aware that lofts rented to artists, often on a month-to-month basis, were used as live-in studios, Nevertheless, no doubt on advice from lawyers, landlords claimed ignorance of that wide-spread practice – when seeking the sheriff's help in evicting them.

Willie came through as an easy-going fellow – whose Mid-Western upbringing made him  an unquestioning, law-abiding citizen.  He never did get the hang of being a real New Yorker; and he never considered contesting his eviction. He and other dedicated artists, as well as the ever- present hippie-type, pseudo artists, knew full-well loft-living was unlawful. 

[Loft-dwellers were routinely fined by New York’s Department of Sanitation inspectors for using the city's garbage collecting facilities to dispose of their trash.]

+
Some loft-dwellers did band together and hire lawyers to fight their evictions; others formed cooperatives and bought their buildings. Willie wouldn’t ask his well-off parents for the ten thousand dollars to buy his loft -- possibly out of pride, or perhaps he knew his request would fall on deaf ears. Whatever the cause, Willie, with a Hindu-like acceptance of fate, quit his premises quietly – and moved to Staten Island. There, he rented a small studio close by the Saint George ferry – at a price he could barely afford.

[The Willies of the art-world, as peripheral to it as most were, had been responsible for the upgrading of the least-desirable sections of lower Manhattan. They had moved into a vast array of deserted, rundown, former- factory loft buildings. In a continuing saga of greed –that essential input to the well-being of a functioning free-market economy – New York’s owners of once-vital, light-manufacturing industries became importers and distributors of everything from shirt buttons to soda-fountain pumps. In doing so, they closed their loft factories, blue-collar workers were laid off and the lofts were vacated. 

[The real-estate interests, left with vacant loft buildings, had no desire to see New York become another Detroit – with all the racial overtones that that connotes. In the process of preventing the slumming of New York, lofts were rented to artists (few of whom were black) at very reasonable rates; the artist residents were to give an aura of chic to the then red-lined neighborhoods. Then, once the financially- unsuccessful artists were harassed, coerced or bribed into leaving their loft spaces, windfall profits were realized by all the avaricious-by-definition, real-estate interests owning properties below 23rd street – at which time the once-dingy, artist spaces were leased or sold as potentially-luxurious studios to well-to-do, wannabe bohemians.]

Willie had been transferred to a New York Gallery from its Chicago subsidiary. But within a year he was let go. Rumor had it, that it was due to his appearance –  possibly okay for provincial Chicago, but not for the then-center of the art world: Manhattan’s 57th Street. Willie’s back was perceptibly hunched, and his head was slightly, but permanently cocked to one side.

Despite his disability, since he was bright, well-educated, always neatly-dressed and quite presentable. So, he landed a job as a well-paid, special messenger handling legal documents for a prominent, ASP (Anglo-Saxon Protestant), Wall Street, law firm. And, since his slight deformity in no way prevented him from doing his job: a job that didn't begin to tax his bodily strength or challenge his intellect, he was left with both the mental and physical energy that enabled him to paint. And, unlike many wannabe artists, he did paint.

On rare occasions, Willie was known to be caustically derisive. This occurred, for the most part, in bars – and then only after he became slightly tipsy. Although most people ignored him if and when he became obnoxious, in one of the cheaper Ukrainian bars in the East Village, bar patrons and bartenders were known to respond by mimicking the way he carried himself. Despite his being fully aware of their antics, he returned time and again. Perhaps he deliberately brought on the ridicule because of its cathartic effect on his psyche: at least amongst those mostly-losers, he could stop pretending his deformity didn’t exist. But, there’s a counterpoint to this; despite his apparent acceptance of that unthinkingly-cruel attitude displayed towards him, and the obviousness of his infliction, he would have cringed at the indignity of being considered physically challenged. We all know how condescending the attitude displayed by the users of the parallel term mentally challenged is, and so did Willie.

Since all good things must come to an end, after some twenty years with the law firm, in an apparent economy move, Willie was fired. Perhaps it was done as a result of concerns over the possibility of rising costs for liability and medical insurance to cover him, or it could have been due to the law-partners’ involvement in the greed-motivated activity euphemistically called down-sizing. Technological advances rarely benefit the worker; e-mail and fax machines were to make a good part of Willie’s job superfluous. Then, for whatever their reasons for letting him go, the lawyers, with a claim of altruistic intent, were to give Willie a guilt-relieving, separation check:: a sizable sum of money.

Willie couldn't figure out whether the economy move was to make up for the incompetence of his lawyer employers, or to allow them to maximize their already excessive emoluments – he, somewhat ungraciously, though with much evidence of insight, said he thought the lawyers were both lacking in ability and overloaded with avarice.

*

Painting is a solo endeavor -- and artists tend to socialize in bars, or at any other place offering temporary, superficial companionship as a means of compensating for that self-imposed isolation. There were many bars to be found below Fourteenth Street where artists were once known to congregate. Willie had been known to frequent them all.  (By the beginning of the twenty-first century virtually everyone of those bars have become havens for yuppies.)

Over the years, each time I ran into Willie as I ventured into one or another of those downtown bars, I’d see that he was on the way to get drunk. The more he drank the more bitter and waspishly cutting he became. In retrospect, it he may very well have received notice of his dismissal at the law firm.

The last time I ran into Willie was some six months after he had lost his job, and it was then that he confided in me. He said he had taken slides of his paintings to galleries he thought most likely to handle his work, and sent mailings to others – all to no avail. Almost as an aside, and quite matter-of-factly, he mentioned his unemployment benefits were running out, and his savings, which included the separation money from the law firm, would soon be gone. He went on to say he’d been unable to get anything but a minimum-wage job; and, couldn’t possibly live on it – and the additional hours he’d have to work, assuming they were available, to cover his expenses, would leave him with no time to paint. 

Although he showed no signs of desperation, his attitude was one of resignation. Though, in retrospect, I should have realized what his intentions were and reached out to Willie – that lonely, intelligent, totally- involved-in-art, fellow human being – a man just too aware of his own physical shortcomings, and with grave doubts as to the merit of his artistic endeavors. But, I didn't 

*

Upon returning from a four-month stay in India, I came across a posted notice in one of the bars on Willie's bar-hopping itinerary. The notice was an open invitation to attend a memorial exhibit of Willie’s work. It was to be held two days later, on a Sunday afternoon, at a Madison Avenue gallery. Artists’ memorial services are generally held for those who were somewhat-influential, or well known during their lifetime. The result is they tend to be attended by every self-promoting, wannabe-famous artist – who, like vultures descending upon a corpse, congregate in an effort to benefit from another’s misfortune.

When, as an officer and trustee of a once-leading art school: one which had an aging staff of artist instructors, I was obliged to attend any number of events of a similar nature – it was done reluctantly. Nevertheless, though not required – and perhaps out of a sense of guilt, I attended his Madison Avenue memorial exhibit. And, it was then, that I was told the specifics that were to lead to Willie’s demise. He had, earlier in the week, committed suicide by tying a plastic bag over his head.

With all the emotion evoked by artists due to their there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I apprehension, it was impossible to evaluate, objectively, the artistic worth of Willie’s paintings – which of course, was not the purpose of the exhibit. A few of Willie’s closest New York artist friends had worked for hours hanging his paintings. Despite the currently accepted contention that everything is art – which makes everyone an artist, – which in turn makes an already competitive field even more so – the competitiveness normally displayed by so many of these artists, was absent.

The galley was light and airy, and Willie’s somewhat fantastical works with their unusual use of color (pastel-like, yet not chalky) were being shown to their greatest advantage. Had Willie traded on his physical handicap, and found favor amongst those advocating politically-correct preferential treatment, his works might very-well have been included in the exhibitions held biennially at the Whitney and routinely at MoMA  – which could only have raised the artistic level of those museum showings. Nevertheless, this might be considered faint praise when one is aware of the works on view in those overloaded-with-politically-correct-crap, museum exhibits. 
 
*

A few of the survivors made a list of those willing to defray the cost of Willie’s funeral; all present were. However, the following day, while rummaging through his belongings, two of his closest New York artist friends came across the address of his parents. When notified, they made arrangements to transport their son’s body west for a good Christian burial.

In the end, Willie finally got accepted, just as he was, by the folks back home. And, his untimely death, at the age of forty-nine, earned him his moment of recognition: he had a well-deserved exhibition of his work in a Madison Avenue gallery, albeit, for but a few hours on a Sunday afternoon.

CHAPTER THREE – Part Two

	Pausing to give Astrid Hubbel a chance to add to the conversation, resulted in a spate of silence. .Nance took this as a sign to continue. Having had time to gather his thoughts, he went off on an apparent tangent –  this, in an attempt to explore that aspect of racism used as a tool of propaganda by countries the world over – if and when thought capable of advancing the goals of a country’s national interest. 

"Most knowledgeable folks in the West are aware that the specter of a German-type anti-Semitism has been used by the Israelis in support of their national interests. In their doing so, they’ve gained the political and financial support of Jews, worldwide – as well as that of those deservedly guilt-ridden Christians. Though many folks, those coming from one or the other racial, national or ethnic background, for one reason or another, still harbor a mean-spirited and deep-seated antipathy, or worse, towards Jews. That Israel’s tactics, whether heartfelt or not, have proven successful, is evident from the fact that Americans, four-hundred thousand of whom lost their lives during WWII, fork over more than a thousand dollars to the Israeli government, each and every year, for the subsistence of each and every Jewish Israeli. And, this amount, by the way, has ranged from two to five times the per capita income of Indians: who must work for their money or starve.  
	
"Notwithstanding Israel’s questionable dealing with their Palestinian population, which does cause resentment, on the part of many fair-minded folks, towards those Jews who blindly support every action taken by that theocracy – and despite the fact that some of those speaking out against Israel’s obviously inhumane actions against Moslems might be motivated by anti-Semitic sentiments – when Israelis equate that negative attitude towards them with the hatred of Jews by Germans, one so strong that it led to the horrendous massacre  of so-many millions, it’s like comparing ammunition to the hydrogen bomb – or a hill to Mount Everest. To equate Germany's hostility towards Jews – that which led to the implementation of a final solution, with any negative attitude towards Israel or even the anti-Semitism espoused by the ordinary, garden- variety bigoted loser in America who's been bested by an often overzealous and no-more-competent Jewish competitor, is an insult to both the intelligence and moral sensibilities of any thinking person." 
	
“Ah yes, I think I begin to understand what you are saying. Perhaps we should equate ordinary anti-Semitism, which is a stupid and un-Christian sentiment, to the attitude that so many Europeans have towards the Japanese (by 2006, substitute Chinese and Indians). Because they are now so much more successful at making money and manufacturing than we are, we say that they cheat, and maybe some do; we say they are too materialistic, and maybe some are; we say they have no soul, and perhaps some do not; we say they can only improve on the creations of others, and perhaps there is some truth to that. But, even if all of those traits that we Germans might consider offensive, hypocritically, I must add, were entirely true, since there is no propaganda machine working to stress  those supposed faults of the Japanese – and since few Europeans ever see the thought-to-be-overly-materialistic-and-aggressive Japanese – only a superficial animosity is engendered towards an impersonal concept of the Japanese."

"Sure – and to offset this hostility, the Japanese government spends billions of dollars trying to convince the world that their business practices are honorable, and their people cultured. And towards that end, the only Japanese that seem to be let out of Japan and come to America are the children of well-to-do, upper-class businessmen and the ever-so-polite tourists – all of whom spend money freely, and are never seen to be competitive."

"Ya know, even with Christians blaming the death of Jesus on the fantasized concept of Jews, the attitude the West now has towards the Japanese is probably much like that which German Christians displayed towards German Jews – that is, before Napoleon came on the scene spreading the bourgeois ideals of the French revolution. Because, then, not only were Germany’s Christian peasants permitted to leave the land, but simultaneously Germany’s Jews were allowed to quit their ghettos. The subsequent competition for survival in the cities, for which Jews had been better prepared, was to lay the groundwork for that German-type of virulent anti-Semitism."

"Yes, yes. –– Because, Nance, as you say, they were better prepared than the German peasants for the competition in the cities. This made them better students and better tradesmen than Europe's former farmers – as well as formidable competitors with Germany’s entrenched townsmen. This was no longer the impersonal concept of Jews that Christians were confronting; they now came into direct contact with Jews as individuals. And, as often as not, Christians, as competing losers, began manifesting a resentment towards all Jews.”

"That sounds right to me. And, I think a more or less benign bigotry can lie dormant for years, only stirring to life in its most malignant form with the encouragement of a demagogue like a Hitler. But, the degree of venom displayed in Germany’s attitude towards Jews, must have been building for decades before Hitler. It seems to me that Jews, in a united effort, could very well have tried to mitigate Christian resentment – no matter how unfounded it may have been – much as the Japs appear to have done – and much as Jews as a people, did in America in the decades leading up to the late 1960’s.  

“During WWII, and for years after it, anti-Semitism in America was no worse than the bigotry displayed by the majority of ASP [a.k.a. WASP] losers towards all minority ethnic groups. However, before the fifties were out, Germans, all the while vocally rationalizing their country’s Nazi past with a rehash of the same master-race sentiments that led to the deaths of tens of millions of innocent civilians – were again allowed to migrate to America. This infusion of a malignant bigotry into the American psyche by the initial influx of influenced-by-Nazi-propaganda immigrants from throughout Europe, and not just from Germany – was a major input that was to eventually lead to the end of America’s era of relatively good will towards America’s white minorities.

“The ensuing display of bigoted sentiments, anti-Semitism being but one of them, became the means for America’s various and sundry non WASP ethnics to identify themselves with the country’s respectable ASP majority. Manifestations of those bigotry-based sentiments were soon adopted and re-adopted by all the losers from amongst a broad cross-section of America’s wide-ranging, Judeo-Christian middle class. And soon, even the progeny of Puerto Ricans who had fled from San Juan’s slums; Negroes who migrated north to escape poverty and the insult of segregation; Orthodox Armenian Christians, who had run away from death and destruction at the hands of both Orthodox Russian Christians and Moslem Turks (as Protestant and Catholic West Europeans stood by);  plus a host of the usual suspects – all of whom were to join with the rest of the nation’s losers in a renewed display of bigotry – always directed against one or the other financially-successful and identifiable newly-arrived immigrant grouping – despite, or perhaps because, they themselves, until recently, had also been treated as the dregs of American society. 

“It should surprise no one that a cross-section of American Jews would resemble that of society as a whole; they’re far from the intellectual liberals whom most well-educated non-Jews come in contact with. And, as such, the overwhelming majority of American Jews joined in spouting the prevalent, racist-based deceits – though, understandably protecting themselves against that of anti-Semitism – and not so justifiably, anything that might fault the colonizing Israelis -- no matter what their actions. Like all America’s losers, they also resorted to a judicious display of bigotry, almost always against folks with a greater degree of skin pigmentation, as a means of identifying themselves, as one, with the wealthy amongst America’s ASP majority.”  

"For all your claiming to be so liberal, Nance – I think you are far harder on Jews than I am – perhaps that is because my German heritage causes me to have a feeling of guilt. But, I do not understand a connection you have made." 

 Here Astrid Hubbel stopped herself. Then, while tapping a finger on the arm of her chair, said, at first a little slowly, but gradually increased the tempo:
 "Unless it is because the force that gives cohesiveness to most Jews, as a people, comes from this subconscious or even conscious belief that they are the chosen of God, which gives them the impetus to try so hard to succeed – they must have a good excuse for any shortcomings they, as individuals, may have. And, since I am becoming convinced that the concept of a German ethnicity is but a chimera, I think I understand why Jews need a force – from both outside and from within – to maintain their group identity. And, am I not right that what you are saying is that anti-Semitism is that outside force?"	

"Yeah, I believe that’s so. ––– But, I want to clear something up. Being a liberal, and I believe I’m one, means you seek the truth. What I’m trying to do is figure out the whys and wherefores of our existence as human beings – without relying on that whole litany of hackneyed rationalizations and half-truths routinely called upon in the West to explain away its greed-based actions by claiming they’re lawful or God’s will.

“I don’t for a minute think that there was a conspiracy on the part of Jews to deliberately provoke an anti-Semitic reaction – this isn’t some kind of premeditated thing – like the found-to-be-phony, Protocols of the Elders of Zion was supposed to be.  Moreover, it’s impossible to believe that Jews ever dreamed the resentment, which, no doubt, many Jews must have been, or should have been, aware they caused, could ever instill such an intense hatred amongst Europeans – especially its lower classes. 

“And, to a degree they were right. What was soon to become a malignant hatred of Jews – was brought about by the self-serving manipulations of the truth by Europe's ensconced wealthy and privileged classes. They made claims that the influx of East-European Jews was responsible for Europe’s turn-of-the-century labor unrest and later, for the economic woes of post-WWI Germany – all as a means of diverting the turmoil that hit European society away from themselves. Adding to the post-WWI economic servitude enforced by France and England which added to the labor unrest and economic problems resulting from the greed-motivated oppression of Europe's working classes by its military-banking-industrial complex – and German Jews were numbered amongst the wealthy oppressors, as well as amongst the unfortunate oppressed. ” 

[Along those lines, though baptized a Christian, Karl Marx’s Jewish ancestry was stressed by a fearful and wealthy bourgeoisie – this, despite his parents also having been Christians. Apparently, Jews who convert are no more considered Christians by Jews or by Euro-Caucasian Christians, than the converts to Christianity in colonized nations were considered real Christians by their own countrymen, or their “white” Christian colonial masters. Nevertheless, there doesn’t appear to be an English term equivalent to “rice-Christians” to describe Jews who convert to Christianity – perhaps there’s one in German or its sister language, Yiddish.

[If not for Engels’ intellectual input, financial support and publicity given to Marx, Marx and his not-all-that-original theories would have long-since been forgotten. (With humanity’s intellectual beginnings going back hundreds of thousands of years, what we tend to think are original concepts have in reality been evolving piecemeal over much time. Socialism was hardly an original concept.) Nevertheless, years after their deaths, the ethnic-German-Christian, Friederick Engels, the co-founder of Communism and the co-author of the Communist Manifesto was deliberately disassociated from the Communist cause – whereas, both the Christian Karl Marx’s name, along with his Jewish ancestry – his grandfather had been a rabbi – were stressed.

[On through the 1920’s, not only were wealthy German Christians guilty of playing on the growing anti-Semitic sentiments amongst Europe’s Christian hoi polloi, but Germany’s well-off Jews appeared only too willing to join in, in the stressing of Marx’s Jewish heritage. Old-money, German Jews believed they were Germans, period! As such, they also resented the intrusion by the more competitive and less-cultured Slavic Jew into the orderly German society – and appeared perfectly willing to stand by as an appeal to Germany’s initially relatively benign resentment of Jews, as non-Christians (early on, Mendelssohn joined in, in voicing those sentiments), was magnified into its most malignant form of anti- Semitism – and then used as a means of preventing the money-based privileges of the wealthy German from being jeopardized by the spread of socialism – this, by turning a Christian workers’ movement into the “Jew” Marx’s Communism. ]

 “Yes, Nance, I have read in an authoritative book by an American author that, although there was a marked change in the attitude of Germany’s rich Jews once Hitler’s anti-Semitic remarks turned into violent actions, even as WWII progressed, as many as five hundred Jews were in Germany –  involved in financial dealings.”

	Astrid paused before continuing – somewhat defensively – wanting to know why Nance wasn't also taking Israel to task:

 "I believe that you are correct in your history, but tell me, Nance, what is the reason for Jews in Israel treating Arabs worse, with the exception of the Nazi years – which were horrible – than Germans ever treated Jews in or out of the ghettos?" 

"Well, for starters, I think the Israelis are just European colonists. Add to this that if it's possible to give grades for the actions of those countries whose people engaged in that most people-debasing activity: colonialism – the Prussianized Germans, primarily in Africa, would get straight F's. Now, if you put the two together, with the obvious fact that German-Jews, at least originally, dominated Israel, and that they had some thousand years of overlapping history with German-Christians, while sharing a common language, the answer to your question should be self-evident. If you need more, take a look at Israel's military tactics: they're textbook German: from Bismarck's enticement of Austria to declare war, to Hitler's blitzkrieg. Furthermore, they share a common moral rationale for their actions, which has every appearance of being derived from the same source: that combination of Old Testament Mosaic law, and a Teutonic martial culture."

"Um Gottes willen! –– Now you blame us for what the Jews do in Israel!"

"You still don't get it. –– Yes, ethnically you’re a German. And, yes, ethnicity most assuredly exists. That said, since ethnicity is merely the manifestation of an otherwise genetically heterogeneous people’s attitudes that were formed as a result of adaptations to a relatively short period of cultural isolation, in terms of human existence, and, if what you say is true: that you have rejected those attitudes and could never have endorsed them, then there’s no reason for you, despite your German heritage, to feel guilty for the horrors committed by Nazi Germany. So, when I talk about Germany's input into Israel's racist policies against the Arabs, I'm only considering the cross-breeding of ideas, not necessarily of blood – although anyone using their eyes could see that many of the superficial transient traits: those affected by the flip-flopping between dominant and recessive genes, are shared in common by a goodly portion of all Europe’s Christians and Jews.

"Moreover, it seems to me that when Arabs say they're the ones who are paying for Germany's failed attempts to dominate the world, they're damned right. Originally, from the late 1800’s on, Germany’s intentions were merely to become a major player in the game of worldwide-empire building, But, when in her attempts to do so she lost WWI, both her territories and those belonging to her WWI ally, Ottoman-Turkey, were divvied up by America’s equally-greedy WWI Allies: England, France, Japan and Italy – war makes even stranger bedfellows than politics –– or, perhaps, politics is just the other side of the same coin. And, the ill effects of the Allies’ WWI land-grabbing avarice have remained with us ever since.”

"Are you then blaming Germans for England's Machiavellian colonial policies? –– That would be too much!"

"Indirectly, maybe, but only because Ottoman-Turkey was also on the losing side of WWI – and it was during that first war to end all wars, when Europe’s wealthiest Jewish bankers agreed to make loans to Britain in her war against the Kaiser’s Germany –– on condition England support the establishment of the Zionist’s goal of a Jewish homeland in Palestine – which was then part of the last remnants of the Ottoman empire. Subsequently, Britain’s foreign secretary: the Conservative Balfour of England’s wartime coalition government, issued a “statement” to that effect. And, after distorting the significance of that statement, by calling it the Balfour “Declaration”, it was used to give legitimacy to the Jewish occupation of Palestine. That, at the time the land had belonged to Germany’s ally, the Moslem Ottoman empire, and that it was still occupied primarily by Arab Moslems – as it had been ever since the Crusaders got ousted – didn’t seem to bother either the Brits or the Zionists. However, although Zionists were guilty of playing the colonialism game, which makes them pretty damn guilty, they could hardly be blamed for seeking a land to call their own – after all, even before Hitler, your European Christians were not exactly welcoming them into their hearts. Not that all Jews, when taken as a whole, are an easy people to like – but then, which people are?"

 “Perhaps you are right. But I truly believe it is wrong to blame Germans for the subjugation of Arabs by the Israeli.”

“Well, Astrid, those who’ve thought about it at all, when considering the ordeal your ancestors put them through, felt European Jews’ deserving of a homeland. However, few non-Zionists believed that the Israelis had a right to buy off, kill off and ship off the Palestinians from their homeland –  as a means of their acquiring it. Moreover, perhaps because I’m an Atheist, the only logical place for that homeland was in Europe – somewhere in the eastern sector of Central Europe where the major conversions to Judaism took place, and where Jews and Germano-Slavic peoples had interbred, culturally and genetically, for some dozen or so centuries. After all, there are relatively few Semitic Israeli Jews residing in what was once Palestine.”

"But, Nance, if Israeli Jews have a right to have a country just for themselves, why didn’t Christian Germans have that same right – or the Serbs, and the Croats; the Sikhs, or the Kashmiri Moslems, or the Tamils?

"Well, Astrid, had Germans not been so bent on exterminating the Gypsies, Slavs and Jews, with whom you shared your country for a thousand years and probably more, you might have something there. But, forgetting all that, since I'm the product of a Belgian-born mother who resided in South Africa and Holland before coming to America, and who was disowned, disinherited and excommunicated by her German-Jewish family when she married my equally-educated and high-caste, Indian-born father, I can see no benefit to me in the Balkanization of the world. And besides, can you imagine what would happen to America’s multiple hyphenates if an attempt were made to divvy up the country in accordance to our ethnic backgrounds? For the Tagores, it would be preposterous.

“Four of my father’s six children, all American born, were veterans of WWII (one a daughter, the other a boy who at four was run over and killed). And all, including his daughter, had married non-Hindus: their progeny the product of gene-mixing with Catholic or Protestant, at-least-second-generation- American-born: Anglo-Irish, Italian, German, and Polish immigrants – and their children have gone on from there – all of whom, to the best of my knowledge, pledged allegiance to the flag of the country of my birth, America – that nation of mongrels, as Hitler’s propagandists called us.” 

 “You have asked me not to bring America into our conversation, yet this is what you, Nance, have been doing all evening.” 

Coyly smiling, Astrid then added that she would like to go to her room and freshen up, and then left. It was getting late, and Nance was getting very tired, and very woozy. And, although he believed that she was too, he wasn't sure she'd be returning. Nevertheless, he was not that tired. So, he took the opportunity to also freshen up – and to fix two more drinks – and then to wait.

CHAPTER THREE – Part Three

	While awaiting Astrid Hubbel's possible return, it dawned on Nance that he was beginning to get quite fond of her. She had a brain; she could take it, and also dish it out – without being vindictive. She had an appealing personality; and, perhaps due to the alcohol, as the evening wore on, had Nance consider the possibility of a romantic adventure. – despite her wearing a most unalluring of outfits.

*

	Having left Nance with the reminder that he was constantly bringing America into their conversation, it made him realize just how difficult, if not impossible, it was for him to evaluate the goings on in the world without his views being influenced by his American upbringing. And, so, he let his mind dwell on a spoof that he had recently read. Although it was about American politics – with slight adjustments it could readily be applied to just about any government claiming popular support. 

[Although the following spoof was written prior to 9/11 – it’s still almost too true. Yet, for all democracy’s faults, and the spoof merely touches on its least worrisome ones – it’s disheartening to realize that democracy is still the best form of government yet devised.]

*

A SPOOF

The president’s advisors, being politicians, were not particularly bright. Nevertheless, they were pros; and, as such, they knew full well they’d never go wrong by playing up to the narrow-minded, ignorance-based concerns of America’s religious right – whether Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim,, Hindu or Sikh  (such members of all other religions being ignored). Success in American politics has, all-too-often, been based on a politico’s ability to win the confidence of those religious bigots who, in turn, had the ability to shame their in-name-only, fellow religionists into following their lead in repressing those manifestations of personal liberty and freedom of action – which they, no doubt hypocritically, found objectionable.

Due to the Freedom of Information Act, the following details that led to the addition of the C*A*N Amendment to the American Constitution, and its subsequent repeal, can now be told. All facts in this article have been culled from the documents recently put at the disposal of SKUNK’S investigative reporters. The entire episode occurred during the Presidency of Harrison J. Ackbutt – who served one, otherwise-uneventful, four-year term sandwiched between that of Jimmy Carter’s and the first of Ronald Reagan’s  two terms.

The C*A*N Amendment

Harrison J Ackbutt was elected to the presidency of the United States of America. As in all elections, there were those elated and others dejected. The heads of state in all the capitals of the world were busy with their advisors analyzing the consequences of Harrison J. Ackbutt’s election. Wall Street investors weighed its pros and cons. Farmers’ groups, labor leaders, manufacturers and barroom patrons, discussed all the ramifications of the election.

Despite his election the consensus of opinion was: all expenditures on social services would remain more or less the same, as would moneys spent on national defense -- and no president would dare cut the financial support for Israel or for the overproduction of milk, cotton, corn, potatoes, pork, tobacco and lawyers. These conclusions were arrived at by all those concerned after seven minutes of heated debate – which started immediately following the declaration by the SKUNK Network that Harrison J. Ackbutt had won the election. This was based on the results obtained from computers inputted with the election returns from the town of Mabel’s Hump, Vermont – along with the data obtained during post-voting interviews there with the eighteen people who had bothered to cast their ballot – this, out of  a potential electorate of six thousand three hundred and twenty one eligible voters.

Allowing for a standard margin of error of 20%, the computer-based projections of the political analysts proved infallible – Harrison J. Ackbutt had indeed been elected – and in a landslide at that. Shortly after the official announcement, eight of the patrons in Mabel’s Hump’s only bar, realizing that the results of the election would be of no consequence for them, disbanded and went home – the remaining regulars, alcoholics to a man, stayed on to have a few more beers.

[Harrison J. Ackbutt was known fondly as Jackbutt by friend and foe alike – much as Lincoln was hailed as Honest Abe – and during the course of this report, when appropriate, he will be so referred to.]

Lack of pertinence had always been Jackbutt’s strength. In fact, Jackbutt owed his nomination and subsequent election to that lack. Nevertheless, the political bosses and his cronies in the Cabinet realized that with a nonentity like Jackbutt as President, if they merely ran the government as caretakers, and satisfied themselves with but the sizable graft they could reasonably expect to earn, it would hardly compensate them for being ignored by historians in their scholarly tomes. Moreover, their well-provided-for children, wives, mistresses and barbers would soon lose all respect for them. As a consequence, after years of cabinet meetings, they continued to rack their brains for any idea that would elevate Jackbutt’s administration to a point of national and world prominence – or even recognition.

And, so, while lounging around the White House during the course of their fifth biannual meeting, they kicked around the idea of raising the drinking age to thirty-five in an effort to lower the death rate caused by drunk drivers – thereby countering the effects of their having increased the speed limit on Interstate Superhighways to eighty-five miles per hour. 

By raising the speed limit, Jackbutt’s administration had succeeded in thwarting the investigation into his illegal practices and those of his chief advisors – all of whom were equally guilty of having hired nannies and sleep-in servants without having complied with the Internal Revenue’s regulations incidental to such employment. Congress, despite the Supreme Court’s reluctant approval of their citing the conservative Jackbutt for his despicable misdeed, though it occurred years before his inauguration as President, dropped their demands for a special prosecutor to investigate those obviously impeachable offenses regarding his children’s nanny. The impeachment procedures were drooped after a all the House members of the majority political party were given sizable donations by the Political Action Committees representing oil producers, refineries, Wall Street financiers, automobile and parts producers, the AMA and mortician organizations nationwide.

Nonetheless, their political savvy made them realize that a thirty-five minimum-age requirement could cost them the support of even those few intelligent women who voted for Jackbutt. Despite his opposition to an ERA Amendment and hostility to the rights of women to choose what happens to their bodies – few women would welcome the need to divulge their age – after all, baby-boomers were only too aware that stating their age as being thirty-five or over didn’t have the panache of saying they were twenty- one plus.

Prohibiting the consumption and manufacture of alcohol had already been tried and abandoned, and increasing the penalties for dope dealing and money laundering would only reinforce the public’s perception of Jackbutt’s administration as being racist. And, even Jackbutt thought it trite to prohibit the ugly practice of chewing gum – although the political backlash from the enactment of such a law would have none of the suicidal repercussions from the absolute prohibition of jaywalking or of the sale of cigarettes. As a consequence, the members of Jackbutt’s inner circle were ready to accept even the most harebrained idea for consideration as a means of raising the public’s perception of his administration as being something above the level of blah.

*

The biannual meetings with the members of his Cabinet, what with their constant stress on giving his administration meaning, proved to bore Jackbutt even more than those he had attended on balancing the budget, rights to privacy and poverty. He looked about drowsily – while trying to find something of interest to occupy his mind. His eyes focused on his wife’s press secretary’s secretary as she entered the conference room. And, as his eyes continued to focus on his wife’s press secretary’s secretary while she spoke to his press secretary’s secretary, he became annoyed. Why? His press secretary’s secretary was not near as pretty or voluptuous as that of his wife’s. He felt it was a slight to him, as well as to the austere position he held. Jackbutt’s annoyance subsided as he allowed his mind to strip the mini-skirted curvaceous body of the secretary of his wife’s press secretary.

He was roused from his reverie by the yelling and screaming of protesters who were marching in front of the White House. 

Ban the Bomb and No Nukes were being chanted by a large group of political activists headed by the perpetual juvenile, Jane Henry, the movie actress. The President’s Chief of Staff was annoyed by the intrusion and in frustration told his fellow bureaucrats he wished Jane Henry would realize she was too old to be playing the youthful ingénue, and stop all this protest nonsense. The press secretary then added it was a shame a woman once so cute and sexy had to grow up to be such a pain in the ass.

Meanwhile, President Ackbutt appeared to agree by nodding knowingly as he returned to his daydreaming. This time he fantasized about Jane Henry, both as a youth and as the still desirable woman that she was, in various stages of undress. While still deep in his musings, the amplified bellowing of: NO NUKES came roaring into the conference room.

Jackbutt, still in a dreamlike state, thought he had heard the admonition NO NUDES. He awoke from his erotic musings and guiltily looked around with the smile of a minister caught leaving a porno parlor, and mumbled audibly, “Okay – No Nudes”. The members of the Cabinet (his cronies to whom the Senate had advised and consented to the paying of salaries) looked at one another, and with faces beaming with joy, applauded with gusto. They knew immediately they’d found their catchy phrase, and indicated it with cries of: What genius!  What insight!  Beat the Drums!  We have our cause!

*

Having been castigated in the press for napping at Cabinet meetings, and not wishing to anger his wife by making a fool of himself in the press, which his admission: that he didn’t have the foggiest notion of what was going on, would most certainly have brought about (unwanted leaks in Washington being as common as those coming from tenement faucets), the President, with great dignity, rose from his well-upholstered chair and authoritatively ordered his Chief of Staff to fill in the details. He then retired to the Oval Office to watch a rerun of Rambo VI.

No sooner had the President left, than his chief advisor, Aldo Klimt, commonly referred to by his initials A.K., pushed the members of the cabinet to come up with a phrase other than either Ban the Nude or No Nudes. He rightfully considered both entirely too similar to those then being chanted outside by the unwashed mob of troublemakers. Postmaster James A. Barley came up with the winner: Condemn All Nudes. The holdout members of the Cabinet finally agreed to accept it when they realized it had such a catchy acronym, C*A*N.

Thereupon, by a unanimous vote, they agreed to press for a C*A*N Amendment to the Constitution. There was a ground swell in the number of truly good and loyal real American churchmen who were pressing their Congressmen and governments of every State to purge the nation of the rampant immorality that was threatening to diminish the fear of God in America’s youth – and diminishing the size of their flocks, as well as their take on the plate. As a result, Jackbutt’s Cabinet was reasonably sure that both the State legislators and Congress would see the political wisdom in their supporting a C*A*N Amendment to the Constitution.

The opposition parties were jealous of the prestige Jackbutt would obviously gain from the adoption of the C*A*N Amendment. Many tried, in secret, to initiate a movement in their home states to impede its passage into law -- but to no avail. Not one major political figure would speak out against C*A*N. To be against C*A*N was tantamount to admitting you were a letch, a peeping Tom, a sexist, a child molester, a pimp, a foul-minded sadist or an ogler of statues in the park. Surreptitiously, however, wags were making snide jests such as: C*A*N will be the end of all nudes and Can C*A*N can the can? -- all based on the acronym for the Condemn All Nudes Amendment proposal.

Whether great statesmen make trite mottoes meaningful, or great mottoes elevate insignificant leaders to prominence, is not known. However, President Harrison J. Ackbutt was to be hailed as a great statesman. The phrase Condemn All Nudes was heard throughout the land; and Jackbutt was being hailed as his generation’s Abe Lincoln, F.D.R. and J.F.K. -- that  day’s Moral Leader. 

Condemn All Nudes equaled or exceeded the popularity of those other great apothegms: Carry a big Stick, A Chicken in Every Pot, New Deal, Fair Deal, Beware the Industrial Military Complex, Join the Army, Join the Peace Corps, Beware the Evil Empire, and Beware of the Dog.

All State legislatures, save one, voted for the C*A*N Amendment. Alaska was the sole holdout -- surprising many, since the last person -- a native of California (then a haven for Nudeniks) -- who was known to have gone naked there, froze solid. What was not known outside Alaska’s inner circle, however, was that a casting had been made from the frozen Californian and the resultant gilded brass statue is standing atop the dome of the Alaskan capitol building: a ten story replica of an igloo with oil rigs serving as impressive columns at its entryway. The statue, what with its still wearing sunglasses, would have caused the citizens of the Sovereign State of Alaska to suffer the ridicule of the rest of the nation if forced to take it down: the sunglasses would have been a dead giveaway that the State symbol was a Californian. Since only the citizens of the former Spanish colony of California could possibly have endured such a slight, the citizens of the former colony of Tsarist Russia: Alaska, withheld their approval of a C*A*N Amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, it was destined to become the law of the land.

A Bonanza came to lawyers. If even remotely pertinent, in every liability claim they obtained from their extensive advertising campaigns, they found it necessary to spend hours determining what the effects of the C*A*N Amendment would be on their case. The financial rewards for doing so were impressive. Their hourly fee for the padded hours they routinely claimed to spend were such that, having found the rewards for their newly-required endeavors so remunerative, and seeing the demand for their services from worried businessmen mushroom, many lawyers stopped ambulance chasing altogether -- and applied their newly-acquired expertise to the far more dignified practice of corporate law. Since a majority of State legislators were lawyers, the speed at which the amendment was approved surprised no one.

Not only did those honest citizens such as lawyers benefit from C*A*N’s being enacted into law, but the crooks in the underworld received an equal opportunity to get rich.. During America’s last bout with prohibition, that of alcohol, organized crime made its big leap forward. In New York, the power of the Mafia, Murder, Inc. and the Westies expanded exponentially. They grew so wealthy that the old-money real-American robber barons got jealous, and honest real-American lawyers like New York’s Thomas Dewey, were empowered to put a halt to the ability of the upstarts to compete in the buying of politicians.

Nevertheless, before their demise, the gangsters reaped enormous rewards from the banning of demon rum. America’s ventures into enforced morality have always led to the creation of a new means of getting rich -- with but minor changes in the major players. As a result, the enactment of the C*A*N Amendment led to the opening up of a whole string of Look-Easies, with “Hugh sent me” becoming the new password for gaining entry.

+

During Prohibition, due to the un-American-type gangster domination of the liquor industry, the revenues from the over-consumption of alcoholic beverages no longer accrued to the sole benefit of the real Americans in Kentucky, Wisconsin  and on Wall Street. However, during the 1920’s, as long as those real Americans were getting rich from the skyrocketing value of their land and their stocks on the Exchange, and since they had no trouble obtaining the best booze, whether it was smuggled into the country, or by their going abroad to drink it, the old-money, real Americans lived and let live. But, once the effects of the Great Depression hit home, resenting the incomes still accruing to the foreign-type crooks, they appealed to America’s always obliging, moral majority, and in 1933 prohibition was repealed -- thereby providing another instance of the upstanding character and innate virtue of America’s middling classes.

+

The deep South was an unexpected beneficiary of C*A*N. Not since WWII did its economy show such strength. With the ban on nudity -- pajamas, nightgowns and undergarments became a must; demand for cotton to manufacture them proved insatiable. Small farms, benefiting substantially from the imbalance between supply and demand, were to produce cotton at a substantial profit. And, to increase supply, cotton pickers, long unemployed, were hired regardless of their experience, race, religion or political affiliation. Nevertheless, there were those staunch supporters of the trickle-down theory who were annoyed that cranes now lifted bales, and tugboats toted barges.

The sun lamp industry, especially in Florida, was another beneficiary of C*A*N.  Citizens and visiting tourists were tanning their behinds and breasts in the privacy of their homes, as well as in motels offering one-hour rates. When made aware that this sort of thing was going on, the senior Senator from New Hampshire made a proposal to make all people, showing any evidence of having a tan, subject to a strip search -- to ensure they had untanned skin on the pertinent portions of their bodies.

The Senator presented an excellent case for his proposal; he compared nudity in the home with the illegal manufacture of bathtub gin during Prohibition. Since tanning oneself in the nude was an obvious intent to circumvent the implementation of C*A*N, it had to be stopped.

However, women’s libbers, even a few avid conservatives, were vociferous in condemning the proposal by the able Senator from New Hampshire for a Strip-and-Search law. They rightfully claimed it was sexist -- only women would be required to exhibit two bands of untanned skin. Moreover, many citizens with darker skins were perplexed by the potential for bias in the application of the law; they could automatically be considered guilty of tanning themselves due to the difficulty they’d have in proving they had an untanned strip of skin -- on the other hand, there were those who were fearful it might exempt them from participation in the most momentous event for America since Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders charged up San Juan Hill. 

The very mention of the possibility of a strip search caused a focus on nudity that the original, Judeo- Christian, fundamentalist backers of the C*A*N Amendment found distasteful.

One of the most controversial points was the focus on that aspect of a male’s manhood. A rivalry, exacerbated by the current conflict in the Near East, became quite heated when those Americans claiming adherence to one or another of the two Monotheistic, Semitic faiths got embroiled in an argument -- in which each claimed to be holier due to their having a less encumbered reproduction mechanism. Meanwhile, tens of millions of other Americans, those whose parents had them relieved of  that excess dermis in the belief it was healthier, told them to stop their quibbling, since it was an Egyptian health-based practice that the Semitic peoples had adopted from that truly-ancient Nile culture. Moreover, those following the Greek tradition of holding God’s handiwork sacred, and not attempting to improve on it, were deeply concerned -- they felt a strip search could subject them to the embarrassment of objective and comparative scrutiny.

Needless to say, the various attributes of women would be only too evident during a strip search -- and the immoral aspects of such viewings were being kicked around in a lascivious manner. At this point, the Senator from New Hampshire withdrew his Strip-and- Search enforcement proposal in support of the Amendment. The Attorney General was both relieved and annoyed that the need to investigate the underground activities of Nudeniks was no longer to be required. In summation, the surreptitious sleeping in the nude and use of sun lamps, continued to undermine the moral fiber of the nation -- this despite the enactment of the C*A*N Amendment.

Moreover, as further proof of America’s fall from grace, and to add insult to injury, the subsequent Repeal Amendment passed in both the Congress and all the State capitols, with far greater speed than had the C*A*N Amendment itself.  The Right to Canners had lost out to the Nudeniks.

So Be It!

VOLUME TWO

CHAPTER FOUR -- Part Four

	When Astrid Hubbel had first entered my room, the atmosphere was much like that of an artist’s studio -- with the arrival of a new model. In each instance the woman was most-certainly aware that her physical appearance was a major factor for her being where she was. The model, once reasonably sure she hadn’t placed herself in an overly compromising position, would relax. Likewise, Astrid Hubbel relaxed, but not until after her first drink. 

	Figurative artists, in anatomy and life drawing classes, are taught to visualize the clothed human body as if nude. Nevertheless, not to appear the hypocrite, and allowing for the variables associated with my emotional state at any given time and place and the various inputs that attracted my attention to any particular lady, the desire to satisfy the curiosity engendered in me has not always been rooted in a disinterested professionalism -- or in an ethereal involvement with a distant esthetic. In truth, at times, I've enjoyed participating in the nonprofessional meanderings of my mind's eye: an occupational hazard, if you will, whereby an artist's supposedly-innocent perusals can turn into oglings pregnant with lust. 

*

U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s admission to having held such thoughts led to his being ridiculed by his conservative opponents. It became a factor leading to his defeat by Reagan (who, having legally dumped his first wife, married a second movie actress). Since it’s human nature to repeat a past success, if folks both at home and abroad were to bear that in mind, they’d have no trouble in understanding why those same conservatives go about playing on the hypocritical bent of America’s religious right to capitalize politically on the sexual indiscretions committed by the relatively-liberal President Clinton.

*

	Nevertheless, insofar as Astrid Hubbel was concerned, I was not conscious of having seriously considered her as anything other than a pleasant and attractive companion in conversation -- and originally gave her, at most, but a fleeting consideration as a sexual object.

	Notwithstanding those near-celibate sentiments, perhaps even acceptable to the most avid of feminists, while waiting for what seemed an interminable length of time for Astrid Hubbel to freshen up, my mind’s eye supplanted my intellectual exploration of the various facets of my guest's feminine mystique -- and I lapsed into reveries exploring her feminine physique. In doing so, I convinced myself that as an artist it would be quite natural to go about visualizing her in the all-together -- which had its difficulties, considering her most unrevealing and commonplace attire. Whether it was a flaw in my character; or the time, the place and the alcohol -- or the basic nature of man -- I proceeded to ignore her most impressive intellectual attributes. Instead, I dove head first into a series of pleasurable what-ifs involving my yet-to- return guest. I would have forgone this mental dalliance, had I reason to believe that the evening, or perhaps I should say morning, would end the way it did. After all, I was only too aware, being a painter, that fantasizing about such things has the effect of dulling one's appetite for the sensations offered by reality: either by anticipating or surpassing them.

*

	My musings were to end when I heard her bolt and padlock the door to her room. Then, upon reentering my room she closed and bolted the door behind her, saying she'd now be less concerned about the safety of her possessions. Then, taking the few steps to my make-shift, desk-top bar, she helped herself to the tepid drink I‘d prepared for her.

	Obviously, Astrid Hubbel had been doing some fantasizing of her own. When I rose to join her in a toast, the look in her eyes was definitely not intended to draw me out in conversation -- intellectual matters were no longer pressing. To raise the question, as to whether or not she was prepared to disrobe as readily when she first entered my room as after her most recent bout of freshening-up, would be uncalled for. It would  be equivalent to destroying the indescribable beauty of a flower to analyze how it goes about enticing bees to pollinate it.

	As a painter, I never used flowers as a subject: I found no personality to uncover. Doing justice to their ethereal charm was beyond my skills -- and, with the possible exception of Monet, I thought it beyond the abilities of all painters.

	With that in mind, I now refrain from describing the details of this romantic interlude. Instead, I’ll leave it to the reader’s imagination, one based on his own personal experiences, to fill in the blanks. Or, as a less apt alternative: leave it to the reader’s perusal of the informative prose and illustrations found in any of the various and sundry sex manuals -- now so readily available -- to enhance the reader’s conception of what took place.

*

	Freed from the necessity of describing the bed-bound gymnastics that normal, healthy adults engage in during a sexual encounter -- especially in this instance when it would serve nothing but a voyeuristic purpose -- I can now go about describing that which serves to explain and elucidate.

*

	During our late evening romantic encounter, I had neither the interest nor the desire to give her body an objective perusal. However, in the morning, through eyes sufficiently free of desire, I had the opportunity to view her free of the encumbrance of her most unrevealing attire. The resultant, dispassionate appraisal proved esthetically most rewarding. I should mention, as a figurative artist, I've painted and drawn countless female bodies; and it was seldom, indeed, that an undraped model ever looked the way you'd have expected -- if you'd seen her only in street clothes. Along those lines, Astrid Hubbel's body looked as good, or better, than I could have imagined.

	Her body was free of any blemishes, firm, yet not muscular, and well-proportioned -- if one allowed for the fact that tall people have longer extremities in relation to their torso than those of normal stature. The opposite holds true in that short women have torsos appearing large in relation to the length of their arms and legs. The tendency for the upper body of all humans to be uniform in size results from the need to have all the same stuff fit inside, regardless of the person's height. In addition, all women require torsos with sufficient room for an average-sized baby to develop, and a bone structure allowing for a good-sized pelvis (which makes for the now in disfavor but once-thought alluring hourglass figure), with an aperture wide-enough for that baby to make an unimpeded entry into the world.  As a by the way, it's to alter the relationship between the length of their limbs and size of their torso that short women wear high heels and tall women wear flats.

	This analytic perusal of Astrid Hubbel's body took place in the morning, shortly after I woke from a sex-induced, sound sleep. She had just reentered the room, still wet after showering, and was standing in front of the mirror drying herself. I said nothing as she went about combing her hair, replacing her makeup, slight as it was, and donning her clothes: she slipped on her undergarments, blouse, full skirt and sandals with little more effort on her part than when she had removed them. Then, as she prepared to leave, she turned towards me -- it was obvious she’d been aware of my watching her all along. With a slight smile on her face, one indicative of an evening of guilt-laden pleasure, she advised me she'd be staying overnight at the hospital. The purpose of her stay was to observe and report on the birthing practices in Indian hospitals -- and most births occur during the evening and early morning hours.

	Our parting was more that of good friends than lovers, and we made no date to meet again. Although, being next-door neighbors, we were well aware we would. She closed the door behind her; and I heard her call out a cheerful "good evening," as I dozed off again. 

CHAPTER FOUR -- Part Five

The Camera’s Lens -- The Artist’s Eye

	Although all non-academic, figurative painting can be considered a manifestation of innumerable minor accidents, retained or rejected as the artist sees fit, the final painting, if the work of a professional, is never an accident.  

	The photographer, as realist, when relating to his object-subject, must weigh the restraints imposed upon his creativity resulting from the limitations inherent in his film and camera. And, although those restraints imposed on the photographer contribute to photography’s shortcomings as an art-making medium, it’s in the limited focusing power inherent in the makeup of the camera that the photographer’s ability to make art flags. 

	The photographer’s means of making a subjective interpretation of an object  into a truly personal vision is dramatically curtailed by the camera’s inability to change focus within the picture frame: all the variables must be determined at the time the button is pressed and the shutter opens. The resultant image displays the relationships of the variables of color (hue, intensity and value) in an infinite variety of sizes and shapes, all determined with little or no input from the photographer. Since only the most elementary of variables are under the control of the photographer, once a final focus point is selected and the button is pressed, he has no alternative -- retouching, intensifying and such notwithstanding -- but to accept the gratuitous random relationships that appear on the printed photo. No matter how brilliant and knowledgeable the photographer, he can only mitigate the limitations of the camera, but he can not surmount them.

	Nonetheless, there’s no intention to downplay the camera’s superiority, especially when enhanced with the use of high-speed film -- as a means of capturing the fleeting moment. Yet, despite those occasions when near-memorable images are captured, it’s invariably due to chance: the camera and object focused on having made the major decisions regarding the detailed makeup of the finished photo.

	The non-academic oil painter also focuses on one given plane -- but it varies from moment to moment. Assuming a hand to eye relationship enabling the innovative artist to apply pigment as he sees fit, when rendering a scene or object, he uses paint according to the dictates of his eyes’ changing focus, as they jump from point to point and plane to plane, as his hand-held brush complies with the whims of both his conscious and subconscious, esthetic interests -- all as he goes about attempting to manifest his vision on canvas.

	Governed by the restrictions imposed upon his creativity by the limitations of his medium, the photographer uses but one controlled focus to capture each unique image on film -- this is much in line with how the academic oil painter or watercolorist goes about producing a painting. He applies pigment to his canvas according to a learned technique -- one that’s based on a near paint-by-numbers approach and that has no focal point whatsoever.

*

	`The lack of potential for exercising artistic prerogatives, or even artistic license, when taking a photo as against painting a picture, becomes obvious when comparing  the options available to painters and photographers, if and when, attempting to create a personal and unique vision of something as seemingly simple as a street scene dominated by a street-level, display window. 

	The photographer may focus on the image appearing on the surface of the window, on the window itself, on any object behind the window, or on anything within the camera’s range that’s included in a picture frame. But here’s the catch: the photographer has no option but to maintain the one focus determined at the instant he causes the shutter to open. In effect, the camera makes the final decision as to what abstractions of a reality appear in the photograph.

	Now, let’s see what limitations are faced by the non-academic painter. Besides having the same option as the photographer to focus on any given object, whereby his focal point determines the picture frame, he has the ability to focus on any object within his view (or that of his mind’s eye, for that matter), making his selections at will during the entire period required to complete his painting -- his limitations being the size of his canvas, not the scope of a picture frame based on a predetermined focal point.

*

	The next time the reader passes an outdoor display window, he might take the opportunity to stop and look at his reflection. Then, if he’s never thought about it before, he’ll  see for the first time just how impossible it is for the photographer to focus on his own mirror-like image and at the same time include a focus on any one or more of the other articles on display -- without shifting focus. A non-academic painter can change his focus during the course of making his painting; the photographer’s focus is immutable. 

	Should an artist include a window in his painting, he must constantly make decisions  as to what to include or exclude, as his focus constantly changes each time his eyes converge on a particular object in any given plane. All the reflected variables of color, light and form found on the surface of the window, and the objects behind it, constantly cry out for inclusion in the painting -- all as the painter’s focus shifts from point to point and  plane to plane -- all within a somewhat flexible picture frame. The final work is the result of the painter’s having the know-how to use a limited palette of opaque colors to transform nature’s endless combinations of infinite variables of color and light into a believable reality on canvas.

	The artist’s experience-influenced, intuitive selection of colors and forms, and its actualization as pigment onto canvas,  must, if fine art, result in a visual experience that exudes a sense of magic: something special for the viewer to behold. That such a painting must be well designed and exhibit a meaningful personal interpretation of the subject matter is a given -- for it’s those added qualities that contribute to the making of great fine art. And, should a painting not be well designed, nor emit a sense of the magical, it’s merely another banal rendering.

*

	Admittedly, this sets high standards for the making of good art, but few should fault it. Although, it must surely make folks ponder just why so little is asked of a photograph and academic painting or, for that matter, paintings by artists deemed politically deserving of acclaim -- that is, unless they look for the usual culprits: money and politics.

	If it were only the profession of the painter that suffered from the elevation of photos to that of fine art there’d be no reason to gripe: those in all professions must make way for the new, adapt to it, or risk being replaced by those who do. But, by having such low standards, it’s modern-day society that’s being short changed.

	The creed of greed permeates the art world, more so than ever before, much as it is in every aspect of life in the so-called advanced societies -- as well as in all the copycat, wannabe-advanced societies -- the world over. As a result, politically-correct, self-absorbed daubings, along with photography and academic drivel are being touted as fine art. Self-righteous, self-serving do-gooders have joined hands with the money-grubbers involved in the manufacture, sale, exhibition and advertising of art supplies, cameras, film, processing and the exhibiting of the end product -- which, like so much contemporary bad art, is displayed, more often than not, for politically-correct reasons. In doing so, the panache of fine art is being bestowed on works that, at best, might be deserving of their hyped-up value, as collectibles -- like baseball cards or postal stamps featuring Princess Di -- but as fine art? 

*

Realism in a painting and academic realism are not synonymous terms.  However, since they overlap in so many ways, the logical assumption is they’re one and the same. And, quite naturally, the question arises: if, indeed, they’re not the same, just how would those differences manifest themselves in a  painting?

Assuming that the work in question is by a knowledgeable, competent and experienced painter: a professional, if you will, the governing factors differentiating a realistic painting from an academic one, is in the motivation for, and  the manner in which an artist goes about using his acquired expertise in making the painting -- and not in its subject matter.

There have been, of course, great artists, the world over, who have transcended the limitations of a strict academic training and created great and enduring works of art, thereby proving that academic painters may very well have the genius and life experiences that would enable them to eventually transcend the inherent limitations of their academic beginnings (although they were few and far between). When academically trained artists begin to see with their own eyes and then incorporate their genius and life experiences into their work, they cease to be academic painters, and then, as interpretive realists may, or may not, turn out good, or even salable work.

It’s the academic aspect of representational painting, whereby the artist continues to see and render in accordance to the manner he was taught, which merely apes the works most admired by the unsophisticated, nouveaux-riches, art buyers, that’s been, and should rightfully continue to be, ridiculed for its banality -- and not realism, per se. Moreover, over the last decades of the twentieth century, even the vast majority of non-objective art has been produced by academically-trained artists producing the same type of commercially oriented crap as do academically-trained realists.

Today’s academicians are produced in university, fine-arts programs. And, for all the stress there on self-expression, it’s rare, indeed, to find evidence of a scintilla of genius in the work produced by those students, even years after their graduation. Lacking the basic skills to be found in even the worst of academic paintings, the potential for graduates of university fine-arts programs for making a meaningful visual statement is all but nil. In the meantime, the old studio-type schools go about catering to the needs of the bored, the neurotic and the aged. 

Contemporary art may not be dead, but since, at best, it’s merely vegetating, it may be time to pull the plug -- and see what its next incarnation will turn out to be.

CHAPTER FOUR -- Part Six

	In describing, from an artist’s point of view, certain aspects of my relationship with Astrid Hubbel, my thoughts ventured on a cause célèbre involving an actress who adopted many children and had a love-child sired by her at-the-time lover: a neurotic mess who, as an actor and writer, made films as a substitute for, or perhaps in addition to, reclining on a shrink's couch.

	Despite both those media-made celebrities having an inordinate love for publicity, one would have thought parental considerations would have prevented them from airing the head-line-producing, tell-all recriminations surrounding their personal lives. However, easy-come-by money sufficed to pay for the services of high-priced lawyers as a means of placating their overabundance of ego -- all of which led to their ignoring their obligations to see to the mental well-being of the many children involved. 

	The upshot of their airing lurid-if-true aspects of their private lives, was that the only verifiable claim of potentially reputation-destroying behavior that came to light was that the man and his de facto stepdaughter had engaged in sexual intercourse -- though, apparently, not until she attained the legal age of consent.

	Now, if not for his having arranged the liaison with the more-than-willing girl by playing artist, I, for one, would have written the whole business off as just another insignificant, much-publicized, mini-Polanski-type, Hollywood escapade -- though it did occur in sophisticated New York. The gentleman, however, claimed the right of artistic privilege when questioned about the propriety of his stepdaughter’s posing nude for him, privately -- one-on-one, so to speak -- and secretly -- none of which should be considered, in any way, a censurable act.  However, since he then went on to screw her, it did cast some doubt on the propriety of it all. In addition, it tended to sully the reputations of both artists and models -- which requires some doing. Moreover, his inferred claim, that the resultant snapshots of his rationalizing endeavors were high art (when it’s common knowledge that only Homo-erotic photos have the right to make such assertions) demeans the integrity of art -- possibly even more than the contemporary trend to consider every scribble, blob and Polaroid  a bona fide work of art -- if produced by a politically-correct person.

	There's more than sufficient information kicking around about the dallying stepfather to enable any interested party to head-shrink his motivation for playing the part of a photographer-artist who, deliberately or not, allows those photos, artsy or not,  to be seen by the child’s adoptive mother -- his paramour. But what was his stepdaughter's motivation for posing in the all-together and subsequently balling her adoptive mother’s lover -- her de facto step-father? 

*

Try as he may, the potential for the photographer to make either an artistic or journalistic statement, let alone create a masterpiece is limited to his ability to work within the boundaries imposed upon him by the idiosyncrasies of his subject-object and the inherent limitations of his camera. The photographer’s ability, to abstract the special qualities of an object and turn it into a photo capable of being taken seriously as fine art, is far more restrictive than for the artist in the graphic and plastic arts. The limitations for artists don’t rest so much with the medium, but in their vision, genius, guts, knowledge and ability to utilize the near-infinite selection of line, color and design that is potentially at their disposal.

*

	Getting back to the photographer in question whose subject/object was a nude, the limitations he faced were such that his chances of successfully producing a work capable of being considered fine art were even slighter than had he photographed an inanimate subject. Since the writer has never seen a posed photo of a nude indicating a personality expressing anything more than a bra cup size or the length of a penis, one can only assume the gentleman was engaging in self-deluding rationales when claiming the nude photographs of the adoptive sister of his love-child were art. By the gentleman’s screwing his de facto adoptive daughter during her nude modeling sessions -- there remains little room for further speculation. Although, the prominence and wealth of the gentleman involved, all of which afforded him more than ample opportunity to satisfy himself, both ego-wise and testosterone-wise -- does lead one to believe the gentleman should have changed his shrink -- long before the episode took place. 

*

Now, let’s go to the relationship that exists between a dedicated painter and his model. While ignoring all aspects of the interplay of personalities, both endeavors, contrary to common opinion, require a commitment: the model to work with the artist to get a good pose, and then to hold it for extended periods of time; the artist to use the model in such a fashion that enables him to attempt to produce a work of art.

For decades, from the 1960’s on, almost all good painter’s models were young females from secure middle-class backgrounds. Most had posed at one or many of the major art schools or professionally-run independent drawing studios. Many were dancers, students from top colleges or art schools. Would-be actresses made the worst models: always playing a role -- and, unless an artist is trying to paint a nude who’s playing the role of a model -- forget it. Poor young women tend not to pose in the nude: for them it’s tantamount to being a hooker, and an underpaid one at that.

Moreover, any romantic notions artists’ models might harbor are soon eroded by the realities of the profession -- posing is hard work. What keeps them modeling is certainly not the money: their wages are nominal, at least when employed by bona fide artists or art organizations -- it’s the need to enhance their self-esteem. Coming from the broad spectrum of America's catchall, middle class, they quite naturally have their share of insecurities. Although there’s a whole litany of reasons why young women pose in the nude, most young models share, with a diversity of their contemporaries, anxieties related to their desirability as women.

Many good models are loath to pose privately for an artist unknown to them, even when recommended. They tell of going to pose only to have the self-proclaimed artist: leer at them while scribbling; make a cash proposition; spend the whole time trying to seduce them; or chase them around the studio until they quit, get dressed and leave. Occasionally they’d pose for an artist, almost always an elderly and lonely man, who would just talk to them, serve them food, and treat them with the utmost respect -- as if on a date, the question of actually posing, or his making any unwanted proposition, never arising.

Although all that might satisfy a need to feel physically desirable, it's not exactly the kind of reinforcement they were looking for: the one allowing them to rationalize their displaying themselves in the nude -- the one giving them the bona fides as professional artists' models -- with all of its romantic connotations, but sans the blatant sexual overtones.

CHAPTER FOUR -- Part Seven

The Perfect Model

	They had a great model booked for their class. The models they had been assigned for the last three poses were bad.  There was the anorexic dancer with bulging eyes, freckles and an overall bland beige coloring, who pointed a sparsely covered pubic area in the direction of any presentable male she thought capable of tantalizing. Then there was the fifty-ish Amazon -- a veritable Venus of Willendorf -- with huge breasts that covered her ribcage and flowed down to a bellybutton that was partially hidden by a roll of fat -- her hips had no definition, and viewed from the rear she appeared a solid blob of flesh -- with a razor-thin vertical line delineating her buttocks. The last model was a middle-aged man with blotched skin, sagging muscles and a pot belly, who took macho poses stressing his overall effeminate appearance.

	Whether the instructor for the class was out of favor with the office personnel, or it was merely a matter of chance, this class had been relegated the three worst models that had ever passed through the school. But now, like children told of a future treat for having taken their medicine, they were promised the beautiful new model, Miss O’Murphy, who was to start her New York modeling career with a two-week pose in their class.

	It was this class’s practice to have the model take quick poses for an hour before selecting one for their painting. Every gesture of Miss O’Murphy was the embodiment of grace and beauty. The lines of her body were soft and flowing -- evincing a healthy and lithe muscle structure -- her torso had a delicate definition of a kind seldom found in anatomy books. Her proportions were perfect: one head length from chin to nipple; another from nipple to bellybutton; and yet another from bellybutton to the convergence of the inner thighs with her pubic patch. Her legs were slightly longer than average -- just enough to avoid the dumpy appearance of a David nude: a look many modern women, who now forego spike heels, avoid by wearing precariously-high, platform shoes, and designer jeans that make their legs appear to stem from their navel.

	Each day Miss O’Murphy arrived exactly on time, appearing both frumpy and insignificant. Then, adjacent to the model stand situated at the far end of the studio, she proceeded to undress. From her head, with its mop of curly, unkempt light-brown hair, she removed a formless, man’s gray felt hat. She then proceeded to take off: a crumpled, oversized, blue denim shirt; unpolished army combat boots; white athletic socks; baggy tan chino trousers; and, finally, unalluring plain underpants -- dropping them one by one in a neat pile. Usually models undress behind a screen, and then emerge wearing a grubby dressing gown -- not our Miss O’Murphy. She just went about removing her clothes in a natural, matter-of-fact manner, in full view of the class. Then, after waiting bare and motionless for a split second, she mounted the model stand.

	And, that’s when the crazy transformation took place. She changed from a naked girl into a magnificent nude woman. Miss O’Murphy, once on the model stand, had that same distant sensuality radiating from her body as a marble statue by Houdon -- the kind of sensuality that gives the viewer a subdued sensation of erotic pleasure. 

	A least demanding pose was selected by the instructor, monitor and students. It was a pose intended to cause her but a modicum of discomfort: one capable of distributing her body weight over as many resting points as possible -- while attempting to have her physical attributes in full view of the entire class.

	The result was a typical art-school pose. A simple, bent-wood, cafe-type chair with a not overly-clean, sponge-rubber mat on its seat was placed backwards on the model stand. Upon it, Miss O’Murphy sat facing the class. Her legs straddled the back of the chair, her feet placed solidly to each side. She sat there facing the class, back bent slightly forward, chin on  overlapping arms resting on the curved back of the chair.

	Normally, a pose such as this, so judiciously arranged in an effort to afford the model as much comfort as possible -- is a bore capable of dulling the  fervor of any artist -- but not with a model of such beauty. Miss O’Murphy had to be pampered. She was to be the inspiration for every student’s soon-to-be-created masterpiece. She was to inspire them to paint a nude worthy of sharing a wall with any of Renoir’s Bathers; or Ingres’ Odalisque; Corregio’s Antiope; Giorgione’s sleeping Venus; Manet’s Olympia.

*

	Despite the non-demanding pose, or perhaps as a result of it, Miss O’Murphy became bored. The poses ran for twenty minutes, with a five-minute rest between sets. During those breaks, to counter her boredom, she’d don her oversized shirt, slip into loosely-laced combat boots and stroll around the studio inspecting the students’ paintings.

	These meanderings continued for several days. To her the students’ work, instead of improving, only got worse. All of which made her more and more restless. When back on the stand and into her pose, Miss O’Murphy let her mind dwell on the student’s paintings. She imagined that many of the students actually saw her with: ugly, raw-orange skin; huge malformed feet; and crossed eyes.

	Miss O’Murphy thought about the art students she’d known when attending college. Their paintings of nudes appeared every-bit as grotesque as these. Nevertheless, those college students were very convincing when rationalizing the accidental distortions in their paintings -- claiming they were exactly what they wanted. They would spend hours describing just what each little sign of their incompetence meant. Consequently, she became surer and surer that the students, for whom she was now modeling, had also painted her exactly as they saw her.

*

	While the students had, without the slightest doubt, believed Miss O’Murphy, as their muse, would have them creating their heretofore elusive masterpiece -- she, in turn, had believed them capable of immortalizing her in their paintings.

	With each passing day, more and more students were to blame Miss O’Murphy for their shortcomings as artists.  The slightest movement,  from a wisp of her hair to the extension of a pinkie, caused them great distress. 

	She, in turn, became distraught at the thought of being immortalized as the students portrayed her. She decided: the painting by the balding, bearded gentleman, in which a grotesque figure with a hand minus the ring finger, indicated the artist’s desire for her, but not in marriage; the student who gave her an oversized head thought she was conceited; the smartly- dressed woman who painted her hair as if it were an ill-fitting wig was telling the world that Miss O’Murphy’s naturally-curly hair was not naturally curly.

	By the time she gave consideration to those paintings in which she was depicted as having lop-sided breasts; a pubic patch resembling a divot of grass; or with knock knees; pigeon toes; a huge outie bellybutton; buttocks under the shoulder blades; and calves of gargantuan proportions -- she had worked up a rage and actual hatred for every member of the class. Fuming, she stalked off the stand, vowing never to pose again.

	The students in the class are still looking for the perfect model -- the one who will inspire them to greatness.

*

	Let’s now return to the stepdaughter who was posing in the nude for her de facto, adoptive father. Although few skills of an artist are required to be a good photographer, one should have the skills and technical knowledge sufficient to make manifest what he intends to replicate. As a result, the subject matter, which, these days, would probably be considered banal if that of an oil painting, is the controlling factor in a photo. Furthermore, while allowing for the unexcelled ability of the camera to capture the fleeting moment -- its reportorial abilities, if you will, and giving full credit for the ability of the exceptional photographer to produce an artistic rendition of a person, place or thing, in a variety of interesting and even fabulous environments, the appeal of a photo, is its voyeuristic nature. This is true, especially when the subject is a nude. And, even when the sitter manages to manifest a cliché sensitivity or depth of character, a photographer can't dig deeper than the surface of the subject. That's all she wrote -- there isn't any more.

*

There may appear to be a few exceptions, but on analysis they’re invariably the result of a photographer’s taking innumerable photos, with one just happening to capture a compelling sensitivity -- which may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the particular sitter. 

*

	So what’s the upshot of all this: we have the stepdaughter going to her famous stepfather's apartment where he proceeds to photograph her in the nude as an excuse to lay her. This satisfies the young lady's need to prove her desirability and to steal papa away from mama; while he gets even with mama for neglecting him, or whatever -- all in the name of Art! 

	If this were not enough, to add insult to injury, half-a-dozen years or so later, our aging hero married the girl, perhaps out of true love, but more likely to vindicate his having screwed her: the adopted daughter of the mother of his own love child.

CHAPTER FIVE - Part One-A

	Several days were to elapse before I’d see Astrid Hubbel again. In the interim: the destruction of the Moslem, Babri structure at Ayodhya had taken place, and an all-day curfew was put into effect throughout the combined cities of Hyderabad-Secondabad -- limited, after a few days, to the old section around Char Mina. Nevertheless, untroubled by the fallout from the Ayodhya affair, the statue of Lord Buddha proceeded to be permanently installed on its pedestal in Hussain Sagar. Meantime, all residents from the surrounding areas were required to check out of the Yatri Nivas and return to their homes: which, in turn, allowed me the opportunity to interact informally with an increased diversity of middle-class Indians living and working in the general vicinity, as well as with those Indians passing through Hyderabad: many of whom had been left stranded as a result of the precautionary measures taken by the government, while others, like myself, remained at the government-run hotel for the usual reasons of price and convenience.

*

My having an Indian father had the effect of removing many of the barriers to having a candid exchange of ideas with a diversity of people -- one normally denied to most Americans. Unfortunately, despite my returning yearly to India -- spending over two years during the course of seven visits -- my ability to communicate was limited to English-speakers. Nevertheless, with the assistance of body language and facial expression, seemingly universally understood, plus the assistance of an often-available translator, I managed to relate to Indians with a wide range of backgrounds -- folks from most segments of the Subcontinent who differed in occupation, education, income, religion, ethnicity and caste. Making up for my linguistic shortcomings (there are some fifteen different official Indian languages) was fairly easy, most Indians respond positively to a sincere, non-judgmental interest in their country and culture. In addition, since English is usually taught as a second or third language throughout the Subcontinent, not only did it facilitate my communicating with a rich diversity of India’s much-varied population, but I had the feeling that many were glad to have the opportunity to practice using it.  

*

	Some of those folks I met while in Hyderabad included: government employees and a few of their families and friends; business executives, conventioneers and local businessmen: many of whom frequented the same nearby, upscale Western-type bar cum restaurant that I occasionally did -- it remained cautiously-open during the curfew; families of tourists and relatives of patients staying at the nearby world-class hospitals; members and their guests at the discotheque in the posh new country club -- most of whose members were the progeny of the well-to-do nouveaux riches; and numerous artists and art students from the College of Art and Architecture.

	Between my having had a bout with the runs, the curfew, and my having made friends in Hyderabad, I remained put for well over a month. This offered me the opportunity to observe or take part in the activities and customs of a diversity of Indians. It also allowed me to witness the workings of a facet of Andra Pradish’s bureaucratic pecking-order: one dictated by considerations of class, caste, religion and politics -- in the West this would come under the heading of politics as usual. And, it did serve to confirm the common-held belief that, although some form of government is essential for the smooth running of any society, and despite democracy’s being the fairest way to select one’s government -- any government is but a necessary evil -- no more, no less. 

*

	Violent eruptions of barbarity by an otherwise peaceful and complaisant people can't really be attributed to a single incident, no matter how outrageous the triggering event might appear at first glance. The rioting in India during the winter of 1992-93, which was seen as a direct result of the deliberate destruction of the Babri structure; Mogul victory monument?; Moslem mosque?; Converted ancient Hindu temple?; -- was no exception.

	To place the Ayodhya episode in a perspective non-Indians might understand, it’s considered the birthplace of Rama by His Hindu worshippers who believe Rama to be an avatar of their Deity Vishnu. The attitude of many Hindus towards Ayodhya might best be compared to that of Christians towards Bethlehem -- and the relationship of Rama to Vishnu with that of Christ to Jehovah. 

*

Since it’s a commonplace attitude for people to consider the historical aspects of someone else’s religion mythical, and the mythological aspects of their own religion as God’s given truth, the very thought of making such a comparison will, no doubt, meet with disdain, if not open hostility by the West’s fundamentalist and many run-of-the-mill, Judeo-Christian religionists.

The history of India’s still-worshipped God(s), when given any thought in the West, is considered mythical, which, to the extent that all religions are, it may well be. However, with the exception of a minuscule few intellects, the followers of the West’s monotheistic religions ignore every aspect of Hinduism -- as they go about ridiculing anyone taking that ancient religion’s history seriously -- while at the same time treating anyone rash enough to compare India’s God(s) with the various facets of their One-and-Only God as the anti- Christ.  

*
	In retrospect, the structure demolished at Ayodhya by a group of Hindu religious fanatics, had little comparable value as a religious structure to Moslems. What then caused such a violent reaction by Moslems to  the reclamation of the Babri structure by Hindus -- for whom it had a major religious significance?

	It’s only when considering the plight of Moslems throughout the West, that the vehement reaction throughout Islam to the demolition of the Babri structure, can be understood.
	Although this particular outburst of riotous mayhem may very well be peculiar to India, the accumulation of events leading to the reactive rioting by Moslems and the countering riots by Hindus had little, or nothing, to do with virulent religious intolerance, as such. India, being the world’s most populous functioning democracy -- with the world's most ancient of all continuous, still-existent civilizations, suffers from the same problems as do all democratic, multi-ethnic societies, in that the more elite amongst those in the majority, in this case Hindus, tend to occupy the positions of authority. It was due to the attempts on the part of her nationally-elected representatives, for whatever their reasons -- though probably exemplary -- to compensate for those inequities, that claims of reverse discrimination were heard by the less fortunate members of the Hindu majority.

*

There were many well-to-do members of every segment of Indian society who, being fearful of losing their dominant position, were vocal in opposing opportunities to any and all of India’s underclasses. But, mind you, this fear-motivated, bigotry, one that rationalizes resistance to change by those benefiting unfairly from the disproportionate distribution of a nation’s wealth, is a problem faced by every government, worldwide.

Nevertheless, in present-day India, that opposition to sharing the nation’s wealth with her economically disenfranchised underclasses -- by obstructing governmental attempts to compensate them for the social and economic inequities carried over from her colonial past, is every bit as demeaning to present-day unfortunates as colonial rule had been for all Indians -- even those now occupying the nation’s former, no-Indians-allowed private clubs. When Indians who are well-off imitate the attitudes of their long-since-gone colonial betters in their dealings with India’s own needy, they not only threaten the loss of their own special privileges, but they make for the very likely turning of India’s huge underclass population away from their dedication to the principles of a somewhat-socialist democracy with its major allowances for free enterprise, to that of a socialistic totalitarian state.

India needn’t follow the lead of those Pacific-rim nations who, in attempting to obtain the non-essential gewgaws of the West for their upper classes, were only too willing to trade away the freedom and culture of their hoi polloi. By the last decades of the twentieth century those emerging economic tigers were looking more like pussy cats as they allowed themselves to be recolonized by the big-buck multi-nationals -- the beneficiaries of the much touted “New World Order”. One wonders if the make-a-quick-buck citizens of those Pacific-rim nations will manage to maintain at least some semblance of home rule for themselves once the big-buck multi-nationals gain still greater control over their economies -- as they seem destined to do.

  *

	As a result of freedom of the press (which of course is an intrinsic input to any functioning democracy), the all-too-frequent instances of malfeasance and graft-taking by long-term incumbents: an intrinsic input to a well-functioning democracy, though endemic amongst officials of all types of government, is continuously being made manifest. As a consequence, in India, newspapers routinely expose and condemn the taking of graft or other illegal dealings by a number of India’s politicians -- though much of this results from the paying of extremely low wages to government officials who are responsible for the allocation of huge sums of the Indian taxpayers’ money. Nevertheless, it was the Indian public’s awareness of such malfeasance, when added to the frustrations of the poorest of higher-caste Hindus, that had them taking matters into their own hands. 

	The caste system is much more complex than the overly simplistic divisions of Indian society they’re thought to be in the West. Though, for the most part, upper-caste Hindus are far better off financially than are Sudras and tribals, there are any number of high-caste Hindus who are every bit as poor as are the majority in the Scheduled Castes. Since there’s no one-to-one correlation between caste and income-based class, when members of the Scheduled Classes and minority religions were given special consideration -- where higher education and government jobs were concerned (though normally with much justification), the government’s approach to solving India’s socio-economic problems by attempting to facilitate the entry of those unfortunates into India’s social and economic mainstream, was considered just another aspect of crooked, political pandering -- one paid for at the expense of the Hindu majority. The destruction of the Babri structure was an apparent effort by Hindus to assert their majority-rights on religious grounds. 

	Though not the total story, by far, these were major factors contributing to the attempt by Hindus to assert their authority in Ayodhya.

*

	Followers of every religion in predominantly Hindu India are as free to practice their religion, if not more-so, than are non-Christians in predominantly Christian Europe and America, and have unquestionably more freedom to do so than they’d have in the vast majority of all other nations  -- whether or not theocracies. In India, there are no legal restrictions placed on non-Hindus due to their religion -- if anything, Indian law makes special allowances for them. Moslems are freed from abiding by many of the same rules that other Indians are obliged to follow -- especially those where a broad range of religion-based family matters are concerned (which is one of the gripes Hindu nationalists have).

	Though there’s no questioning the religious aspects of the rioting at Ayodhya, they were exacerbated by a poverty- induced dissatisfaction, by both Hindus and Moslems, with their lot in life. Few, if any, of India’s better-off members of her burgeoning two-hundred-million-strong, middle class were involved in the rioting; the riots occurred in areas where poor Hindus and poor Moslems came in direct contact -- and where they compete for economic survival. Not only were the overwhelming majority of India's seven-hundred-million-plus Hindus not involved in any aspect of those post-Ayodhya riots, but only a tiny and insignificant fraction of her one hundred million-plus Moslems were involved.	

*
	Moslems throughout the world feel threatened and vulnerable. Wherever they turn the believers in Islam are being humiliated -- when not individually murdered or massacred en mass by the followers of one or the other Judeo-Christian religions: Pakistanis in England; Turks in Germany; Bosnians and ethnic Albanians in the Balkans; North Africans in France; and Palestinians and Iraqis in their homelands. Moreover, Moslems are being subjected to a debasing, subservient status throughout the oil-rich kingdoms on the Persian Gulf. The Arab Emirs, Princes, Kings and what have you, are, at best, allowed to rule their countries, much as the Nizam of Hyderabad was allowed to rule by the Brits -- as long as they do the West’s bidding, and keep their people in line (the West makes no demands for democratic reforms there). With this in mind, it can readily be seen why Moslems felt called upon to defend their faith and vent their outrage so violently over the Ayodhya incident.

	Aside from its symbolism, the destructive reclamation of an otherwise relatively unimportant Moslem structure, by an overzealous small group, by Indian standards, of Hindus, was a non-event. Nevertheless, the retaliatory over-reaction to the disorder caused by a tiny minority of India's Moslem citizenry brought about, what many observers corroborated, their brutal suppression by government forces. That excessive use of force against Moslems in putting a halt to the rioting, plus the attempt by the Moslem Pakistani government to add fuel to an already volatile situation, were said to be the major factors in keeping the whole business going for as long as it did.

*
		
	At first glance it might seem odd that it was in India, where Moslems have true equality under the law, that the frustration-bred rioting broke out. Hindus and Moslems have managed to live together in relative harmony for centuries -- albeit, with occasional, major, violent emotional outbursts: notably the violent turmoil and bloodletting that followed India's ill-conceived partition along religious lines half a century ago. But even that violence was slight compared to the many multi-million, religion-based killings committed over the past few hundred years by Europeans -- ostensibly for the sole reason they differed with one another in their interpretation of various aspects of the very-same, Judeo- Christian Bible. Though, no doubt, economically and politically motivated, some of the most murderous outrages in Europe occurred during a dispute regarding the ritual of Baptism -- one group believing themselves closer to their God if dunked twice -- the other professing that once was sufficient -- or perhaps it was vice versa.	 		

	In both India, and abroad, the mayhem resulting from the Ayodhya business received tremendous media coverage. But, for all its emotional ferocity, and the potential, though quite slight,  for its leading to an inexorable building up of divisive forces, perhaps so strong it could destroy India as a democratic nation, one should keep in mind that the death count due to the three months of sporadic rioting throughout India, would be no more than that due to murder in my native city of New York during the course of  any one of a number of more or less concurrent years. At that time New York City's population was less than one percent of India's then eight hundred and fifty million. Moreover, during India's riotous winter of 1992-1993, I walked, without incident, in Moslem areas of Hyderabad and Ahmedabad -- yet, during that same period, some half-dozen German tourists were murdered in the Miami area of Florida -- alone.

*

	Any attempt to get at the root of India's particular brand of fraternal strife, as manifested by the violence occurring in the aftermath of the assertion of primacy by the Hindu far-right at Ayodhya, will necessitate going back to India’s cultural beginnings -- which date back to a carbon-dated pre-history originating tens of thousands of years ago on the Indian subcontinent. Nevertheless, it should suffice for the nonce to start with the founding of the Indus-valley, Harappan civilization with its origins dating back some five to eight thousand years or more -- a civilization coeval with that of ancient Egypt and Sumer.

	In the early 1800’s, when a Brit first stumbled on the still-standing cities remaining from the ancient Indus River civilization, their archaeological significance was ignored -- but not their existence. When the Brits, within decades of their discovery, in order to facilitate the extraction of India’s wealth and the movement of their troops, built their railroads, the bricks from those ancient sites were broken up and used to form the foundations on which to lay the tracks.

	No one would deny the Brits the all-too-obvious right to claim ignorance as an excuse for their having destroyed a significant part of India’s heritage (along with her forests to obtain wood for ties and fuel) when laying the foundation for India’s railroad system. Nevertheless, there can be no excuse for the formulators of our modern-day, Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian, politically-correct world histories to deny India’s multi-millennia-long contributions to contemporary universal culture -- let alone ignore the very existence of that ancient culture as being an Indian thing. In addition, even on those rare occasions when India is begrudgingly given credit for initiating a smattering of what they actually did contribute to what is currently called Western culture, its pertinence is played down -- to the degree that it’s implied to have been next to nil. 

	The original sources of the inputs from those cultures that were not credited with it in the Judeo-Christian Bible, but are now known to have been instrumental in forming the basis of our contemporary, one-world civilization, along with the effects those contributions have on damn-near every aspect of the world’s most advanced concepts, have been deliberately truncated, misattributed, ignored or deleted from the annals of the West’s claimed-to-be-objective history of Western civilization -- often disingenuously claimed to be the history of the world. And, what adds to India’s problems is that that biased history is the one the vast majority of Indian students are taught -- and not only when abroad for graduate studies -- but when learning English in Indian schools ranging from K-6 to her most prestigious universities.

*

The very existence of those civilizations emanating from the East -- vital before and beyond Biblical time and place -- has been deliberately ignored if not erased from the West’s group memory – this, despite the Bible’s creators having appropriated the history of those ancient cultures and then attributing it to the history of the West’s Judeo-Christian, Biblical ancestors.

Since at least the mid-eighteen hundreds, wherever the West dominated, only that scientific data reinforcing a Euro-centric view of world history was publicized -- which, as often as not, was a subjective presentation of well- documented, self-serving half-truths. Ergo, the civilizations emanating from the East before and beyond Biblical time and place were, and all too often continue to be ignored by all but the most-erudite works on world history and archaeology -- and, bear in mind, those high-brow works are not and never were intended for popular consumption.

 A case in point would be the reviews of an exhibit (in 1998) put on by the Asia Society in New York -- an honest and fair, though guarded presentation of the Subcontinent’s ancient Indus River, Harappan civilization. The reviewers for the city’s major newspaper went to great pains to discount every aspect of the exhibit that could possibly counter the synthetic Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian history of the world’s cultural evolution: one that is still being employed as a means of justifying the West’s economic and political domination of the “Third World”: a designation that has become synonymous with “Lands of Inferior Peoples”. 

*

	Trendy, modern, Western historians, with their Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian, materialistic mind-set, and despite their avowed scientific approach to what actually transpired in our cumulative past -- going back to our evolutionary beginnings, find it difficult, if not impossible, even at this late date, to include historical data, no matter how substantial, that contradicts or even detracts from the linear interpretation of a Bible-based  history  -- one compiled by the seventy Rabbis who created the earliest existent version of the Old Testament -- the Book they wrote in Greek and completed in the second century B.C. (which is the reason why such a fuss is made about the Dead Sea scrolls, despite their having been written down in Aramaic, albeit some two- hundred-odd years later). Even the overwhelming majority of the West’s astro-physicists have  been so indoctrinated with a belief that the understandably, ignorance-based explanations for our existence found in the Judeo-Christian Bible are valid, that they created a big-bang theory so as to confirm that there was an: “In the beginning ...”.  Apparently, they just never gave thought to the possibility that maybe: there just ain’t never was no beginning -- or perhaps, if they did, they were reluctant to express their  views -- not willing to suffer the fate of Galileo by fostering the wrath of our current crop of threatened-by-the-truth, religious fanatics.

	Europe’s recently evicted colonizers had used the Bible’s ignorance-based history of civilization to rationalize the taking of a promised land inhabited by another peoples. And, Western historians tend to include only those occurrences allowing for a justification of an economic morality derived from a cunning interpretation of the Bible -- a morality that advances the concept of a “New World Order” -- whose more recent beneficiaries include, besides the biggies of the West and the Japanese, the Chinese: who, by virtue of their nation’s being a military and economic threat are, much as were the Japanese, in the process of being dubbed honorary, Judeo-Christian Euro-Caucasians.

CHAPTER FIVE - Part One-B

	In any attempt to analyze the why and what for of the Ayodhya incident it's really necessary to go back to the Aryan invasion of India, which began somewhat less than 4000 years ago. As is the nature of man, within but a few centuries, both the integration of the culture as well as the genes of the Aryan Caucasians (a wandering warlike people) and the indigenous, Indo-Caucasians (urbanized-merchants and agriculturists of the Harappan Indus River civilization), was well on its way. Although there was much mixing throughout the Subcontinent, the more Aryan peoples tended to preponderate  in the Northwest, while the Dravidians (those direct offshoots of the Harappans, with their Indus River culture going back to at least 6000 B.C.), are most prevalent in the Eastern and Southern segments of the Subcontinent. However (notwithstanding a relatively more-recent, rigid caste system), a near total mix of both the genetic and cultural inputs of both the indigenous Harappans cum Dravidians with those of the Aryan invaders out of the northwest, were to take place throughout the Gangetic plain. And, it’s there, on the Gangetic plain, where the ancient city of Ayodhya was founded.  

*

The ancient Harappans had the wheel, wagons, woven cotton cloth, a standardized system of weights and measures, sea-going vessels, the swastika (as a symbol of well-being), metal castings, jewelry, a written language -- and dice (all of which, amongst others, are part and parcel of modern-day India). Though the writing of the Harappans has yet to be deciphered, the language is generally accepted as being the source of modern-day Tamil and other Dravidian-root languages. The ancient language of the Indus culture, with its 400-plus symbols, remains undeciphered, no doubt due to a lack of interest on the part of Euro-centric scholars: both Indian and non-Indian.

The Aryans, meanwhile,  were to contribute Sanskrit, the horse and the roots of the caste system with its military and shaman dominance.

*

	According to Indian philosophical conjecturing, eternity has always been an infinitely longer period of time than in the Western world, which is a finite one ranging from some four to five thousand years for the fundamentalist ignoramuses, and on up to fifteen billion years, or so,  for those claiming knowledge of the workings of the cosmos. As a consequence, the details and dating of the lives of every insignificant tyrant, known only for the number of his enemies killed, people enslaved, lands conquered and wives he bedded and beheaded were not maintained in India with the diligence they were in the West. Therefore, lacking such momentous knowledge, the reader’s indulgence is required to believe that the millennia-plus period between the time of the Aryan invasions and the birth of Buddha, saw India in a state of flux -- and, considering that the entire subcontinent of India is substantially larger and more populous than all of Western Europe (with its constantly-in-a-state-of-war past), that India too had her internecine warfare. Since India’s philosophers came up with the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, some thousands of years before the brilliant Italian, Machiavelli, and his adherents, it would tend to give a validity to that assumption.

	As in feudal Europe, it mattered little to the non-combatants in pre-Christian-era India who won or lost a war. Apparently, much like Europe’s nobles, India’s Kshatriyas, the members of the fighting caste, which included Maharajas to knights to foot soldiers -- were in constant, deadly struggles with one another for primacy, if not survival. And, at the same time, there was, at least in India, a non-warlike struggle between the Kshatriyas (nobles) and the Brahmans (priests) for primacy of caste -- all of which worked to shape India's political future.

	From at least the seventh century B.C., Indians, reacting against the self-serving rituals of the Aryanized Brahman, began a return to the still vibrant spiritual values and morality of the early Indus-valley civilization: which served as the basis for the moral concepts of the universally-known Buddha and the India-bound Jains’ Mahavera; it also served as the source of  the spiritual and moral ethos of early pre-materialist Christianity.

*

	Alexander's incursion into the border areas of the Indian subcontinent -- so important to Western historians with their Euro-centric approach to world history -- was just another of those minor events (as far as its influence on India) blown out of all proportion to its true significance. Although there’s no record in India of any incursion by Alexander, Europhiles, as preposterous as it is, when they mention India at all, are known to claim India’s cultural heritage resulted from that event: Alexander’s pin-prick raid into the north-eastern sector of the Subcontinent. They even attribute India’s becoming the greatest empire the world had known, that of the Maurya Indian dynasty, which, by a coincidence of fate, began its ascendancy over the entire Subcontinent at a time concurrent with the defeated Alexander’s ferrying his devastated and exhausted, raiding army back West from whence it came.

	Since every aspect of world history has been subjectively edited by the West’s chauvinistic Euro-centric historians, it’s little wonder they’ve ignored the very existence of the Indian Ashoka, one of the world’s truly-great rulers. The Empire-Brits suppressed knowledge of him for fear of telling the world, and reminding Indians, of India’s majestic past. In the third century B.C., after engaging in and winning a particularly bloody battle, Ashoka renounced war, and then dedicated his authority, wealth and the remainder of his life to the spreading of Buddhism throughout the entire Subcontinent -- from where it was to spread, in every direction, throughout the then more-or-less civilized world.    

	(If India’s nobles reacted to Alexander’s raid, at all, it’s just possible that it caused them to unite as a means of defending themselves against a perceived threat by a greed-motivated alien peoples -- much as it did Americans after the Japanese, during WWII, lobbed a few shells from a submarine into California.) 

	Despite Alexander's intrusion past the borders of what is now Western Pakistan being as insignificant an event as when the Japs shelled California, the tale is routinely taught in American high school, history classes -- as a major event. But, it's doubtful that even in college, world-history classes, they ever mention Ashoka: the ruler instrumental in spreading Buddhism throughout the Subcontinent and laying the groundwork for the dissemination of its morality worldwide. And, although, in the West, Buddhism’s turn-the other-cheek ethic was a basic belief of the early Church Fathers, it’s been ignored for over a thousand years, while being supplanted by that of the Mosaic an eye-for-an-eye.

	 The Western ruler who might best be compared with Ashoka was the much extolled Emperor Constantine who, some half-millennium after Ashoka, allowed Christianity to be practiced along with all the other religions then prevalent throughout the Roman Empire. No doubt, the justification for granting Constantine sainthood was due to his bringing a halt (despite their refusal to honor him as a God) to the wanton murdering of those claiming to be Christians. Nevertheless, by giving them the same privileges as the followers of other religions practiced throughout the Roman Empire (which was, at the time, a political ploy), he was to eventually gain the support of a troublesome group of Roman citizens. How? After stopping the persecutions, he deigned to give an audience to their bickering leaders at the Asia Minor city of Nicaea. There, he mediated their differences. Then, perhaps as a means of proving his Christian credentials, in the ensuing years he went about murdering those Christians not accepting the consensus opinions reached at that council. 

	Claims made by the Church, of Constantine’s having made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire appear erroneous. The very existence of the Pantheon, well after the fall of Rome, should be sufficient to prove that claim false. Moreover, although quoted as saying he had miraculously seen a fiery cross in a dream, it was assumed he then converted to Christianity -- but the sainted Constantine wasn’t baptized until many years later: when on his deathbed. At most, he allowed Christianity to coexist alongside the many religions then being practiced throughout the Empire. Fabrications intended to enhance the status of a religion were no more rare than those committed now as a means of furthering national interest.

CHAPTER FIVE -- Part Two

	As even the most avid Atheist must admit, the belief in a God or Gods has its good side: it’s known to cause some amongst the believers to create great works of art honoring Him, Her, It, Them. One need only consider the decorative and plastic arts: murals, paintings, sculptures, illuminations, miniatures, calligraphy; or epic poetry and prose: the Vedas, the Book of the Dead, the Iliad, the Bible, the Koran, the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Siddhartha; and in music: ragas, monastic chants, psalm singing, spirituals, oratorios, Ave Maria. Nevertheless, the impetus for the deliberate development of formally-structured religion was, allowing for all its political ramifications, due to its ability to provide a means for a select few to benefit materially, on a sustained basis, from having convinced the lay authority of their control over the gullible masses who, in turn, were convinced of the church’s ability to intercede on their behalf with their God(s).

*

	From the time of mankind’s earliest beginnings, in one of those quirks of logic, as he gained more knowledge he became more aware of his ignorance. This, in turn, led to his fear of the unknown -- and then to a need to alleviate that fear. What was the most troubling of all the unknowns? Those associated with death.

	Certain members of a clan, possibly acting through an honest belief in the existence of God(s) and that they were indeed His earthly vicars, were to become the self-appointed representatives of what may very well have been their very-own Creation(s). These, perhaps well-meaning, charlatans, or at best self-deluded crackpots, then proceeded to convince their newly-formed flock of their having a direct wire to their God(s). Our shamans, by inventing a logic capable of placating the anxieties in their fellow tribesmen -- those resulting from the uneasiness due to their newfound awareness of the inevitability of death -- were, at the same time, able to provide for their own material security as they went about securing a preeminent position within the clan.
 
*

One of the most significant means of differentiating contemporary, adult humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is that animals, no matter how old, give no indication of having acquired an awareness of the possibility, let alone the inevitability of non-causal death. Moreover, even on the off chance they’re aware of it, in the most interdependent non-human societies, no equivalent of a clergyman can be found. There’s no evidence that free-rides are given to a preacher by ants, bees, termites, lions, orangutans, elephants, or whatever. And, even amongst groupings of Homo-sapien youths -- no teenage peer is selected to tend to their spiritual needs.

Instilling a fear of death in youths is routinely attempted by all the West’s monotheistic religions, yet it’s rarely successful. And, though protecting oneself from bodily harm is a common-enough trait amongst those youths, their tendency is to give no more consideration to the consequences of dying than there is by any non-human living organisms.  But, not to worry, their lack of a fear of death is not wasted -- they’re routinely called upon to sacrifice their lives as cannon fodder, thereby protecting and enhancing “national interests”, while their parents, women folk and older men stay home and grieve when and if hearing of their deaths. 

*

	Any thinking person seeing a long-time pet, especially one he’s related to on a one-to-one basis, must have given some thought to what that something is that when subtracted from life equals death. In its simplest algebraic form, it boils down to the  equation:

	Life minus X (the unknown) = Death.

And it's this X, the unknown, that has afforded so many charlatans the opportunity to rise above their fellow creatures -- by claiming to know just what that X is. 

	Before the advent of the most primitive societies, with their camp-following shamans: now known as members of the clergy -- the obvious answer to the question: what happens to that X after it leaves the living body? may very well have been ignored -- or, perhaps, the very existence of an X: the non-physical -- the unseen essence of man known simplistically as the soul,  was not considered to exist.

	For early man death was always due to external causes: combat, accident, starvation, thirst, animal attack, drowning and so forth. As with animals in the wild, dying from old-age was no option for our original, out-of-Africa forebears. Death then came from observable and logical causes -- much as it did to all manner of living things. 

	Being little different from other omnivorous  animals: early Homo sapiens fought with their own species for access to food, water and mates -- killing other species and frequently their own -- and eating their kill as the opportunity and need arose. This translated into: death is inevitable, and life is cheap -- not to be confused with the apothegm of the 1960’s and 70’s: Life sucks, and then you die.

	As early man formed communities capable of defending themselves against the external causes of death, they lived longer. Nevertheless, they still died -- and it was this inexplicable aspect of death that gave rise to thoughts of an afterlife. When one in their clan died of natural causes, he looked no different. Yet, where was that something that differentiated that dead man from the other members of the clan? Where did that specific personality with whom they related to go? This is where the shaman stepped in -- and, for better or worse he invented tangible Gods to support his ignorance-based rationales regarding life and death -- which did serve to alleviate the anxieties of the common man. 

	Evil-doing Gods were invented to counterbalance benevolent Ones. Some Gods were thought to encompass both good and evil. In India, rituals honoring the entire accumulation of innumerable and most ancient of mankind’s Gods, in all Their seemingly endless guises, combinations and variants are still worshipped in one part or another of the Subcontinent.

*

	The spiritual values of the Subcontinent’s ancient Indus River civilizations were added to those permeating all the other advanced civilizations of the age-old Mediterranean peoples -- a people residing in an area ranging from Myanmar and the Ganges delta to Sumer and on to Crete, the Nile, the Cyclades, Tuscany and as far west as the Pillars of Hercules. 

	By the end of the earliest years of the second millennium B.C., all the barely-civilized warlike Aryan and Semitic barbarian tribes (the Aryans in India and the Semites in Sumer) had come in contact with, and then came to terms with, the established priesthood of one or the other segments of the early Mediterranean civilizations. The result was a power structure controlled at the top by a noble-priest complex -- and the common man, both barbarian and civilized, stood no chance. The collusion between the heads of the state and the spokesmen for God has remained a constant aspect of what we like to think of as modern-day, advanced and  civilized society.

*
 
Not yet having mastered the intricacies of the most elementary aspects of algebra, the conglomerate of yahoo and cultivated societies that was to evolve into the Euro-centric, Monotheistic culture that now dominates the world., couldn’t conceive of an all encompassing, nebulous thing: the unknown, the X -- the universal soul, the ineffable Brahma -- the non-God concept that needed no shaman as intermediary. Ergo, the One-and-Only God, and his legion of entrenched religious authorities acting as interpreters and go-betweens between the individual and the X: the spiritual unknown.

CHAPTER FIVE -- Part Three 

	Now that the preliminaries have been tended to, the specific events that led, inexorably, to the self-righteous destruction of the Babri structure at Ayodhya can be explored. The conflict between Hindus and Moslems had its beginnings in India's early history (pre-history?) when the ancestors of the Brahmans ascribed Ayodhya as the birthplace of their God, Rama. For many centuries this was to cause no problems -- both Buddhists and Jains drew much, if not all of their morality from the diverse spiritual roots of India's ancient past; and, they either adopted or ignored, in part, the mythological assumptions and rituals associated with the body of what was to become known as, Hinduism.

	It wasn't until the advent of the Mogul Babar (1480-1530 A.D.) who, in order to enhance his own prestige, and possibly that of Islam, built the victory monument in Ayodhya; it was then that the seeds of this particular input into the Hindu demolition of the Babri structure, were sown.

*

	As was the custom of all conquerors, the edifices of a defeated peoples, whether of a military, religious, commercial or residential nature, were taken over in toto -- with alterations made, when required, to meet the victorious invader's particular needs. One of the more obvious examples in India, as already mentioned, was the Brit’s use of bricks taken from the still-standing ruins of the 5000 year-old cities of the Indus Valley civilization -- to lay the foundation for the railroad tracks intended to facilitate the transfer of India’s wealth to England. Another example was the conversion of Hindu temples into mosques by destroying the figurative statuary, murals and ceilings in the Hindu city of Hampi, a World Heritage site. In the West, there were innumerable conversions of mosques into churches by the victorious Christians in Spain. And in Byzantium -- in what is now Turkey, Christian churches were turned into mosques by Moslems. 

	Accordingly, there’s no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report that the rubble resulting from the destruction of the Babri structure was found to include material obtained from an earlier Hindu structure. Though, in no way, no matter how true, is the mentioning of this meant to condone the destruction of the Babri structure. What it does do, is give substance to the rationalizations employed (to stir up Hindu nationalism)  by those who led the movement to destroy the Moslem monument.

*

Throughout the world comparable examples were used to stir nationalist fervor by utilizing one form or another of a jingoistic line of reasoning. Though too numerous to name -- Jenkins’s ear might very well serve to illustrate the universality of their use. Always in need of a moral rationale, the excuse for the Brits’ going to war with Spain, in what has been called the War of Jenkins’s Ear ( 1739-41) was an ear belonging to the otherwise-unknown British shipmaster, Robert Jenkins (no doubt a buccaneer -- that euphemism used for British pirates preying on Spanish shipping), which was said to have been amputated by the Spanish coast guard.

For the moneyed Brits, the benefits from their use of the Old Testament’s Mosaic ear-for-an-ear moralization  for going to war with Spain were great. The ear they gained in compensation for that supposedly lost by Jenkins, gave them a most munificent prize -- the exclusive rights to the lucrative African slave trade.

*

	Since it was common belief amongst Indians that the Babri monument,, as well as many other Mogul structures were constructed by adapting and destroying the religious aspects of earlier Hindu buildings, it would seem logical to ask: What caused India's heretofore, relatively-pacifist, Hindu majority to generate an activist movement that felt compelled to press for a return to India’s ancient (as they perceived them to be) cultural and religious roots? 

	The most obvious answer to that question, though not commonly heard in India, is that Hindus, though a majority, feel threatened. To them, the political pressures exerted on India's democratically-elected government by the relatively solid voting blocs of those belonging to the Scheduled Castes (which was bad enough), along with the pressures exerted by Moslems and, more recently, Christians (both, according to some Hindus, practicing the alien religions of the Subcontinent's most recent invaders), cause those groups to be given special consideration  in government employment and educational opportunities. Moreover, those Hindus claim it’s being accomplished at the expense of higher-caste followers of Hinduism: the religion practiced by India's overwhelming majority. 

*

	It would, indeed, be difficult to find one nation, functioning as a true democracy, in which the majority did not attempt to place obstacles in the path of its minorities -- as a means of denying them access to a state of true equality. Conversely, in any such nation, it would be just as difficult to find a minority body that didn't press for more than mere equality with the majority of the members of the dominant group.

	By equating the self-serving demands of India's Hindu majority (for a religious state), with fundamentalists when in the majority in every other nation ( whether or not considered, by Western standards, as being redeveloping, developing, developed or undeveloped) it becomes obvious that India's Hindu ultra-right differs little from their counterparts in other nations. Nevertheless, since the immorality of ethnic cleansing with its Bible-based rationalizations is alien to Indian culture, Hinduism’s and Indo-Islam’s continuous ties to the Subcontinent’s ancient past causes its followers, when they do revert to bestial behavior (that manifestation of all mankind’s animal heritage), to manifest it in sudden and short-lived outbursts of violence of an uncontrollable, emotional nature. 

*
Of course, whether or not with the authority of one’s God, murdering a foe, whether or not he’s armed, is an immoral act. In major wars between nations, the initiators, though virtually always motivated by greed or a craving for power, gather support amongst the people by appealing to the ego-building aspects of their dying bravely for a just cause. The only possible exception to the immoral aspects of war and its murderous results would be when the killing of an enemy takes place when defending one’s family, liberty or homeland. And, that’s why civil strife is so bloody; both sides are reacting to the demands of their animal instincts; both sides believe they’re morally right in protecting their turf and the lives and freedom of their own people.

*

	In India, the deadly results of passionate displays of riotous behavior indicate actions born of human frailty. In America, such murders are prosecuted as being, at most,  in the second degree; and, when a deliberate act of carnage is committed for a calculated material gain, it’s considered as a murder in the first degree. The adherents to the Germano- Semitic interpretation of the Old Testament (with its promised-land and eye-for-an-eye morality) consider the perpetrator of such a premeditated murder deserving of a penalty of death. Nevertheless, that’s not the case when murders are committed by individuals legally and morally sanctioned to do so by their religious or lay masters. Only God’s vicars and lay leaders can legally and morally authorize the carrying out (with military precision) of premeditated atrocities committed against unarmed civilians or poorly armed troops; in which case the murderers are rewarded materially by their lay masters, and receive the blessings of their God’s vicars.

	Moreover, not only are the majorities of most other nations far more vocal and calculatingly violent in expressing their demands, but members of their ruling factions are also known to cater to and expand upon the bigotry-bred inclinations of those majorities as a means of insuring their own political domination. The insecure, due to their having a disproportionate amount of a nation’s wealth, invariably fear any attempt to spread the wealth amongst the needy, but especially if those needy come from a minority grouping with whom they can’t relate to their political advantage.  Idealist politicians motivated by a desire to be fair (few found these days in any democracy -- worldwide) will find themselves voted out of office.

	Materialism, self-interest and greed were major components of pre-Christian Euro-Mediterranean culture, and originally both early Christianity and Mohammedanism were, at least in theory, designed to counter those then-considered un-Godly desires. However, much as in present-day Russia and China, where the equality aspects of socialism lost out to the glorification of greed, those nations which once adhered to the Buddheo-Christian morality attributed to the teachings of Jesus, have accelerated their already manic drive for material success. Greed rules the day; religion has lost its moral base, and the path to a belief in a once-thought-to-be- benevolent God has fallen into the hands of fanatical, fundamentalist ignoramuses -- who have made Him into a mean-spirited and vindictive old man -- thereby proving that: deliberate base doings breed unexpected base results.

*

	Despite America, by law, offering and delivering greater economic opportunity, freedom and equality than any other sizable nation -- to both her native-born and long-term residents, as well as to millions of recently-arrived immigrants, or perhaps because she does, she has become a prime example of the whys and hows of politically-motivated bigotry.

	The means the conservatives resorted to during the last decades of the twentieth century, in a fairly successful attempt to attain a political ascendancy, illustrates just how the losers amongst a nation's majority can be maneuvered into believing the injustices they were being subjected to -- directly and indirectly -- by the economically-powerful members of society, were really the fault of the nation’s minorities. In America it tends to include the latest immigrating groups. Though it varied from state to state, the minorities singled out, from the 1970’s on, as blameworthy, were mainly Blacks, Latinos and Vietnamese.  However, in looking back to the nation’s beginnings, from the onset the immigrants blamed for the screwing that the dispossessed amongst the earlier arrivals from abroad were getting, was conveniently blamed first on the impoverished Protestant immigrants from England and Scotland and then those from Sweden and Germany.

	And, in time, each succeeding influx of Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Poland and Italy, along with Chinese Buddhists and South and East Europe’s Slavic, Greek and a miscellany of other orthodox Christians and Germano-Slavic Jews were all to serve as scapegoats for the lack of comparable successes by the prior losers coming from each of the preceding influxes of immigrants -- all of whom , as time passed , were only too willing to jump on the bigotry bandwagon. Moreover, though almost never acknowledged, all, including those now arriving from South and East Asia and those future and yet-to-be-determined immigrant minority groupings did, do, or will, benefit from their predecessors’ having committed a whole litany of Bible-rationalized atrocities  against the Amerind -- as the world’s immigrants went about stealing the homeland of America’s indigenous peoples -- and turning it into their own promised land. 

	In 1980, all those claiming to be real-Americans elected, as President of the world’s most powerful nation: both economically and militarily, a totally unqualified and intellectually deficient Republican -- the likes of whom hadn’t been seen since an equally unqualified Democrat occupied the Oval Office -- the result of FDR’s one major faux pas: naming him his running mate for his fourth term.

	It’s become an American tradition for the overwhelming majority of each major grouping of immigrants, once they’ve attained near-ASP status, to turn conservative. From 1980 on, wannabe ASPs voted in substantial numbers for the very same bigots who, just a generation earlier had shifted the blame to their parents’ ethnic grouping for having caused, in a criminal way, the unfair distribution of status and wealth. In the recent past,  all Irish were said to be alcoholics and graft-taking politicians; all Italians were labeled gangsters and fit only to shine shoes; all Jews were classed as money-grubbing, shyster lawyers and conniving tradesmen; all Chinese were fit to wash your clothes or make chop suey; Greeks and Poles and every other group imaginable were denigrated -- yet, huge segments of every one of those wannabe ASPs are known to have switched their allegiance to America’s reactionary right.

CHAPTER FIVE -- Part Four

Harappa

	As we have seen, the roots of the incident in Ayodhya are in India's origins -- her Harappan, and even proto-Harappan civilizations; were made up of peoples whose artifacts show but little evidence of war-like intent, and evidence that entry to their cities was restricted, is believed to have been trade related. The culture had its beginnings some 7000 to 8000 years back, and, about 5000 years ago complex Harappan cities were established amongst a plethora of smaller, long-existent communities scattered throughout the Western sector of the Indian subcontinent. 

	Those cities were well planned, streets were laid out at right angles to each other and had drainage systems that ran from bordering houses with indoor plumbing into covered sewers running along the street. (Similar simple and effective drainage systems are still in use throughout much of India.) Moreover, there is no evidence of a police force or army; which gives evidence that as many as 50,000 to 80,000 Harappans who inhabited each of the largest of those cities, coexisted in peace.

	Questions still arise as to whether large rooms formerly considered granaries might be rich men’s residences. The fact that gold jewelry was found on a few of the remains in the ruins of Harappan cities, is used to substantiate the assumption that there was a distinction between rich and poor -- which there may very well have been. Nevertheless, currently in India, and most ostentatiously amongst wealthy Jains: followers of a religion with its roots in pre-Aryan India, all Indians are known to adorn their womenfolk with ornaments of gold. Yet, the vast majority of Hindus and Jains, besides their being unqualified vegetarians, tend to live a modest existence (as do India’s meat-eating Moslems, Christians and many non-overly fastidious Hindus). And, this appears to be just one more of the too numerous to enumerate carryovers into modern-day India’s indigenous culture. Then as now, for the most part, there doesn’t seem to be much observable difference between the rich and the rest of the population. Nevertheless, even prior to the onset of liberalization in 1991, due to the West’s materialistic influences on India’s burgeoning middle class, ostentatious consumption began to manifest itself throughout India in many more ways than the wearing of golden jewelry on festive occasions.

*
 
There’s an obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this, and that’s that their Indus River culture, was a society based on a kind of egalitarian, informal caste system of Vaisyas and Sudras -- merchants and workers, plus the probable inclusion of guru-priests of one sort or another. It was the invasion of the Aryans, with their warlike social structure that eventually added the King with his warriors as Kshatriyas, and his shaman who, when combined with the Harappan Guru became a Brahman. Both those castes, that of the warrior and priest, were to take precedence over that of the merchant and to a greater degree over the farmer-worker.

*

	Whether as a consequence of the murderous actions of the Aryan invaders, c.2000-1700 B.C., or the germs they carried with them -- in the Indus Valley cities, when the latest levels (those twice as old as Pompeii) were excavated, skeletal remains of its pre-Aryan peoples were found giving evidence that a major, sudden-death-causing incident had occurred. The surviving indigenous Harappan peoples, along with their possessions and the portable aspects of their culture not destroyed by the Aryans, ended up being dispersed throughout the Subcontinent. And, as a result,  any city abandoned by the Harappans cum Dravidians soon became known as a City of the Dead: i.e., Mohenjo-Daro – those once vital urban centers had become nothing more than archaic ghost towns. 

*

	Gradually, over the centuries, as has been the wont of all India’s invaders, the Aryans, the first of India’s rapacious intruders, absorbed more and more of the spiritualism, philosophy and morality of India's earliest- known residents. The Aryans required no priestly intermediaries to facilitate their doing so. Accordingly, they were to absorb an awareness of Brahma: That-which-filled- the-infinite-unknown. It was this attempt to become as one with Brahma that gave rise to yoga, and appears to be  identical to the attempts to reach the state of nirvana commonly associated with Buddhism. And like Buddhism it’s achieved by self-discipline, and required no vicar of God to act as intermediary. Quite naturally, since the raised-to- dominance priestly folk of the Aryans could hardly countenance this threat to their livelihood, they created a three-dimensional reality to that heretofore indescribable, all- encompassing conception of a ubiquitous, unbounded-by-time Brahma. 

	Whether or not the confusion arising from their having called the physical manifestation of the Universal Soul by the same name: Brahma, was deliberate -- is not now pertinent. Nevertheless, Aryan-Dravidian priests, the forerunners of today's Brahmans who had created the carved-in-stone Brahma in order to insure their raison d’être, were to go on to claim, though often by example, that they knew the path that would lead to His fourth dimension: the infinite unknown.

*

Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism all considered it a sin to make or idolize a picture or statue of their near-oxymoron, Indescribable-Him -- yet, in a roundabout manner, they went about verbally describing a very finite Him: in Whose image He made us. Mirror mirror on the wall .... Later, officially in the eighth century A.D., South and East Europe’s Christian, one-time iconoclasts reverted to their Mediterranean roots, and, in doing so, Catholics did as their cousins to the East had done, they began to give graphic and plastic form to their Deity, as well as to those saints deemed worthy of veneration. (It’s quite possible that the Jazzing up of Christian ritual at that time, with the addition of idols and such, was done as a means of offering an alternative to the appeal of Islam, with its simple ritualistic requirements. Currently, Pope John Paul II has been doling out sainthood to the prominent religious figures in just about every country to encourage Catholics to keep the faith.)  
*

	For the most part, attempts by priests to assert their authority in spiritual matters (as is their wont) have failed. Indians, despite their religiosity and respect for Brahmans with their high social caste, remain free of their hierarchical religious domination. Priests in India are the caretakers of the temple, and the protectors of tradition; they are not a God’s earthly vicars. It’s the underlying precepts of Hinduism that continue to affect the way Indians think. It has to do with their deep-seated belief that every living thing has its own individual karma: something akin to destiny with its assigned Dharma: obligations. No intermediary is required to make it happen; there’s no need to bribe a God’s earth-bound vicars to shorten an obligatory stay in purgatory, nor to gather around and sing His praise. Nor is there a need to have a minister give a legalistic discourse on how to go about fulfilling their contract with a vengeful God. The priests' job in Hinduism, besides acting as conservator of ancient traditions and rituals, is to facilitate an individual’s doing his own thing. Moreover, an essential aspect of Hinduism is the implied separation of Church and State -- with Brahmans dealing in spiritual matters and Kshatriyas with affairs of state. 

That Brahmans in South India tend to dominate in secular matters as well, is another story -- one, possibly rooted in the residue of India’s ancient Harappan culture -- or perhaps, it was the result of India’s Kshatriya caste having been killed off in attempting to defend their country against each other, Moguls, Portuguese and the Brits.

	No priest, and that includes Christian missionaries, can affect the age-old concept Indians have of Brahma -- not to be confused with the already described, popularized three-dimensional personification of Brahma. The impossible-to-make-manifest Brahma defies definition, pervades every nook and cranny of the known and unknown: whether or not animal, vegetable or mineral; living or dead; seen or unseen; conceivable or inconceivable, with no beginning and no end; Brahma's existence has no material or conceptual boundaries -- time, place and form do not pertain.

	Hinduism is all-encompassing. It could be considered Monotheistic as well as Polytheistic -- yet Hinduism is essentially Godless. "What?" One might say in disbelief: "Whose leg are you trying to pull?"  

	Despite the apparently-contradictory evidence provided by the proliferation of images depicting a seemingly-endless pantheon of Gods and Goddesses -- and their innumerable avatars, Hinduism with its all-pervasive Brahma is essentially a kind of Godless Pantheism: a paradox, if you will. Since Brahma is everywhere, and Brahma is indefinable, and therefore beyond the capacity of man to comprehend –  being inconceivable, Brahma can be no God, at least in Monotheistic terms – because as such, Brahma doesn’t exist.

	Unless the more than 400 different glyphics appearing on Harappan seals are deciphered and prove otherwise, it would be safe to assume those people of the Indus river civilization had no belief in an identifiable Supreme Deity, i.e., what with God’s being everything and everything’s being God, it’s impossible to give a specific identity to a One-and-Only Him, Her, It, Them. Making a Him into an all-powerful, white-bearded Gentleman couldn’t possibly be considered.

	Nevertheless, certain aspects of Hinduism, by a stretch of the imagination, could have been considered Monotheistic: there being but the One-and-Only Brahma. Or, due to the innumerable manifestations attributed to the ineffable Brahma, Hinduism could very well be considered Polytheistic. And, in the eyes of the Monotheistic professional clergy, Hinduism’s followers would most certainly be considered Atheists, and Heathens to boot. 

	CHAPTER FIVE -- Part Five

	Throughout the Roman Empire, until its disintegration, all religions were more or less tolerated -- provided the reigning emperor was accepted as a God; and, before the pope displaced the emperor, a pantheistic approach to religion prevailed. That Empire’s approach to religion was governed by a combination of political realities associated with Rome’s being the power base and hub of a conglomerate of a diversity of nations and of peoples practicing a multitude of religions. Many of those religions were carriers of the residual beliefs of an early Mediterranean, pre-Aryan, pre-Semitic peoples: a peoples who resided in a narrow culture belt that ranged from Gibraltar to Siam. When the Church superseded the Empire much of the beliefs and rituals of those ancient civilizations, some by way of the Old Testament, were incorporated into the early Christian dogma, and the making of the now Catholic Church of Rome.

	The Pantheon had been erected in Rome before Salome was said to have removed her last veil.  And, as its name implies, had been dedicated as a place of worship to All Gods. Yet, it was not until 607 A.D., over a century after the fall of Rome, and coincidental with the political rise of the Church, that the Pantheon was converted into the R.C. church, Santa Maria Rotunda. The changeover from the universal empire of Rome to the universal church of Rome, was seen as a peaceful transition by the recent converts to Christianity; there is no evidence that it was considered a cataclysmic disruption in their lives.  

*

	The breakaway by the Catholics in Western Europe from Byzantine domination, was the result of both economic and political inputs. Byzantium had originally gained its economic, as well as cultural ascendancy over the Western 

branch of both the Roman Empire, and later the Catholic Church. This was due to its proximity to the trade routes of antiquity -- those that had led, however circuitously, to and from the ancient civilizations of China, India, Sumer, Egypt and their cultural offshoots. However, by the ninth century, in the aftermath of Charlemagne’s short-lived domination of the then-Christian West, Rome felt strong enough to go it alone.

	It was after  the split, and in response to the original requests for help from Constantinople (the Moslems had taken Jerusalem), that the culture and wealth of Byzantium was traded away by the Roman Pope. He bought the financial backing of Venetian bankers for one more Crusade by authorizing God’s soldiers, the Crusaders, to conquer, on Venice’s behalf, their commercial rival, Zara: a Christian city in what is now Croatia. Nevertheless, Pope Innocent III was to condemn the later actions of the Crusaders when, after having paid the Papal debt for the use of Venetian ships, they decided to help themselves by joining with those same Venetians in the invading and sacking of Christian Constantinople (the then capitol of Byzantium). Their belief that opportunity knocks but once, being stronger than that in spreading the faith, the Crusaders decided to steal huge tracts of the domain of the Emperor of the Christian East. 

	The historical pap fed to and believed by the overwhelming majority of Christians is that the motivation for the Crusaders and the Church was to stop the robbing of those on pilgrimage to the Holy Land -- and to retake it from the perfidious Moslems. Though religious zeal may have been their initial motivation, the far-from-pious actions by West Europe’s Christians no doubt gave many a Byzantine good cause to look to Islam for their salvation. It was apparent that Christianity had lost its moral base -- which many believe it never recovered. 

*

The Pope’s granting Zara to Venetian bankers in return for their financial support in a supposedly religious cause, has a familiar ring -- that of the Brits, who during WWI, bought the financial support of the Rothschilds by promising the Zionists Palestine, then held by the Moslem Turks. Both incidents serve to illustrate the cavalier attitude displayed by the adherents to the materialistic, Judeo-Christian, Euro-centric morality in their dealings with other folks.

Before the complete disintegration of the Roman Empire, the destructive influence of the barbarian Germanic tribes, their having been drawn to Mediterranean Rome by its storied wealth, was already at work. This was, perhaps, a telling sign of what was to befall South and East Asia, a thousand years later, when Europe’s steeped-in-poverty progeny turned their greedy eyes towards the then prosperous eastern segments of the Indo-Eurasian land mass.

CHAPTER FIVE -- Part Six

	The worship of a ubiquitous, nebulous and unseen, yet ever-present conception of an ineffable floating presence connecting all of us to one another -- and not the worship of the judgmental Old Testament, white-bearded Old Man sitting on His throne high up in a not-quite-visible, fairyland heaven -- is, in the Western Judeo-Christian sense, tantamount to worshipping no God at all. And, since there’s nothing to fear in the concept of the ineffable Brahma, and the West’s definition of a good man is that he’s God-fearing, it’s obvious why India’s spiritualism defies the comprehension of the run-of-the-mill believers in a One- and-Only God. Moreover, there’s no way one can play lawyer with God and give legalistic excuses for disobeying His laws if one’s concept of Him is this indefinable ineffable Presence -- or claim that He made us in His image.

	The relationship of Judeo-Christian folk to their God is a contractual one: in return for worshipping Him as their One-and-Only God, and by their abiding by their self-serving, legalistically-arrived-at interpretation of the Commandments attributed to Him, He agrees to compensate them with such goodies as: money and fame -- no matter how obtained; slaves and someone-else’s property -- promised by God, and therefore neither stolen nor coveted; and victory in wars of conquest -- at which time it’s okay to kill. And, should they not abide by the agreement, that fearsome Old Testament God will wreak havoc upon them and everyone and everything they hold dear.

*

Going a little far afield, one could find a parallel in the arts that would illustrate why the belief in Brahma might very well be Atheistic.

 Brahma, Atheism and the Unbounded Concept of the Visual Arts

	Currently, in the West, it’s become accepted to consider everything that can be found anywhere and everywhere, and made by anyone, everyone or no one -- to be art. Now, a few discerning, knowledgeable and fairly intelligent individuals can still differentiate between the bullshit and the real thing; and, there are even a few I-don’t- know-anything-about-art-but-I-know-what-I-like folk who have the sensibilities that allow them to determine for themselves, just what is art and what is rationalized drivel.

	Nevertheless, with no parameters, the great mass of common folk, whether or not they’re moneyed, has no way of telling just what art is. Hence, the professional art critic, damned as a philistine if he gives a definition that eliminates anything as art or anyone as an artist, bases his opinion as to the artistic worth of a particular work of art on whimsy, politics and financial considerations. Since there are no criteria, and no limiting definitions, the impact of his decisions is only limited by the prestige of the medium that pays for his opinion -- with the result that his determinations about any given work not only validates it as art, but validates, as art, all the product of its lower-case maker. This, in turn, gives the maker a stature as an artist that allows him to influence the conception of art for all the untalented wannabes.

	Likewise, there’s the ineffable Brahma Who is everything and is found anywhere and everywhere -- permeating every void and every substance: a veritable profusion of neutrinos of an infinite magnitude that defies a positive definition. And, here too, only those discerning, knowledgeable and fairly intelligent individuals can differentiate between the bullshit and the real thing; and there are even a few (I-don’t-know-anything-about-the- philosophical-aspects-of-religion, but-I-can-internalize-the- meaning-of-a-life-force) people who have the sensibilities to differentiate between a one-to-one spiritual experience and religious hype. However, as in art, hoi polloi tend to require the assistance of a mentor who can offer visual and verbal assists to guide them through the morass of intellectualized religious hyperbole. For many in India, a tangible, three- dimensional God is required to give the concept of Brahma meaning and thereby enable them to deal with the trials and tribulations of life. Nevertheless, due to that personification of the concept of Brahma, and no matter how high-minded the attempt to do so might have been, it falls short of the ability to convey the true significance of Brahma. Which is the belief that we are all as one with the universe -- and that we always were, and always will be.

CHAPTER FIVE -- Part Seven

The Ineffable Art

That artists must have the right to express themselves as they wish, is a given. Otherwise, they're merely skilled automatons, lacking in self-will, producing work dictated by tradition, or the arbitrary demands and will of a firmly-ensconced, contemporary authority. In America, the work by the former is readily recognizable as that old bugaboo: academic art -- the evils of which have been driven home by every, with-it champion of modern art -- perhaps the only way they’re capable of defining modern art is by claiming it's not academic art; yet, although it wasn't in its origins, that's surely just what it's become.

It's difficult to understand just why these modern-art enthusiasts have such trouble defining modern art, when it's so obvious. It's those well-advertised and publicized, expensively-framed, universally- considered-sublime, vibrantly-colorful paintings: all illuminated with a scientific precision calculated to best enhance their appearance -- thereby compensating for any chromatic shortcomings deemed, by one or another of a museum's all-knowing curators, to exist in the unique masterpieces that make up their collection. The special lighting effects have the added benefit of contributing to the quasi-spiritual, yet festive atmosphere evoked by the now-consecrated works displayed within the sanctified walls of art museums throughout the world. This, in turn, acts to enrapture the ever-increasing flow of out-of-towners and foreign tourists, while continually adding to the size of the museum's box-office receipts, and earnings from its very pricey restaurants and retail stores -- also, incidentally, increasing the number of MFA’s on its staff.  No down-sizing there.

*

Most works so judiciously displayed in our modern- day cathedrals, were originally produced, back a few generations, by wannabe professional artists: most with the belief that their art would sell. The works by those dedicated, and often brilliant artists of the past, those least prone to cater to the well-heeled  public, went unsold -- or, if sold, went for but a pittance. In America, examples of their art end up in great, privately-funded museums: virtually all with indirect and many with direct taxpayer assistance: the result of their not-for-profit status. Those museums have become self-perpetuating enterprises dedicated to the selling of an honorable means of tax evasion to wealthy patrons of the arts -- who, on rare occasions take the trouble to rationalize their doings with the excuse that the ends justify the means. Just what they consider the ends and what the means is a conundrum yet to be solved. 

*

The artwork from the collection of New York’s MoMA: that world-renowned, money-making determiner-of-modern-art, gets worldwide coverage -- with those works displayed on the museum's prestigious walls gaining in stature to the point of being considered amongst the finest and most valuable examples of the limited supply of oeuvres by long-since-deceased modern artists. To stress their well-controlled, current market value, now running into thousands of dollars per square inch, the works are placed under heavy guard, giving much needed employment to otherwise-unemployable, unskilled minorities, and insured, possibly through the services of a donor-operated, premium-earning insurer or agent, for a  phenomenal sum -- accomplishing much the same results for the paintings in their collection as the million dollars of insurance did for the legs of that long-since forgotten Hollywood movie star, Betty Grable. In this manner, the museum's naive visitors from Mable's Rump, Idaho and Itchytoe, Honshu become convinced that all the works exhibited at MoMA, and in all the imitation MoMAs in all the tourist-luring cities throughout the world, are true masterpieces -- thereby facilitating the sale in the museum's stores of mass-produced posters and picture postcards bearing color-enhanced reproductions of paintings hanging on the museum's hallowed walls.

*

Apparently, many museum administrators have lost sight of the only justifiable reason for the existence of tax-payer-supported art museums -- which is the display of mankind's truly-great artistic accomplishments: those magical, man-made objects that best serve to differentiate Homo sapiens from their non-verbal mammalian cousins.

In America, one would have to go back to their free-enterprise, freak-show beginnings, to see museums that were intended to be pseudo-commercial undertakings. Nevertheless, as a result of those early catch-all museums being free of government involvement, they had no obligation to compensate or placate any group or individual for the social ills that may, or may not, have contributed to their lack of success or shortcomings as artists. However, since the 1960’s, American museums routinely follow such an idiotic policy. With whom do we start, and when do we stop?

There’s an attitude prevalent these days that all but today's minorities came to the States cabin-class on the Queen Mary, had easy access to a higher education, and had equal opportunities to succeed in their chosen endeavor. And, although yesterday's minorities appear to be only too anxious to accept that upgrade from steerage, as well as from a background of ignorance and lowly social status for their impoverished, immigrant ancestors -- deep-down, everyone is fully aware that that's a lot of hooey. The facts are that not only did the original immigrant groupings face a bigotry damn-near as vicious, though not near as pervasive, as that encountered by America’s perennial out-of-Africa and indigenous minorities, but even the first and second generations of born-in-the-USA Americans were at the receiving end of real- and near-ASP bias. Nevertheless, one might justifiably ask: if it makes today's minorities feel better to believe a white lie (no pun intended) that works to rationalize their shortcomings -- though, all too often for lack of resolve, and, in turn, makes everyone else feel better about themselves due to the elevated status of their immigrant ancestors’ past -- why give a damn?

*

These days, Americans with socially- and financially- secure, upper-income, middle-class, Euro-Caucasian backgrounds, without questioning the validity or consequences of their giving in to the demands made by any and every outspoken individual coming from any and every group claiming minority status: all of whom appear to be demanding special treatment due to past, present and future victimization, willingly make tax-free donations to satisfy those claims, and continue to do so -- as long as their own unearned privileges go undisturbed. This practice, in many instances, may very well be justified and, even when not, may have no lasting negative effect on the functioning of society as a whole. But, in the plastic arts, empiric evidence proves it a disaster.

The blanket appeasement of every artist claiming minority status, has led to the -- only temporary, one hopes -- destruction of a once-vital and meaningful American and New York art scene. Since, during the last few decades of the twentieth century, what’s being touted as contemporary art has no boundaries and, as such, allows for a politically-correct determination for art that defies definition -- unless one were to unfairly damn all contemporary art, by defining it as self-indulgent, rationalized-in-the-name-of-equality crap.

Although what is still being called modern art has nothing to do with its being modern -- contemporary art is even more of a misnomer. Though it may very well be contemporary, it has little to do with art. Contemporary art, as is all art, is best defined as: anything and everything that an artist produces as art. The kicker here is that, at present, everyone is considered an artist -- and this results in a ludicrous definition for contemporary art, as anything that any self-acclaimed pundit in a position of authority says it is. And, this results in those dubbing the title of major artist upon any of the current crop of claimants being far more important than any creative artist.

*

We’ve all heard the shibboleth that statistics don’t lie, people do. But, the vast array of statistics in all sports does tend to keep sports writers in line. Deciding who’s the best pound-for-pound fighter, or who’s the most valuable baseball player of all time are subjective decisions, but at least they’re based on definable criteria. If not, naming Cooney and Strawberry the most outstanding athletes in their respective fields would, no doubt, have found few detractors amongst a majority of dilettante and biased fans. One might wonder at the degree of nepotism, cronyism and bribe-taking of one sort or another that sports writers would engage in, if not for the existence of a plethora of reliable, if often meaningless, statistical criteria -- which are non-existent in the contemporary art scene.

*

Smug in a belief in their superiority over ignorant, RED-necked, WHITE- and BLUE-collared, base- born, non-minority, hyphenated-Americans, the current crop of Judeo-Christian claimants to the title of do-gooder, go about denying the fact that, with few exceptions, they themselves were born with a tremendous unearned advantage: both economically and socially over their poorer non-minority brethren. Few, if any, of those folks born into upper-income- earning families have any conception of the sacrifices required, of those old-minority hyphenated-Americans who have but average incomes, to obtain educations and managerial positions. The result is that the well- off members of American society readily accede to the demands for quota-based privileges by any and every outspoken member of a claiming-to-be-a-minority grouping. And, why not? It enables them to maintain their own, far-more-often-than-not, unearned privileges, while, at the same time, allows them to play the benevolent patron to a handful of potentially- troublesome individuals from amongst the vast array of groups now claiming minority status.

*

Little in this world is accomplished without the backing of those ensconced in positions of authority: virtually always acquired by reasons of birth and wealth -- either theirs or someone else’s. When so-called-civil-rights legislation was put into effect it was blamed on the liberals, despite its having had the full backing of the privileged, as a means of maintaining the status quo. Don’t rock the boat.

With civil rights legislation being blamed on do- gooder liberals, the non-minority working classes (theirs was the only  way of life markedly affected by the enactment of equal opportunity laws) were soon supporting anti-liberal, pro-conservative legislation.

All those offspring of yesterday's minorities, though not  willing to give up their self-deluding, new-found status as establishment Whites, are, nevertheless, well-aware that their parents, and often they themselves, had to contend with much the same or similar forms of bigotry as the newer minorities -- and, not only weren’t they given any kind of preferential treatment to compensate for it, but they faced obstacles equal to, if not greater than do the now, newly- designated minorities.

Moreover, and justifiably so, at least to some degree, the old minorities believe they're the ones whose chances to obtain the American dream are being made more difficult to attain, if not sacrificed altogether, as a result of giving preferential treatment to the most recent so-called minorities.  And, so, legislation meant to enhance the security of the wealthy ends up being supported by liberal legislators on the one hand, while legislation giving tax breaks to the wealthy is being sanctioned by the now-conservative, former left-of- center-voting minorities -- all despite the good intentions of the truly-selfless, original, liberal do- gooders who were honestly intent on doing good.

*

What was, was.  After all, until late in the nineteenth century slavery was endemic, worldwide --- and its sister, pre-New-World-Order, imperialist colonialism, along with the universally-accepted and Rhodes- financed concept of a pan-national, ASP superiority (though still not obliterated, it's been somewhat mitigated) -- had continued for a century after the manumission of the American Negro. So, although there's no questioning the validity of the claims by Blacks that they've suffered greatly as the result of racist bigotry, and that schooling at every level must be made readily available to them, as well as to every American citizen -- the majority of peoples, worldwide, have come to believe that it's about time those Americans with Central African ancestry -- amongst others -- quit bitching, take responsibilities for their actions, and start working their asses off -- much as all but a tiny elite amongst all earthlings must do, as a matter of course.

American Negroes will only be respected, when they, in a united effort with all other Americans affected in one way or another by sexual, ethnic, religious and racial discrimination, who now go about demanding special privileges -- limit their demands to what is their due as American citizens, which is a truly equal opportunity, in what is today considered a universal right, to: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- though, in no way should this preclude a moral government’s assisting its neediest and most deserving citizenry in their attempts to obtain those ends.

*

 Albeit, judging by the resentment shown towards all successful non-ASP types -- American-born or not -- the American Negro, once proving his ability to succeed in intellectually-demanding occupations, will be subjected to yet another kind of bigotry -- one of resentment, with racist overtones.

*

There's no denying the potentially destructive effects that bigotry is capable of fostering, and it's not the intent here to make light of it. The negative effects of poverty and bigotry on aspiring artists often acts to deny them an opportunity to acquire the time and knowledge that would enable them to pursue a career in their chosen field. This, of course, holds true for every human endeavor. Nevertheless, it must be noted that a majority of all Americans, in one field or another, for one reason or another, have also been denied the right to enter a given profession.

There’s no question that an education and subsequent opportunity to enter a desired field must be made available to all Americans -- with no arbitrary obstacles placed in their way. Nevertheless, there appears no justification for government involvement in the arts beyond insuring the ability to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to enable a wannabe artist to try to be one. Grantsmanship, because of government’s direct and indirect financial support to individuals in the plastic arts, has, to a disturbing extent, replaced skill, talent and genius as factors in determining a person’s chances for gaining recognition as an artist. Moreover, government support for artists is no panacea for the ills currently plaguing the world of art. In their own countries, Van Gogh and Gauguin -- to name, perhaps unfairly, the most obvious of innumerable other now-famous artists -- would never have qualified for a governmental grant; yet, with far less financial assistance than has been made available for over a generation to all the members of the various and sundry demanding minority groups in America, they still managed to paint.

Countless, well-known parallel examples can be found in all the creative fields. And, although the easing of the financial burdens of artists is a definite boon for them, their financial well-being alone is hardly the defining input to the quality of their art. For decades after the end of WWII, the Dutch -- with their still-accumulating, colonialism-based ill-gotten wealth -- gave financial aid: buying a few paintings each year from just about every wannabe artist for a sum sufficient to live on, until they ran out of space to warehouse their collection.  Yet, one would be hard put to name a major Dutch artist who had benefited by it.

CHAPTER SIX -- Part One

	Instead of being away for a few nights, due to the repercussions from the Ayodhya incident, a week was to pass before Astrid Hubbel returned to the Yatri Nivas. Although the evening we had spent together was both mentally and physically stimulating, it was also mentally and physically exhausting. As a result, I undertook what I considered a far less strenuous means of occupying myself: one I thought, in some small way, might serve to increase my exposure to India -- thereby helping me, even if ever so slightly, to fathom what it is that makes Indians Indian.

	The aftereffects of the Babri affair brought some of the lesser, non-essential government functions to a standstill. Nevertheless, after a hiatus of a few days, the state’s tour bus was running again. One of the bus’s pickup points was at the Yatri Nivas where I was staying. Being so convenient, I purchased a ticket for a full-day, conducted ride-and-climb tour of Hyderabad -- fully expecting the day to be both edifying and enjoyable.  And, it most certainly was.

*

	Tours, though superficial by their very nature, are the fastest and generally least costly means of getting an overview of any given city or land.  And, for the most part, all Government-run tours, throughout India, are well run. To take full advantage of those tours, it’s necessary to be ready to walk and climb a lot, listen attentively, look discerningly and, last but definitely not the least -- dress sensibly and wear comfortable shoes. Though those tours in India can be demanding of your energy, by and large one is not subjected to that annoying practice that prevails in just about every tourist-attracting place, worldwide -- that’s the time-wasting stops at tourist-trap emporia. And, as every seasoned traveler and tourist knows, with few exceptions, it’s done to enable tour guides, or their employers, to obtain commissions on the purchases by them of frivolous and often overpriced stuff.    

*

With respect to the annoying and tiring aspects of going on a conducted tour, when my wife and I visited Greece, back in the late 1960’s, we had taken a guided tour of Athens; but, when the guide ever-so-authoritatively spouted as fact so much that, at best, could be called conjecture, and, at worst, insulting nonsense, we decided to forego those tours. From then on we toured Greece on our own, and it was then, when driving through the Peloponnesus in a tiny Fiat that we stopped at a huge cave at Mycenae. As I recall, there was a sign stating it was, or could have been, Agamemnon’s palace. After parking the car, and while walking towards its entrance, a youngish senior citizen poked her head out of a window of a bus from which a group of tourists had just emerged. Upon her recognizing us as fellow Americans, she explained, in a flat, mid-Western accent, and with an expression of guilt in her voice: “I’m staying on the bus. I’m tired of having to get on and off the bus just to see one more run-down old ruin.”  

*

	The tour of Hyderabad started out much as most do in every city and in every country throughout the world -- with the guide’s using only superlatives to describe every building, monument and whatnot visited -- merited or not.  It was during the course of this tour, all members’ being Indian, that a comment made in a matter-of-fact manner by a young man, gave me much food for thought. He was tall, slender, dark-complexioned, neatly dressed, well-mannered, handsome and personable. We had spoken but a few words to each other in the course of the group's long and arduous climb up the seemingly-endless tiers of steps leading to Golconda Fort; and, though it was not the Amber Palace, the sights within the fort, and the view from it, warranted both the guide's use of superlatives and the exertions required to reach it.

	The young man and I were among the first to make our way down  from the fort. There was a wiry, turbaned man nearby selling fresh-pressed, sugarcane juice; thirsty and fatigued, we ambled over to get some. My new acquaintance knew Hindi, and ordered mine also -- but refused to let me pay; since it cost but a few rupees, I made no protest.  

*

I never quite got the hang of who pays -- but finally, after making numerous blunders, I decided I would graciously accept tea, and items of that ilk -- but insist, before agreeing to enter a restaurant, unless specifically as a guest, that it be my treat. I didn’t know then, and I don't know now if that was the right or the wrong thing to do, but by doing so I didn't feel I was unwittingly taking advantage of the traditional hospitality routinely displayed towards visitors by Indians. 

*

	We took our drinks and sat on a low stone fence. There, as we waited the call to reboard our assigned bus, we became involved in typical tourist talk. We exchanged names, his was Raju. Then, after I described my ancestral connection to India, he told me he was from South Africa, and that he had never before been to India: from whence his ancestors had come some three generations back.  He went on to say that he had made Pakistan the first stop in the course of his tour of India; and added, although he enjoyed his stay and had been treated well-enough by the people he met, it really wasn't necessary to have gone to Pakistan -- the attitude of the people, the landscape, the way they dressed, the food they ate and the language they spoke were all pretty much the same as in the vast adjacent areas in India -- but India had so much more of everything.

*

Urdu, Pakistan’s official language, though written in Arabic script, is a Sanskrit-based language; and, when spoken, is near-identical to Hindi -- both being branches of Hindustani, which had been the lingua franca of the Subcontinent’s vast central and northwestern sector. As such, Urdu is understood by Hindi-speaking Indians; and, the opposite is true: the result being that India’s Hindi movies are popular with Urdu-speaking Moslems in Pakistan. Despite the West’s having endorsed, if not having fostered the partition of the Subcontinent, there’s an obvious oneness that still ties all ethnic Indians throughout South Asia together -- regardless of their religious affiliation. And it’s this affinity that many in Pakistan fear most. (This fear is shared by the powers that be in other Western-oriented, Asian nations --  as well as those in the nations most likely to benefit from the establishment of a “New World Order”.)  

*

	After we drained our glasses of the refreshing and surprisingly, not-overly-sweet, sugarcane juice, Raju went on to tell how, when traveling south by rail, he fell ill and was taken off the train. He was brought to a local hospital where, he said, he received excellent care. And since it was government-run, he was charged nothing. Upon leaving the hospital, the doctor advised him that drinking sugarcane juice would be good for his liver, or perhaps it was his kidneys, I don't remember which. He then continued south, but decided to rest for a while and do some sightseeing -- which brought him to Hyderabad.

	We remained seated, looking out on a park-like square populated by a diversity of Indians from every station and occupation, all dressed in a panoply of colored clothing of every description. Then, casually, he turned towards me and asked in an off-hand manner that required no answer: "Do you realize, that in South Africa, you and I would not be seen sitting and talking to each other like this?" It took a few seconds for what he said to sink in, when it did, despite thinking it might be embarrassing to him, I asked if it was a matter of skin color. He looked at me to see if I was serious, and then, shrugging his shoulders, said, "Of course." But he didn't appear to be the least bit embarrassed, he was merely making a statement of fact. Nevertheless, it did pass my mind that what he was really trying to tell me was, despite my having an Indian father, my having a relatively-fair complexion excluded me from ever knowing what it was really like to be an Indian -- and, whether he meant that or not, it might very well prove to be the case.

*

My conversation with Raju occurred just prior to the major political changes in South Africa. At the time, I had been aware of South Africa's reputation as a nation controlled by a minority of Bible-thumping bigots whose racist policies were supported, if not instigated, by that nation’s greed-motivated diamond cartel. And, that Israel, due to her heavy reliance on the income derived from her diamond-cutting and diamond-distributing industry, plus its believed need, at the time, to support a fellow apartheid government, made Israel one of the only governments that retained diplomatic and commercial ties with that racist government -- all self- righteously rationalized as being in her national interest -- which it may very well have been, and that’s telling in itself.

Raju had made me fully aware of apartheid’s toll on human dignity; it had a major impact on my otherwise-naive concept of what the seemingly-benevolent term: acting in a country’s “national interest”, actually entailed. As a result, the incident served to reinforce my suspicions as to the reasons why New York’s often-quoted newspaper -- one that managed to convince so many claiming-to-be-knowledgeable folk that its presentation of the news was even-handed -- followed an agenda supporting every aspect of bottom-line colonialism: past, present and future -- without any regard for the loss of self-respect and, of course the lives, of colonized folk. That this same attitude was displayed by the Times of London and supported by the New York Times during the period England’s  post-WWI   banker-supported, last-gasp attempts to maintain her economic and political stranglehold over India -- is also very telling.

CHAPTER SIX -- Part Two-A

The inputs leading to the French Revolution and the aftereffects of Napoleon’s freeing of Central-Europe’s oppressed masses of their obligations under the feudal system, with its supportive-of-religion concepts, were such that Germans were no longer willing to accept the Bible as the source for their genealogical in-the-beginnings. The Brits, on the other hand, having already rechanneled the direct line to God from His vicar in Italy to their own vicar in England, maintained the Bible’s history for themselves as a means of rationalizing their own use of promised-land racism to justify the un-Buddheo-Christian acts required to build and maintain an empire. 

	From the latter part of the nineteenth century, European archaeologists were unearthing the ruins of ancient cultures -- the best known being that of Troy, begun in 1871 by the German, Schliemann. Seek and thou shall find! Schliemann was caught up in Europe’s nineteenth-century search for a genetic history to replace that of the Bible. In doing so, he succeeded in uncovering what was believed to be Homer’s Troy. The results of his dig were used to prove that the Iliad’s mythological story had at least some factual basis. Meantime, the findings by British archaeologists were used to give a legitimacy to the belief that everything in the Bible is factual -- even those obviously allegorical tales of mankind’s beginnings. And, although allowances were made for the allegorical and mythological aspects of Homer’s tale of the sacking of Troy, this was not to be the case for Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian, fundamentalist Bible thumpers. Moreover, when evidence was unearthed not confirming God’s word, as written down by those seventy Greco-Alexandrian Rabbis in the Old Testament, it was downplayed, went unpublicized, or was totally ignored.  

	What the digs did indicate was that tales involving ancient cities, nations and peoples handed down by word of mouth over the centuries, and eventually written down may very well have had some factual basis. However, like the great Greek Epic, the Iliad, the Old Testament always was and still is a self-serving document with a mythology created to make moral a striving for material gain. The Greeks had rationalized their pillage of the wealthy city of Troy by claiming it was an act of retribution sanctioned by the Gods for Paris’s having abducted Helen. In addition, in more recent times an Old Testament rationale was used to make moral the depredation of Troy by claiming it was a tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye kind of thing  -- Paris stole Helen and Greeks, in turn, pillaged and destroyed Troy. 

*

Obviously, the motivation for Alexander’s predatory incursions had their roots in the Iliad. The Greeks were to subsequently dominate the eastern section of the Mediterranean. It was at this time, a century and more after Alexander’s death, that the earliest existing version of the Old Testament, one attributed to the scholarship of seventy Rabbis, was written down in Greek. Since it’s a given that anyone fluent in a language must have absorbed, or at the very least been aware of the history and morality of the country whose language they spoke, much of Mosaic law was either a long-standing and accepted morality of the Babylonians and the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean, or was adapted by the Rabbis from the Greeks.

*

	There were many brilliant men who had laid the foundation for Darwin’s arriving at his theories on evolution; and, just as Darwin would hardly have yelled, “Eureka”, when he concluded he was right in his ideas about natural selection, Schliemann wouldn’t have been amazed by the results of his digs at Troy. Much like Darwin, Schliemann, though an amateur archaeologist, didn’t function in a vacuum. Surely, his selection of the site of Troy was not a random shot in the dark. Schliemann, who was no doubt motivated by the same kind of Euro-centric hubris that had Hillary climb Mount Everest, also,  much like Hillary, had a Tenzing Norgaya to show him the way.

	It’s that same Judeo-Christian,  Euro-centric hubris that had the Brits steal the Rosetta stone away from the French (within two years after Napoleon’s invading army had unearthed it in Egypt).  Fittingly, along with Greece’s Elgin marbles, and numerous other works of antiquity liberated from the descendants of ancient civilizations, it can be found on display in London’s British Museum.

*
 
	During the earlier years of the Victorian era, England’s educated gentlemen allowed themselves a considerable latitude to engage in a wide range of scientific inquiry. Moreover, they tended to give no thought to the political ramifications of the publicizing of their scientific and intellectual uncoverings. At the time, England’s men of science were of two minds, they had a deep-seated belief in the morality of the Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian ethic, which they were born to; yet, the validity of the Bible’s assumptions as to the whys and wherefores of man’s beginnings were in conflict with the results of their scholarship. One might expect this to have caused those men of science to make a choice between fact and myth -- but it didn’t.

	In the West, the morality based on the veracity of the happenings described in the Old Testament was, and still is, but to a lesser degree, so deeply instilled, even in the minds of men of science, that they’ve managed to warp their findings so as not to conflict with the Bible. And, in doing so, they tend to manipulate the Bible’s claimed words of God that conflict with the truths they’ve unearthed in their geological, anthropological and historical research, by claiming they’re allegorical.

	Although much of what these men of science uncovered would be rationalized away in order to appease the religious sensibilities of Europeans, from the latter part of the nineteenth century on, public airing of any archaeological discoveries that could bring the Bible-based, racist justification for colonialism into question -- was not tolerated. Since the digs by European archaeologists invariably took place in those ancient lands dominated by the West, the publication of any findings indicating the existence there of civilizations predating those of Biblical antiquity would have served to challenge the Judeo-Christian, Euro-centric concept of racial preeminence. God-fearing British men of science were made aware that public disclosure of the results of many of their digs could threaten the West’s profits from its Bible-based, racist rationalizations for colonialism. And, so, the Empire’s men of science dutifully refrained from publishing, for popular consumption, anything that could possibly be detrimental to England’s national interests. 

*

	To go with their material successes, Protestant  North Europeans were intent on establishing a glorified cultural and historical past for themselves -- one not influenced by the then-contemporary, Mediterranean peoples. Refusing to acknowledge the massive cultural inputs they had, until quite recently, received from them, North Europeans looked back a couple millennia to the ancient pre-Christian cultures of the earlier Mediterranean as a means of leapfrogging over the then-current inhabitants of Europe’s Catholic South -- all in an attempt to deny the civilizing effects those cultures had had on them. Miraculously, they divorced living Italians from their Roman heritage; Greeks from that of Athens; and Islam’s seven centuries of cultural input in Spain was made a non-happening. 

	Moreover, after Napoleon’s releasing Central Europeans from their obligations as serfs and their confinement in Ghettos, run-of-the-mill Jews were showing up all over Europe -- which caused the Old Testament- reading, Protestant North Europeans to eagerly disassociate themselves from the once-thought-to-be-exotic and near- mythical folk who peopled the Bible. Jews with the gumption to leave their ghettoes and strike out on their own had turned out to be just other people, and often aggressive ones at that.

	With the Bible no longer an acceptable source for Protestant, Germanic Europe to trace its genetic history, philosophers  were enlisted to supply its substitute. The result was that many Germans looked to India’s Aryans, with their Indo-European linguistic roots for their cultural, if not genetic beginnings. However, in doing so, they mistakenly, assumed that the Swastika (the symbol for well being used by India’s earliest known civilization, that of the Harappans) was a symbol of aggression used by India’s earliest-known invaders: the war-like, barbarian,  Sanskrit-speaking Aryans.

	The British, on the other hand, obviously with national interest in mind, were unwilling to substitute the ancestors of a colonized peoples for that of the Jews. Consequently, they looked to early Athens with its elitist, slave-based democracy, and ancient Rome with its empire, for their own origins. All of which led to the assumption that liberal Brits had played a major role in Greece’s gaining her independence from Turkey.  However, it’s obvious that any assistance Greece may have received from England, was not altruistically motivated. After bribing Turkish officials, the British Lord Elgin had a significant portion of Greece’s national treasure,  statuary (now known as the Elgin Marbles), shipped off to England. And, this occurred in 1806 -- two decades prior to Greece’s attaining her independence. 

*

	By the twentieth century, though primarily in professional journals, the publicizing of the antiquity of those archaeological digs whose very existence conflicted with the Bible’s truncated version of world history, though bothersome to Judeo-Christian fundamentalists, had no major effect on religious attitudes in the West. But, its effect on the rationalized morality required to justify colonialism gave the Brits deep concern. By the mid-1920’s, educated folks, the world over, were beginning to realize more and more, just how great India’s contributions to universal culture had been.

	This, in turn, had the Brits, in a cunning attempt to rationalize their occupation of the Indian subcontinent, engage in a vicious, smear campaign to denigrate India’s people and their culture.  Moreover, the very existence of Harappa and her culture: one that lives on in the genes (however meaningless that might be), the customs and morality of India and her people, was deliberately withheld from the public (although the Brits were obviously aware of it since they destroyed much of its architectural remains to obtain those bricks used as foundations for railroad tracks). And, when, despite their efforts, an awareness of the Harappan culture managed to spread beyond professional circles, the Brits, disingenuously made every effort to sever  all connection between modern-day Indians, whose roots in the Subcontinent are known to have gone back some 4,000 years, with that of India’s ancient Harappan  civilization -- which, in the Indus Valley, was known to have  ended some 4,000 years ago.

*

	For over a half century, wherever the Brits held sway, they maintained a tight control over the release and publication of all information considered harmful to England’s national interests. It wasn’t until the mid-1930’s that American newspapers had their own foreign correspondents. Until then, American newspapers relied on British-controlled sources for their news of world happenings -- and they were supplied with a constant flow of racist propaganda that was in support of colonialism. One heard of the very-real atrocities inflicted by Germany against Negro tribals in their African colonies. However, the very-real atrocities committed against Negro tribals in England’s African colonies, if made public, were turned into heroic acts, committed against all odds -- as brave Englishmen  fought for their right to carry the white-man’s burden. 

	Throughout the colonies of the British Empire, there were far-reaching restrictions on the importation, printing and circulation of all literature and correspondence thought detrimental in any way to England’s national interests. India, her most valued possession, was hit the hardest. And, even in the East African colonies, wherever there was a middle-class Indian community, censorship was enforced with a vengeance. Their control of the dissemination of news, both in and out of the colonies, allowed the Brits to manipulate the truth at will. By advertising, within the Indian communities in East Africa, their meting out of death sentences for the possession of printed matter potentially harmful to British national interests, it served to quell the then growing free-India movement. Meanwhile, their ability to prevent knowledge of their murderous actions from leaving East Africa, allowed the Brits to hold their heads high -- after all, it would have been difficult, even for the very resourceful Brits to have rationalized, in countries with freedom of the press, the murder of work-a-day, Indian office workers and businessmen for owning a book or magazine. 

*

	All totalitarian institutions, by their very nature, must deny free  access to ideas detrimental to their existence. The big-lie machines of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Japanese-controlled Peru, Zionist Palestine, Communist China, Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and a plethora of others are all twentieth-century examples of the type of propaganda devices employed by the British Empire. All used rationalized-by-bigotry propaganda in an attempt to justify a military domination over an alien peoples (and often their own). All, like the Empire-Brits, used their superiority of arms as a means of enforcing censorship and supporting Gestapo-like organizations to suppress a concept of individual freedom from disrupting their ability to steal the labor and wealth of a militarily weaker peoples --  whether at home or in subject nations.

	The Brits, no doubt, much like Hollywood’s Hays office censors,  found support for their doings by comparing them to the censorship imposed, at the time,  by the Vatican. (under the Index Librorum Prohibitorum). Though censorship, by its very nature, restricts an individual’s access to ideas, and as such is wrong, the Vatican’s saving grace was its rationalization for its use, which, though preventing the faithful from exposure to what they considered heretical views, was imposed upon her flock in the belief it would cause them to live what it considered a moral Christian life (whatever that is). Not so the Brits. The sole reason for their censorship cum propaganda was to maintain a stranglehold over the economy of a people incapable of defending themselves. For big-money Brits, Indians, in their own country, were merely workers in a company store, with its union-breaking policies maintained by a well-disciplined military --  instead of pick-up goon squads. And to rationalize their use of murderous force, which they resorted to with much frequency as a means of maintaining the Empire, they went about disseminating a spate of vicious  racist- and religious-based propaganda denigrating every aspect of the culture and heritage of the indigenous peoples of the Subcontinent. 
*

	During the half century leading up to WWI England, much like America after the collapse of Communist Russia, was the sole world superpower. Moreover, during her heyday, England had no need to justify her actions before a United Nations or any other governmental body -- that is, besides her own Parliament: a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop, if there ever was one.

	In America, until the last decades of the twentieth century, there were a multitude of individual owners of a vast array of daily and weekly publications. That, coupled with the fact the press in America can’t be prevented from subjecting public figures to potentially career-devastating scrutiny, made it far more difficult, though not impossible, for the U.S. Government, despite our super-power status, to engage in the same kind of dirty-dealing that’s routinely required when the dominant members of a nation attempt to maintain a stranglehold over the economy and lives of people in other nations -- as well as in their own. 

	In countries that were subject to British colonial rule (routinely enforced by force of arms and a willingness to use it against defenseless civilians), the repression of those expressing political convictions thought detrimental to the best interests of England’s ruling classes, were so harsh, as to make the blacklisting resulting from the intrusions on the Constitutional rights of America’s citizens during the McCarthy years seem trivial. 

	England’s authoritative newspapers were owned or controlled by the very same group of landed aristocracy and wealthy entrepreneurs who benefited most from colonialism (that euphemism for the greed-motivated rape of defenseless lands). By the late 1800’s they had a gentleman’s agreement in place, whereby no publication of even her most nefarious deeds was to be made -- when and if committed in support of claimed national interests. Meanwhile, a formerly- independent, if somewhat bigoted, British intelligencia (those involved in mathematics, history and archaeology), in lockstep with the powers that be, possibly due to their being blinded by, if not themselves steeped in the deep-seated bigotry that supported a belief in the inherent superiority of all Judeo-Christian, North Europeans over all other peoples, was to lead to their, England’s intelligencia’s, support of the greed-based racist policies of their pocket-lining economic and social betters. England’s intellectuals, much like the Times of London, would, under no circumstances, knowingly publish, for popular consumption, anything considered detrimental to England’s national interests: that overworked euphemism for every un-Buddheo-Christian action performed in support of the self-serving greed of a nation’s politically and economically powerful elite, and used to gain the support of their uninformed masses.

CHAPTER SIX -- Part Two-B

	In the West, if Arab independence is mentioned at all, it’s Lawrence of Arabia who comes to mind. In the aftermath of WWI, he was defamed by the Brits due to his opposition to their reneging on their inferred, and his outright promise to the Arabs -- that once free of Turkish rule they’d be free of all foreign domination. Lawrence, though considered as having a flawed character, and his escapades against Turkey overblown, was apparently an altruistic believer in individual liberty. It was his ability to convey that belief to the Moslem Arabs, which may have facilitated their fighting against their fellow-Moslem Turkish rulers for what turned out to be the sole benefit of America’s WWI Allies. After WWI, independent Arab states were a long time coming, and even now but few truly independent Arab nations exist. In the aftermath of WWI America’s European Allies greedily divvied up the Near-East -- despite American President Wilson’s strong and outspoken opposition, and Lawrence’s ignored complaints. The result for the Arabs, for their having fought and died with America’s WWI Allies to rid themselves of Turkish rule, was that they were worse off. They became the white-man’s burden instead of the burden of the Turks -- who at least had a certain respect for them as fellow Moslems.

*

	Although, in many instances, the Arabs were but carriers of older cultures, it shouldn’t detract from Medieval Europe’s indebtedness to them. Arabs were  the repositories and conveyors of the knowledge and culture of the truly old world (that of the ancient Mediterranean peoples who inhabited the land area ranging from Southeast Asia and on through the Gangetic and Indus River plains, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, Greece, North West Africa and on into Spain). Moslem Spain, over the course of her seven-hundred- year history,  became the conduit for the scientific and cultural knowledge then commonplace throughout the then Moslem world  -- a huge strip of land extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. The civilizing effects of the cultural inputs carried by the Moslems, to what was then the intellectual wasteland of barbarian Germanic Europe, are still very much in evidence.

*

Though hardly on a par with their having been instrumental in the spread, throughout Europe, of intellectual matters, Moslem Spain also facilitated the mundane use of what we now know as granulated sugar and rock candy -- which, through them, was then dispersed throughout Europe -- soon to replace honey as a means of satisfying the West’s communal sweet tooth. Columbus introduced sugar cane plants to what were to become Spain’s “possessions” in the Caribbean. Having miscalculated his whereabouts, he thought he was taking sugarcane to India -- talk about carrying coals to Newcastle. Nevertheless, Columbus’s having conveyed sugarcane to the Americas (Arab Moslems’ having previously carried it to Spain from India, along with the know-how to grow, harvest and process it), was to give rise to the buccaneers’ Ho Ho Ho and a bottle of  rum: that product of sugarcane by way of molasses. The consumption of sugar in the West (as a cheap, but totally lacking in nourishment, source of energy), was to eventually bring prosperity to a plethora of cavity-filling dentists. 

Indians, however, in its country of origin, tended to stay clear of demon rum. Moreover, they derived mostly good benefits from their consumption of sugar: granulated, it’s boiled with milk and spices to make typical Indian sweetmeats -- and when boiled in milk along with inexpensive tea leaves and ginger, or other spices, it makes the sweet and soothing tea served throughout the Subcontinent. In addition, the juice obtained when the sugar cane itself is freshly squeezed, makes for a thirst quencher having at least some vitamins and minerals. And, since much of India’s water source is naturally fluorinated, despite their sugar consumption, cavities are not a major problem  -- the awareness of this phenomenon helped convince the West to fluorinate its toothpaste and drinking water.

*

	To this day, Moorish and Arabian Islamic civilizing inputs have remained the mainstay of Spanish culture. Until the Arabs’ invasion cum migration into the sparsely populated Iberian peninsular, there was but little that remained of the earlier pockets of Roman culture: remains of aqueducts, roads and such. The three centuries of occupation by Germanic barbarian hordes, which preceded the invasions by Moslems, had destroyed all other vestiges of that early Roman culture -- this, despite their questionable conversion to Christianity -- with its purported civilizing effects. 

	Islam’s Arab invaders, with their proclamation to: Live with Allah or die by the sword, did not apply to Christians and Jews (who arrived in Spain after the Islamic conquest), who, as believers in the Book, were not persecuted. Nevertheless, those Christians and Jews who didn’t convert to Islam were required to pay a nominal tax -- one Moslems were exempt from paying.

*

	Although. the onset of the Inquisition is attributed to the Church’s attempts to counter the heresies that were to eventually lead to the Protestant Reformation, in Spain, it was a political matter (it occurred as Moslem rule in Spain  was coming to its end in 1492). And, as such, being devoid of any Buddeo-Christian morality, its application was the harshest. Nevertheless, the Catholic church in Spain prospered as a direct result of it, and Catholicism remains all-powerful throughout the Spanish-speaking world. History being the most subjective of all the pseudo-sciences, the blame for the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted from 1478 to 1820 was attributed to the actions of but one individual, de Torquemada [1420-1498]. The West’s historians, having relieved the Church and her followers of any responsibility for the atrocities committed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, then went on to cater to the martyr complex of the chosen people.

	Modern-day Western  history celebrates the Inquisition’s part in contributing to the expulsion of “infidel” Moslems from Christian Spain -- and no consideration is made for the horrible effects on Moslems due to their having been persecuted and evicted from their homeland of seven centuries. Not so the Jews, who, though conveniently forgetting  they were never persecuted by Moslems, have so consistently bewailed their expulsion from Spain, that historians have made them the chief recipients of the most horrendous aspects of the Inquisition -- rather than the Moslems who actually were. 

*

It seems appropriate to mention here that in India, Moslem and Portuguese-Catholic invaders, wherever they held sway, forced Hindus under their control to convert -- on penalty of death, whereas, the Protestant followers of the Bible-reading Judeo-Christian religions (the Dutch, the Brits and, to a lesser degree, the not-overly-Papist French) , were far more humane. As long as Indians, along with their cultural offshoots in Indochina and Indonesians, gave up their freedom, their country, their pride and their wealth, they were permitted to follow whatever religion they chose.

*

	The original invading Moslem Arabs and Moors were, no doubt, just as violent in their initial invasion of Spain, as were the Nazis, Japs or Brits when attempting to build and maintain their empires. But, much as the Aryans in India, the Mussulmans in Spain were on a migratory invasion, and though motivated by a greedy desire to take over an alien land, their intention was to become as one with the land and were, in short order, to merge culturally and genetically with the indigenous peoples. And, so, they can’t be considered as colonizers in the same sense as the Nazis, Japs and Brits who sacrificed the lives of their own lower classes to build and maintain a military supremacy enabling them to invade and steal another’s land. The big-money, movers and shakers of the British Empire, the most successful, and most hypocritical of Europe’s rapacious, commercial-empire builders of its time, could best be compared to the absentee landlords or owners of company-run stores and towns (a commonplace occurrence in the civilized West prior to WWII) who hired union-busting goons to insure their continued use of cheap labor.

	Over time, the murderous and deceitful policies required to maintain control over their colonies caused Europe’s colonizing nations to engage in bestial behavior no less destructive in terms of: lives destroyed, slave labor utilization and genocide, than that employed by the Nazis -- during their deservedly-condemned murderous, military conquest and occupation of Europe. Like the Nazis, the Brit moneyed classes, with their usual legalistic display of hypocrisy, relied on racist rationalizations and jingoistic flourishes to convince their own underclasses of the need to willingly give up their freedom and lives to serve their country. On the other hand, it’s quite possible that merely being paid was sufficient to motivate England’s impoverished masses to carry out the depraved policies of a morally- bankrupt Empire -- policies with a material benefit for the favored few -- albeit with a sometime trickle-down effect benefiting the common man. 

*

	 As to the Nazis and Japs, their only saving grace is they weren’t hypocrites -- they were racist, predatory murderers, and made no bones about it. The Brits, on the other hand, though just as rapacious, were a wholly different matter -- they had a conscience, which required they rationalize their equally repugnant doings. The Brits, with their legalistic, Judeo-Christian morality, relied on a self- serving interpretation of the Old Testament, backed by a well-maintained killing machine to facilitate the taking over of another people’s land, and the continuous suppression by force of arms of those alien peoples to obtain a steady supply of cheap labor.  Nevertheless, though racism played its part in rationalizing their doings in “non-white” colonies, the :white” colonies settled with the flotsam and jetsam from her jails, slums and poorhouses -- though of British stock, were to fare no better. However, by the  end of the nineteenth century, a home rule, of sorts, had been granted to them.

	The Brits knew full well they’d maintain their financial stranglehold over their white colonies even after granting them home rule (much of their wealth is still controlled by London). Moreover, by the end of the nineteenth century, the murderous tactics required to maintain a stranglehold over the economy of a colonized peoples would no longer be countenanced at home -- if carried out against even the meanest of Briton’s own. The racism card couldn’t be used to rationalize a massacre of a thousand unarmed civilians -- to maintain the Empire -- if they were Brits. So, it was far better to allow the “white” colonies a semblance of home rule.

	The economic policies maintained in both her white colonies and in Britain itself were designed to prevent the masses from usurping the privileges enjoyed by the highborn and wealthy. And, with India being the major source of their wealth, racism was called into play in an attempt, not always successful, to stop England’s underclasses, both at home and in her colonies, from associating their plight with that of Indians. 

*

	The post WWI massacre of a thousand unarmed civilians at Jallianwala Bagh was sanctioned by the Brits as a means of squelching India’s drive for home rule, which, if granted there, to a people long since knowledgeable in manufacturing and finance, meant the loss of their cash cow -- and an end to the Empire. Without the racism instilled in British troops, it’s doubtful that they could have willingly committed the atrocity at Jallianwala Bagh. And, without having been indoctrinated with the materialism and racism inherent in the Judeo-Christian Protestant ethic, it’s doubtful that Englishmen back home could have rationalized the nefarious doings required to maintain the Empire.

CHAPTER SIX -- Part Three
	
	Not since the end of the Vietnam War, and America’s subsequent search and destroy missions to find those responsible for our guilt and shame -- not for having started the war, but for having lost it, had so many Americans lost confidence in their time-honored institutions as they did a decade later in the 1980’s. 
 
*

It was around 1970, when the Vietnam War was winding down that the deliberate destruction of Richard Nixon took place. It was accomplished through the efforts of both liberals and conservatives. (And, it should be noted that Nixon didn’t start the war, but he was responsible for ending it.) 

*

	The reasons for such an unsettling state of affairs were manifold, with the most prominent aspect being a repeat of the greed-motivated mismanagement and outright corruption of our banking system that had precipitated the Great Depression of the 1930s. At least five U.S. Senators and one son of a Republican President were directly involved in the half-trillion dollar raid on the U.S. Treasury -- better known as the Savings and Loan scandals. We were then faced with the multi-billion-dollar crooked dealings on Wall Street that resulted in the wholesale jailings of many of its wheelers and dealers; then, there was the Ollie North affair; the Willie Horton business -- and on and on, until one thought it would never end.

	 It was therefore only a matter of time before the heretofore unthinkable conclusion would be reached -- to question the integrity of that renowned Gibraltar-of-truth -- the oft-quoted New York Times. In the last years of the twentieth century, in an unyielding attempt to maximize profits, its current, bottom-line-motivated publishers changed its format -- thereby making it resemble a flabby and bloated, painted old tart, the kind once part of the now squeaky-clean Times Square area of Manhattan. Although the change of format can hardly be considered an aesthetic improvement over its past drab image as a gray old lady, it’s obvious that the changes made were calculated to increase its bottom line. However, perhaps the publishers were merely attempting to be more honest -- by portraying the paper for what it has most assuredly become.
 
	Over the years, the paper’s domestic editorial policy has rationalized corporate acts of impropriety; supported greed-motivated real-estate deals and the end of tenant protection against rent-gouging; applauded regressive tax policies; pressed for the removal from public view of the homeless -- apparently its yearly drives to aid the needy have become just a PR gimmick, with modest, if any, real benefits for the poor; was supportive of anti-labor policies; and has stooped so low as to sneak name- and product-promoting advertising into its agenda-driven, crossword puzzles. Yet, the paper still manages to maintain its reputation for being a fair-minded and somewhat-liberal publication.

	This feat of legerdemain has been accomplished by an editorial staff that sees to it that much of what might be considered newsworthy is printed, agenda-friendly or not. However, those articles resulting from more-or-less factual reporting, when thought harmful to their agenda, were edited, illustrated, headlined and placed in such a manner as to lessen, when not totally distort any factual content that might have a potentially-negative impact on their not-so-hidden program.

	Regardless, as a result of its lack of candor, its owners have been guilty of, at the very least, deceptive advertising. There’s something sneaky about a newspaper that claims to be scrupulously honest and attempts to appear self-righteously fair in its acknowledged real editorials, and yet is deceptive and manipulative in the presentation of its factual and straight-news reporting.

*

	Whether or not newspaper's attitude towards less-than-wealthy Americans is agenda-driven, will be left to the scrutiny of others. What is of major concern here, is the sinister fall-out from its agenda, as it pertains to the paper's articles on international matters. It’s the innocent non-Euro- Caucasians, from the redeveloping nations of the truly-old segment of the Old World, along with the developing and underdeveloped lands, who feel the brunt of the effects of the policies it supports.
 
	Nevertheless, in its agenda-driven selection of photos, disingenuous editing, and misleading headlines that serve to condone the subjugation of peoples from countries they persistently portray as being fit-only-to-be-recolonized, the paper's publishers are deserving of people's disdain -- at the very least. Surely there’s nothing criminal on the part of the publishers in their printing those not-so-subtly-misleading, negative headlines which have been routinely, but not exclusively applied to articles about nations with large populations of Moslems. Nevertheless, due to the paper’s exalted reputation as a bastion of integrity (at least in the minds of the too-lazy-to-think-for-themselves, wanna-seem-to-be-liberal intellectuals who tend to make up a good part of its readership) when it sees fit to manipulate the truth in order to camouflage its own hidden agenda, in a sense taking advantage of the gullibility of its less-than- sophisticated readership -- its actions smack of duplicity. 

	By attempting to brainwash its readers into accepting its manipulated truths as Gospel, the paper runs the risk of being compared to that equally-successful propagandist: Paul Joseph Goebbels, who, no doubt, also believed he was morally justified in manipulating the truth. I sincerely hope that the consequences of the New York Times’s agenda-based distortions of the truth will not be as dire for the recipients of its disparagement as they were for those of Goebbels.

*

The Times of London, during its heyday, when in support of the policies of the British Empire, engaged in propagandist activities similar to those being fostered by its New York namesake. It too rationalized those atrocities committed against the civilian populations in militarily-weaker lands -- when committed in the name of a select-nation’s interests. And, the resultant murders and outright massacres of unarmed citizens (as a policy to maintain the Crown’s “possessions”) were no different than the atrocities rationalized and fostered by the distortions of truth made by the Nazis’ minister of propaganda -- or by those rationalized by the London Times’s New York namesake.

CHAPTER SIX -- Part Four

	A few days after my tour of Hyderabad, I stopped down at the Andra Pradesh Tourism office, a state-run agency, to inquire as to the possibility of visiting one of the local art institutions. The manager advised me he thought it could be arranged -- and it was. His wife was on the staff of the smaller of the two large colleges in Hyderabad -- she happened to be an artist and, at a later date, when an opportunity arose to see her work, she proved to be a very accomplished one. The following day I went by three-wheeler to the College of Art and Architecture: a large, airy and modern complex. There, I was cordially received by the Dean of the college, who, in the course of administering the art school, spared a few minutes of his time for me: during which I convinced him of my bona fides as an artist.  He then gave me permission to visit the studios, providing no objections were raised by any of the individual, artist-instructor professors. After showing photos of my work, and convincing all of my knowledge, however limited, of Western art and of the New York art-scene in particular, about which they were most curious -- although by then, I had withdrawn from much that I had once been familiar with, I was graciously permitted to enter the various studios.

	The student body was composed of hundreds of college-age young men and women, all of whom had passed the entrance requirements that verified their artistic potential and drawing skills. The students, like the instructors, were all very curious about what was happening in New York, and asked to see the photos of my work. Though slides and photos of paintings are poor substitutes for an artist’s original work, when traveling, they must suffice -- though merely as a rough indication of what he’s into artistically. And, though obviously inadequate, they’re the only  credentials he can carry with him (other than even a modest-reputation as an artist --  which I lack).

	It was then that the Professor of Art and Composition, the wife of the gentleman from A.P. tourism, mentioned an incident that occurred when she visited an Art School in New York City: one that, at the time, was involved in a lost-cause attempt to regain its past status as America’s foremost artist-run institution. Amongst the more sophisticated New Yorkers it had come to be thought of, at best, a place offering cheap studio space to a disparate collection of more-or-less accomplished artists -- plus a hangout for a slew of lifelong-amateur artists. At worst, it was used as a cheap way to obtain a student visa, or a place for shrinks and geriatricians to send their neurotic and elderly, middle-class patients -- in an effort to have them learn a hobby and get rid of their inhibitions. Though still touted as a democratic, artist-run institution, it has, of late, been taken over by deep-pocketed, retired businessmen playing at being artists -- who, despite altruistic claims, may, or may not be attempting to use it as an ego builder, a tax dodge or worse: its real-estate value and assets together were nearing the hundred-million-dollar mark. Rumor has it that a coup is in the works by some of its instructors -- those most worried about their lack of credentials. The non-artists now running the school are believed to be instituting  the dubious requirement that all artist-instructors have MFAs -- this as a means of recovering its long-lost reputation as a leading artist-run institution. 

	The Professor of Art and Composition, a slight, unassuming, well-spoken Indian woman, visited the school to see how its art classes were run. Being rudely refused permission by a clerk at the counter, the professor requested to speak to the director. The clerk, after mumbling something to a woman who seemed in charge, advised her that the director was too busy to see her, but that if she left her passport at the desk, she could be permitted to visit the studios. It’s difficult for Indians to comprehend that particularly-Euro-American form of bigotry, one based solely on the shade of one's skin, so this brilliant, talented artist attributed the insulting rudeness to the ill-breeding of an ugly American.

	Nevertheless, regardless of her hurt feelings -- and my own past affiliation with that particular art school, she had invited me, the American with an Indian father, to critique the work of her students. A few days later the works of one hundred or so of her students from classes she taught on color, design and composition, were hung in a huge, well-lit studio. Just about every piece displayed gave evidence of a thorough knowledge of color theory; the drawing was proficient throughout; and her students’ ability to design well was apparent.

*

	Even allowing for the possibility that the insult to the Indian artist who was refused permission to visit the New York school's studios was due to thoughtless indifference (though it’s always been freely given upon request), or that it was due to a mind-set that women are not really artists -- it was, in all probability merely an example of the same old racism-based bias commonly displayed by members of the West’s lowest levels of society towards their betters -- should they have a darker shade of skin.

CHAPTER SEVEN -- Part One

	 It was time to move on. I intended to spend a week or so in Goa at Christmas time;  I was curious to see what influence if any, Portuguese Catholicism had on the Indian psyche -- if, indeed, it’s identifiably unique. I did eventually visit Goa, but I put it off for the time being, first to await the lifting of the Ayodhya curfews; and then as a result of an invite from Peter Desai (the Indian gentleman who was present, along with Dr. Moti, when I first met Astrid Hubbel). Without much effort required, he persuaded me to stay put for another week. If I were, indeed, guilty of delaying my departure as a pretext to await Astrid Hubbel's return, I would plead innocence on the basis that it was not a conscious act. My real, or rationalized reason for remaining in Hyderabad was to attend, at Peter Desai’s request, the midnight Christmas service at his church. Its being Anglo-Christian, it would have offered me a chance to witness yet another aspect of the interplay of the two cultures. Nevertheless, I must admit I consider the presence of proselytizing Christianity in India tantamount to having a painting on black velvet (of an apple with a trompe-l’oeil dewdrop on it) hanging in the Louvre -- although, with the contemporary art scene being what it is, and museums trying so hard to be pertinent, the irony intended may soon be lost.

	My good intentions notwithstanding, the upshot was that I never did attend the service -- after half a dozen of us had gathered at the apartment of one of the would-be church- goers it was voted, myself abstaining, to forego the formalities of attending the midnight celebration of the birth of the Son of God. Instead, we spent the evening at an Indo- yuppie discotheque. All of which, confirmed my opinion: that the West’s formal approach to religion, which places an artificial barrier between a man and his spiritual world, lacked a pertinence to the Indian psyche. Religion in India has to do with an individual’s personal involvement in a mystical spiritual experience -- in a one-to-one relationship with the ineffable Brahma -- and not with sitting through a how-to-avoid-going-to-Hell lesson by a self-appointed vicar of God.
*

	By prolonging my stay in Hyderabad I was to meet with Astrid Hubbel again. However, it didn’t occur until several days after her return to the Yatri Nivas -- which led me to assume she had found another interest.

	Late one evening, in answer to a gentle tap, I opened my door to find Astrid Hubbel standing there. I had missed her; however, it did dawn on me that I might be suffering from the infirmities attributed -- erroneously? -- to the aging process. I realized it was for her company as a conversationalist that I missed her -- at least as much, if not more than as a love interest. She came in lugging a tin of cheese and a packaged-in-Germany, hermetically-sealed, loaf of black bread -- along with a bottle of Indian rum and two bottles of Bisleri. I welcomed her with platonic pecks; her having bent forward ever so slightly, proffering first one cheek, then the other. I proceeded to mix drinks, and then, in the course of the next ten or fifteen minutes we gave each other a superficial summary of what had transpired since our last meeting. Nevertheless, It was obvious that something was bothering her; she seemed on a mission. So, I wasn't surprised when out of the blue she turned to look me straight in the eye, and said in a serious and no-nonsense manner: 

	"During the many days that I have been gone, I did much thinking about what went on between us.” She stopped herself. Then, while shaking her head and blushing, ever so slightly, continued, "Sometimes, I have trouble expressing myself in English. What I wish to say is that I was thinking about the things we talked about. I have spent much time amongst the Indian doctors and nurses at the hospital, and I myself have given much thought to the differences in the way they think from the way Germans do. Now, I do wish to know what it is you have to say about this -- and I do remember you were going to tell me why Indians do think so differently from Europeans, and also from Americans."

	To this I made a glib response, saying something dumb like, "I’d have preferred it if you'd occupied yourself with thoughts involving me that were of a less intellectual nature." 

	Though the intention of my response was to be funny, it ended up sounding much like an inane double- entendre. To lessen its impact, I immediately brought the conversation back to that of the Indian ethos:

	"If I ever thought I knew the answer to the question: What makes Indians Indian? -- which requires an answer before trying to determine how Indians differ in the way they think from people in the West, the disturbances now taking place in so many Indian cities, along with some recent disconcerting revelations on the racist attitudes that Indians are routinely exposed to, have all served to make me doubt my, or for that matter, anyone's, ability to determine just what makes any individual think in any special unique fashion -- let alone the reasons why all the members of any arbitrarily- designated group of peoples think the way they do -- especially when their only real commonality might very well be their belief that they have one." 

	"That may be so," said Astrid Hubbel, "but I hope you do not use this to avoid talking  about it. You have said many times that you would, I think you said: tackle that question -- so please -- please do so. You have already told me why many Germans think they are Germans, and I believe you are right. Now, why do you not tell me what distinguishes Indian Caucasians from Western Caucasians? -- or, as you say, what the commonality of each group is -- but, since I have never seen or heard that word commonality used before, and even though  I believe I understand exactly what it means -- I shall look it up!"

	"Don’t bother, you may not find it in the dictionary, at least in the way I’m using it -- but it doesn’t really matter. If everyone understands that it means what a people or, perhaps, even things, have in common -- plus that intangible je ne sais quoi -- why not use the word?" 

	Astrid smiled, and then said, "That I will only use a word exactly the way it is defined in the dictionary is, perhaps, one of those many non-genetic, yet obvious differences that makes you an American and me, a German." And then added, "But I think you are deliberately putting off your answer."

	"Okay," I said, "maybe I am, but be aware that after kicking this around, the conclusion may just be that the reality of a people’s group differences is that they're merely the result of some kind of self-willed hallucination -- induced by internal pressures to conform to a self-promoting, non- existent, self-deluding norm -- plus a reaction to the negative or exclusionary attitudes of other self-deluded groupings.

	"But, Nance, why should that matter? -- if these people act differently from others because they believe that is the way their group reacts to a given situation, does not that help to define the group? -- is not that their commonality?"

	I laughed. "Astrid, you certainly have been doing a hell of a lot of thinking about this. Sure, a people’s belief that they're different, no matter what the cause, is probably a good part of the input that makes a group a group.  And, if that belief, somehow or other, also enables its members to come to grips with the mysterious unknowns connected with the uncontrollable and often frightening aspects of life and death -- and the intent and result of the input is benign -- there’d be no harm in event those differences became fixed as real in the group's psyche. The only problem with all this, is it never seems to end there; it soon takes on one form or another of blind allegiance to a group concept of one sort or another. And, as such, the concept of a peoples’ believing themselves unique, leaves them vulnerable to the manipulative propaganda generated on behalf of every demagogue claiming an affinity to that group. While allowing for a few obvious exceptions, plus some dubious ones, those appealing to a group's perceived singularity are an unscrupulous and greedy lot -- who have a marked tendency to be egomaniacs, to boot."

	"But Nance, even if what you say is so, and I find no fault with what you say, does that really change the fact that those people who adopt this admittedly-synthetic persona, one that allows them to be so easily manipulated, have become, as a matter of fact, a legitimate entity -- in their own eyes, as well as in the eyes of others?"

	"I liked it better when I was the philosophical one," I said. "Your adherence to your German persona has you building sentences that question my expositions a little more
methodically than I was expecting."

	"I do not mean to... How do you say it? -- put you in a corner?" Astrid Hubbel said softly and slightly apologetically. "But, the subject of ethnicity, because of my German upbringing: one that still presents it in racial terms, is of great interest to me. And I wish to be certain that I understand exactly what it is you are saying about it."

	"I guess I can't get out of this now, even if I wanted to -- without feeling like a complete heel -- so let's go back to where we agreed that the genetic differences between those people belonging to what are generally considered different races, are of a superficial nature, at most. Next, we agreed that with the sole exception of the observable difference, though often nonexistent, in the degree of skin pigmentation: the results of a genetic adaptation to their inhabiting a sunny land, that virtually all Indians and Europeans are obviously of the same race: that which goes by the name Caucasian. Furthermore, as I recall, we were in agreement that since there’s no appreciable genetic difference between the races, how much more nonsensical is it to presume the presence of intrinsic differences in peoples within the same race -- especially when, in terms of human development, those presumptions are based solely on the appearance of recently- acquired and relatively-insignificant physical, intellectual, moral and life-style adaptations to different environments."

	"Yes," Astrid Hubbel said, "I now think that I understand what it is you are doing. I think  you are saying that the attitudes displayed by different peoples, of their conception of what is right and what is wrong, has nothing to do with the minor effects of genes that differentiate them by race; but is something learned. Also, I think that what you are saying is making me into a believer -- because I now think all considerations of ethnicity are purely subjective observations, which by the very nature of man, no insult meant to you, are almost always self-serving -- am I not correct?" 

	"That's more or less right." Then, pointedly referring to our earlier bout of bantering, I added,  "Just for the record, I don't think you're a sexist either." At this, she cracked a smile, which helped to lower the highbrow intensity of our conversation. I don't think either of us wanted the evening to turn into a confrontational battle of wits. That said, I continued, "Despite the possible exceptions of certain evolutionary instilled attitudes about self-survival, incest and murder, at least within one’s own grouping, what's moral for one group, as against what's moral for another, is strictly the result of learning -- or indoctrination, if you will. And, it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the superficial physical differences of its members, whether or not such differences originate in the genes. Nevertheless, by stretching the bounds of logic a little, genes might be considered to play a secondary role in determining moral standards."

	"Now I do not understand," she said. And then, sounding a little perplexed, continued, "In the past you convinced me that the genes that differentiate the races and all their sub-groups, because they came so late in mankind's development, are insignificant to the point of being nonexistent --  insofar as they influence human behavior. And, now you say they could in some way determine the moral standards for a group. How can that be?" 

	"I didn't mean to confuse the issue," I said, " but if I understand it correctly, it’s the inter-relationship of the variables in the innate structure of each of some seventy-thousand, or is it a hundred-thousand genes, that determines the individual characteristics of each and every one of us. Moreover, it's a given that the manifestations of those genetically ascribed characteristics, when arbitrarily assigned special qualities, cause both the bearers and the observers of those traits to respond to them in a preconditioned, dog-like manner. And keep in mind that this holds true, whether the result is beneficial for the bearers of the traits, or harmful to those who observe them -- or vice versa.

	“What I’m driving at,  is that due to the way people respond to the observable differences of one another, whether or not those differences are attributed, erroneously or not, to a group’s genetic makeup -- the physical and attitudinal differences that its members have in common could be considered as a determining behavioral factor, one that affects the convictions people have about themselves as well as one another.

	“So, you see, those outside pressures and attitudes thrust upon a people bearing these observable traits can, in turn, cause the members of this otherwise arbitrarily designated group to react against, or in accordance to the racial or ethnic caricature of themselves as formulated by others -- in effect, giving life to that caricature -- all of which is due to their becoming convinced that their group’s more or less singular attitudinal differences are based on specific genes."

	"Ah! Now I believe I understand what your intentions are. What you are saying, Nance, is that, indirectly, because genes are believed to be a factor determining the moral concepts of a group, significance is given to the otherwise slight and meaningless differences in their appearances."

	"That’s what I meant, but ya know, on second thought, maybe you were right when you questioned me," I said, somewhat apologetically. "If, for instance, we were to consider only the thought-to-be-genetic inputs that account for the differences in the size and strength of men, we would, no doubt, see that moralities were devised as a means of rationalizing their use, by a given society, in order to further its self-interests. But, now I think it might be stretching that logic a bit too far, in that the manifested effects of each gene vary so when subjected to a change in the carrier’s environment -- because the manner a given gene affects the overall appearance of an individual is often determined by how that gene reacts to any given stimuli, such as: the variables of diet and climate.”

*

Australia serves as a classic example. Those folks who were originally transported there came from typical lower class backgrounds -- which, in England, at that time, had them living in poverty. They, in turn, were undernourished and overworked, and when added to the effects of England’s unhealthy, mist-drenched climate, few were of a robust stature. Nevertheless, even allowing for the weakest dying en route in the holds of transport vessels and on the beaches once at journey’s end, it took but a few generations before the progeny of those survivors, each carrying an olio of the same genes their ancestors had carried with them from England, to develop a physical presence that serves to throw doubt on the fact that the vast majority of Australia’s original settlers came from the lowest levels of British society. 

*

	At this, Astrid Hubbel, with a show of concern said, "By questioning you, I did not mean to cast doubts on what you say. I am aware that you must have given all this much thought. Please go on as if I said nothing."

	"I don't know if I can, it’s starting to resemble the search for a gay gene so as to rationalize  homosexuality, or the attempt to define a gene that may be responsible for the little-known, Tay-Sachs disease, as being a Jewish thing. All in an attempt, by certain individuals from amongst obviously arbitrary groupings to give themselves an identity intended to substantiate their claims of having a genetically-based, unique presence -- which, in turn, would give them an excuse for their exercising, as uncontrollable, any group actions and attitudes that might be considered unacceptable by one or another governing body of self-appointed moralists. However, their deliberate attempt to substantiate their uniqueness also appears to be an in-your-face, defensive reaction -- sort of a variation on the you-can't-fire-me-I-quit response to getting canned from your job.

	“It's interesting to note that Americans with Equatorial African ancestry, having real and readily- identifiable physical differences, have no need to stress the very-real threat to their health that sickle-cell anemia presents in order to create a gene-based identity for themselves -- although the Afro hairdo of the 1960’s was an obvious in-your-face response to America’s, now-only-somewhat- mitigated, race-based, bigoted attitudes."

*

	I paused, shrugged my shoulders, smiled half- heartedly, and added: "This evening is turning into something I for one never expected, in more ways than one -- but it's only by kicking ideas around that they begin to make sense. And I can't think of a more pleasant way than this to make the attempt.”

	"Thank you," she said demurely, "but please continue. What we are discussing can help me understand many things that have been bothering me about my being German."

	"Okay," I said, "but this is a hell of a way to spend a night in a hotel room with a lady."

	"Yes," she said, "perhaps I too think so -- a little bit. But I would very much like to hear what it is you have to say."

	And, so, I tried to continue from where I left off: "In retrospect, I think it’s a fairly complex matter, and though I believe my initial suggestion that genes play no role in determining an ethnic morality is basically right, there are a lot of exceptions to be considered.  Let's take as an example the members of a hypothetical primitive tribe who live together in a group for any number of life-preserving reasons, and who have decided on a code to live by: one that determines what's right and what's wrong in their dealings with one another. In time, this code will most-assuredly evolve into a morality capable of rationalizing their winning or losing a conflict with another grouping of peoples. And, no matter how slight the differences between the members of those competing groups, those differences will be stressed as a self-serving means of justifying the results of their actions.”

	"Ah, then what you are saying is that all peoples, not only Germans and other Europeans, have adopted moral principles that rationalize their national interests."

	"I would add to that," I countered. "The most influential leaders of a people go about inventing, out of whole cloth, an uplifting history that appeals to the vast majority of a people, and, what’s more, they’re more often than not outsiders. Why? Because they have a distant and uninvolved objective view of that people and their history -- which, in turn, enables them to realize just how easy it is to manipulate them, en masse, usually for their own personal benefit."

	"This I understand," she said. "Hitler was not really a German, he was an Austrian."

	"By mentioning that, my intention wasn't to relieve those so-used people of responsibility for their actions. That charismatic leaders have often manipulated people to satisfy their own personal hang ups -- doesn't relieve those people of their guilt, individually or collectively -- should they take part in, condone, or even ignore acts of bestiality when engaged in by their countrymen -- whether or not in response to the commands of their leaders, and whether or not they personally benefit from such doings. And that’s a universal that applies to all peoples, not just to Germans.

	“That Hitler was Austrian, and Bismarck a Prussian, and that the territorial gains from Germany's aggressions were only of a transient and dubious benefit for Germans (although her industrial know-how from having so-often geared for war remain), doesn't lessen their communal guilt for the sickening death and destruction unleashed by Germans during WWII. To allow oneself to be brainwashed when the choice is life or death, though hardly an honorable act, is one thing -- but when an overwhelming majority of a people willingly allow their minds to be controlled by another, be he alien or not, due to his having appealed to their own selfish desires, or bigoted inclinations -- they are as guilty, individually and en masse, as their leaders for the resultant horrors inflicted on others.”

	Here Astrid Hubbel spoke up defensively: "I did not intend to detract from Germany’s guilt -- no more than if I were to attempt to relieve Russians of their guilt for the horrors they committed when ordered to do so by Stalin, who was a Georgian and not a Russian .” She paused, reflected for a moment, and then went on. “But, this I must admit, though Stalin was responsible for innumerable acts of bestiality, the Russians were far less methodical than were the Nazis in carrying them out."

	We seemed to be getting a little off the track by exploring the racism inherent in  nationalistic trends over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but I followed up on her lead:

	"It's interesting that you only mention the non-Russian Stalin, whose atrocities, by and large, were for political, rather than racist reasons -- which, admittedly, doesn’t leave the murdered folk any less dead. You could also have mentioned the non-Greek Alexander, the Macedonian who, after conquering the Greeks, led them on his ego-building raids into the more civilized nations to Europe’s South and East, for which we in the West call him Great -- or Napoleon, the Corsican, who helped to reunify a France in the aftermath of years of class warfare. And, though he initially led a pro-democracy army with a Crusader-like fervor, Napoleon’s liberating expeditions soon degenerated into land-grabs that expanded the political boundaries of France, and helped amass great wealth for her nouveaux- riches bourgeoisie -- while, coincidentally, crowning Napoleon as Emperor and establishing his relatives as royalty. 

	"Although racism, the handmaiden of patriotism, no doubt played some part in rallying the troops to offer their lives in battle, the kind of fabricated nationalistic racism, as we now know it, wasn’t used by Alexander’s to-the-victor- belong-the-spoils marauders or the initially democracy- motivated, post-revolutionary French.

	“The comparison I’m going to make is not intended to lessen the guilt of the Spaniards and Portuguese for their bigotry-based, inherently-racist, atrocities committed by them during the inquisition, or when involved in the African slave trade, or by their conquistadors -- all of which were committed against poorly armed and often unaware adversaries. Nevertheless, modern-day propaganda, with its deliberately-instilled form of racism that was used to rationalize the grasping, empire-building policies of the ever- so-law-abiding Brits, as well as the failed attempts at empire building by the not-at-all-law abiding Nazis and Japs, didn’t develop in Catholic countries, but had its roots in North Europe’s Protestant Reformation -- which, though their break with Rome was proclaimed as being for religious and moral reasons, was motivated far more by self-interest.

	‘The illiterate German princes and robber barons were fighting against the continuing economic and cultural domination of Italian Rome. Germany’s unlettered nobles wanted the privileges and revenues resulting from the subjugation of Germany’s vast peasant population to accrue to themselves, rather than have it channeled south to Rome. Apparently, they acted on the belief that if anyone were to benefit from the enslavement of the German peasant, it shouldn’t be an Italian pope -- and besides, the added monetary rewards from their seizing church lands were worth the risk of excommunication. When it comes down to the choice between materialism and religion, money to buy the mundane offerings of power and things seems to be the odds- on favorite to win out: a bird in the hand being worth two up in Heaven. ” 

	“At one time, Nance, I would have thought you unfair, but now  I think you must be right. In the past it was difficult for me to realize why there was such a thing as the Peasant’s War. But now I can understand why it came about. Feudal Germany had been, for a thousand years, ever since the fall of the Roman Empire...,”  She suddenly stopped, and then explained: “In Europe we are much steeped in our history, and your knowledge of world history has caused me to forget you are American, but perhaps you are not aware that the Peasant’s War, which began in 1524, was the result of an uprising by Germany’s peasants against the formalizing by German Barons of their lot as slaves under the Roman-influenced feudal system. The German nobles were to eventually win the war, but only after employing the most barbaric of atrocities against their peasantry -- all with Martin Luther’s approval, if not urging -- his alienation with the Vatican was over church mis-deeds and governance, and perhaps because he wished to marry. He was not concerned at all in matters of social reform -- only in the reform of the Church.”  

	“European history is  only touched on in America,” I said. “I think it has to do with the atrocious social conditions the ancestors of today’s Americans were living under before emigrating to America. The realities of their ancestors’ lives were not picture-perfect, to say the least; few people would  ever have left their homeland unless things were pretty bad. The reticence to dwell on the realities of their ancestral past, goes back to America’s earliest settlers from Spain and England. But Americans, immigrants all, have recently so glorified their forebears’ lives, that they’ve begun to brag about their heritage -- to the point one would think they must have all come over first class on their era’s Titanic -- while completely ignoring the realities of their ancestors’ far-from prosperous beginnings.” 

	“What you say about those Americans who emigrated from Europe is, I believe, true,” she said. “But I wish to mention that during the beginnings of the Reformation there was so much talk of freedom and self-determination in matters of religion, that it caused the peasants to believe they would also be free of their feudal obligations -- but it was not to happen. The German peasant remained bound to the land -- enslaved as before in  their own country by their own nobles -- with the support of churchmen. And,  I am much ashamed to admit that their condition lasted for centuries -- until finally freed due to the aftereffects of the French Revolution and the presence of Napoleon and his French troops.” 

	I refrained from adding: Which gives credence to the cynical observation that no good turn ever goes unpunished. But, instead, I added, “I think what you’re driving at is that prior to the reformation’s onset, when their state of servitude was legally formalized, German peasants -- even though tied to the land, and with no alternative but to do their lord’s bidding: money-wise, women-wise and religion-wise, still considered themselves somewhat free. This, despite their obvious condition of servitude -- which was at best but one step away from outright slavery.” 

	Astrid Hubbel, while nodding in agreement, stated, “Yes, that I believe is so. But, I wished to connect the condition of the German peasant to that of India’s Sudras. From my readings on India, I believe the German peasants were living under conditions much as India’s Sudras did within the caste system. And, in India, Kshatriyas were the temporal rulers and the Sudras, the peasantry -- much as Germany’s knights lorded it over the peasants. And, I must add that it is very possible that a slave-like mentality was then nurtured in Germany’s lower classes, the effects of German soldiers being enlisted from amongst their peasantry. Those German peasants hired as mercenaries, continued to look for a master to lead them. And, I think that trait has remained very strong with many of those Germans from the lower classes -- and, to this day, it is this that causes them to be such obedient soldiers.”

	“Ya know,” I said, “by your comparing the condition of German peasants to India’s Sudras, you mention the similarities between the two cultures. But there’s a major point of departure. First, amongst Hindus, due to the demands of caste, only Kshatriyas could be soldiers. Second, in no way do Sudras consider themselves slaves or servants of landowning Thakars and their ilk. The lot of the Sudras in India could best be compared to tenant farmers in America -- though with both often living under serf-like conditions when subjected to the tyranny of oppressive landlords. That sort of arrangement between peasants and their knightly lord may very well have been in effect in Central Europe -- that is until the nobles of Central Europe adopted Roman law which formalized the peasants’ status as that of slaves.”

	“Perhaps that is so,” Astrid Hubbel agreed, somewhat reluctantly, before returning to her discourse on Germany’s peasants. “When all were Catholic, at least in theory, both lord of the manor and peasant in servitude were subjected to the same moral authority and protection of the Church. And, I now see that the nationalist claims by the nobles to rid themselves of the authority of the Church at the onset of the Reformation, and their subsequent murderous put-down of the serfs, had very little to do with religion. The Protestant petty princes who benefited from the easing of restrictions on usury and, of course, from the confiscation of Rome’s Church-held lands, searched for and found the rationale for their greed-based materialism in the Old Testament -- then only recently printed in the vernacular. Also, I think you were correct when you said the racist aspect of the Old Testament was used by Europeans to rationalize colonialism -- which I now also see as an immoral, greed- motivated subjugation of alien peoples.” 

	I was a little overwhelmed. I had thought we’d only have an exchange of ideas -- I had no intention of winning a convert to my way of thinking, so I just said, “I wasn’t that aware of the scale of the atrocities committed against Germany’s peasantry during the Reformation.” I then went on to make an attempt to put European racism in the perspective I thought it deserved.

*

Although you could probably make a case for the concept of a Nordic race originating with Bismarck and the Prussians, it actually originated with a Frenchman. However, it wasn’t until Bismarck’s military successes that he could unite a mishmash of Central Europeans, all speaking one or another German dialect, into a Fatherland subject to the authority of a militaristic Prussia. The concept of having a racial purity identical to that of the war-like Prussians was the glue that bonded a disparate, Central European peoples into the powerful military, industrial and economic powerhouse that she was to become. Bismarck’s ability, by instilling a pride of race (as a means of convincing a people only recently freed from a life of servitude that they were warriors at heart), was not lost on the Brits. They were so impressed by Bismarck’s success, that they soon adapted the German concept of racial purity, by calling themselves Anglo-Saxons.  

*

	“Lest it appear that racism came into existence full-blown in late-nineteenth-century Germany, much to the dismay of many folk, as you’ve pointed out, Astrid, it’s no longer possible to deny that this new malignant form of institutionalized racism had its roots in the Old Testament. Although, when only a handful of scholars, in and out of the Church, were capable of reading the Bible, its racist and materialist aspects went unnoticed by the Catholic masses; laymen, not permitted to read the Bible, knew only of the Bible from the words of priests and the nuns’ teaching of the catechisms: that series of contrived questions and answers that results in a form of brainwashing best compared to that intended by Marxist dialectics in support of Communism.

	“Nevertheless, in the New World a lethal form of racism, one derived from their catechisms, was practiced by the illiterate castoffs of Catholic Iberia. Since native Americans were not known to be heirs of Adam and Eve, the Iberian Catholics considered them  beyond the pale of God -- and, therefore, less than human. As such, America’s indigenous peoples were wantonly murdered or worked to death -- as beasts of burden. Those Bible-rationalized, greed-motivated barbarisms committed by Europe’s God- fearing Catholics resulted in a spate of genocide on a scale never before, or after, known to man. 
 
	“As Iberian Catholics, who were, at the time, pouring into America in search of fame and fortune, were stealing the lives, possessions and manhood of native Americans, the Church, a half century having elapsed since Columbus’s first landfall, decided Amerinds were indeed human, and moved to save their souls. One would like to think the Church was horrified by the subsequent bashing in of the heads of babies immediately after their baptism: as an act performed in the name of Christian charity. Why did those Iberian misfits, do it? -- to prevent Amerind babies from growing up and sinning -- while at the same time rescuing them, due to their having been baptized,  from an eternity spent in limbo. Yet, the effects of Euro-centric racism are such, that Latin Americans are known to take pride in their Spanish and Portuguese ancestry.

	“But, all that’s old hat. Protestant Europe’s anti- Catholic, and anti-Latino propaganda had been used to castigate the conquistadors for centuries. However, this didn’t stop Protestant Europeans from engaging in murderous activities every bit as barbaric -- talk of the kettle calling the pot black. Moreover, due to the rationales for racism and materialism found in the Bible -- unwittingly,  you Germans helped its dissemination when you adapted China’s invention, the printing press, and printed the Bible in the vernacular. It was soon after that that the followers of the Judeo-Christian religions busied themselves locating certain aspects of the Bible -- much as children search for dirty words in a dictionary -- that gave God’s approval to their military conquests of one or another promised land. In turn, it served as the moral basis for employing military control, no matter how un-Buddheo-Christian the means, to maintain imperialist-colonialism.
	
	“Those rationales continued to be used well past colonialism’s peak years. WWI wasn’t the war to end all wars -- as it was touted to be. Human nature being what it is, it’s doubtful that there will ever be an end to war. One of the reasons for WWI not living up to its promise was the hypocrisy of the colonial powers -- which, however, did serve to accelerate the end of colonialism -- at least in its then-prevalent form.

	“The inexorable forces leading to the end of a militarily supported colonialism in India couldn’t be stopped, despite the Brits’ willingness to use the most modern war machines of its time, those developed during WWI, to commit their calculated atrocities against a bent-on-freedom peoples.

	“What’s amazing is that despite the Brits’ relentless striving for wealth -- greed? which had them callously contribute to the deaths by starvation of a million Irishman and, more than ten times that number of Indians -- which was double the number of  Jews annihilated by the Nazis -- they can still consider themselves Christians -- but probably only Judeo-Christians; it would be beyond belief, that they could think of themselves as Buddheo-Christians.

	“Nonetheless, in the guise of a New World Order those same greed-motivated rationales for the colonialism of the past are being reactivated as a means of justifying the reinstallation of the West’s economic dominance over the redeveloping and developing nations of the world -- perhaps as a means of keeping some from becoming the formidable competitors they once were. 

	"The moral vacuum that existed in Nazi Germany allowed for the atrocities Germany committed in the years leading up to and during WWII. Nevertheless, it was merely a grotesque burlesque of a Biblically-inspired combination of materialism and racism -- as perceived and carried out by madmen. And, before the twentieth century was out, though sometimes under the banner of ethnic cleansing, the concept was being adopted by the peoples of nations supporting one form or another of rationalized, Judeo-Christian, Promised-Land greed.”

	“Nance, If you are equating the atrocities committed by Europe’s established colonial powers to those committed by the Axis nations, I cannot understand how this can be.” She then paused, before going on. “Unless you are saying that they both used the concept of racial superiority, and that racism is fundamental to the success of imperialist colonialism. Yes! Perhaps the disregard for the lives of people living in colonized countries is essential, if the colonizers are to prosper from having stolen the land of other peoples.  And, I have read much about how, during WWII, the Nazis, as well as the English, with their superior arms and well-trained military, extracted food from their colonies to feed their armies. And, in both instances it was done even as the people in their colonies, those of the Nazis in Europe and those of the Brits in South Asia, were dying by the millions as the result of devastating famines.”

	“Sure.” I said, “And, although this made the Brits guilty of mass murder, since their atrocities were committed with the backing of their self-serving laws, they were never condemned for their barbaric actions.” 

*

At least two million Bengalis died during the famine of 1943-4, at which time the Brits confiscated food to feed her troops, while preventing the delivery of food by barge -- they were being used for military purposes. Deaths resulting from two previous famines, of over five million folks each, however, occurred in India in times of ”peace”. This was during the late years of the reign of the beloved Empress-Queen Victoria (that symbol of the Empire’s goodness) when the Brits shipped Indian foodstuffs to those foreign markets where they could get a better price. She also presided over the United Kingdom when, a half century earlier, a million or more impoverished Irish died of starvation -- while the Brits shipped Irish foodstuffs out to foreign markets. .

Recently, the British made an apology to the Irish for their callousness on that occasion -- however, no such apology, as hypocritical and meaningless as they tend to be, has been forthcoming for their nefarious actions and inactions during those famines in India -- despite each of two of them having resulted in a death toll five times that which occurred in Ireland. It would be safe to say that indifference, based on a racist mentality, added to the greed-motivated response by the Brits during India’s times of famine. (Since independence, India’s population has quadrupled, yet India’s produce currently suffices to feed her people -- and such famines are a thing of her colonized past.)

Due to the Euro-centric interpretation of world events, well-read folks, worldwide, know of the Irish famine, much as the world knows of the Jewish Holocaust -- and though both those events were unquestioningly horrifying examples of man’s inhumanity to man -- the vicious and depraved actions of the British that resulted in the untimely deaths of far more Indians than due to both those horrific events together, have become non-events insofar as the West’s popularized version of world history is concerned. 

*

	What follows will deal with an incident involving the purposeful massacre by the British of a thousand unarmed Indian civilians, both men and boys, who were part of a peaceful gathering listening to a lecture held on the grounds of Jallianwala Bagh, in the Punjabi city of Amritsar, in the late afternoon of April 13, 1919.

VOLUME THREE

CHAPTER EIGHT -- Jallianwala Bagh

Part One

	Jallianwala Bagh. How could it happen? What kind of input could so motivate supposedly civilized Christians to knowingly and deliberately order and participate in the calculated massacre of some thousand innocent-of-any- wrongdoing men and boys. The deed was accomplished during a relatively impromptu gathering of Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs -- all of whom were civilians, and none of whom were armed. Estimates, as to the number of people attending the peaceful gathering at Jallianwala Bagh (an open-to-the- sky, yet confined space), varied from as few as six thousand to at least twenty thousand -- virtually all of whom were seated when the unannounced firing began. 

	Jallianwala Bagh for Indians, much like Pearl Harbor for Americans, will forever remain prime examples of government sponsored treachery. The British and Indians, as were the Japanese and Americans, were engaged in negotiations with the purported intent to settling their differences peacefully. However, the obvious intention of both the Japs and the Brits was to stall the negotiations long enough to enable them to inflict a decisive military blow against an unprepared and therefore defenseless foe.

	The perfidious attack by the Japs on December 7, 1941, against a lax military caused the death of some three thousand American servicemen, and brought about America’s entry into WWII. The killing of those taken unaware, albeit well-armed, U.S. servicemen was to rudely awaken the American public to the realities of Realpolitik. Translated it meant: it ain’t how you play the game, winning is all that counts. And, though in sports that might mean a head butt, bean-ball pitch, or even a knee to the crotch, in the world of international diplomacy it means resorting to calculated murder -- on a grand scale.

	No doubt, had Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in her winning WWII, the Jap strategy would have been openly acclaimed for its brilliance -- as was the conquest of Troy due to the Greeks’ ruse involving the Trojan horse.

	The morality of war being what it is, despite Japan’s having lost the war, her sneak attack on Pearl Harbor is, nonetheless, praised for its success and daring by military strategists.

	 There’s no attempt to make less horrible those deaths said to have been inflicted on the Trojans by the Greeks, or the very-real murders by the Japs of Americans at Pearl Harbor. After all, those folks were every bit as dead as were the unarmed Indian civilians  massacred by the Brits at Jallianwala Bagh. Nevertheless, despite all three of those perpetrators: the Greeks, the Japs and the Brits, being equally guilty of resorting to a sneaky and perfidious means to accomplish a greed-motivated end -- that’s where the comparison ends.

*

	At Jallianwala Bagh many thousands of unarmed Indian civilians were seated listening to the non-violent exhortations of speechifying politicians complaining about the duplicity of the British -- who had reneged on their quid pro quo Gentlemen's Agreement with India's law-abiding leadership. This Gentlemen's Agreement inferred that Indians, in return for their military and financial support that contributed to England’s survival during WWI -- would enjoy the benefits of a home rule similar to that granted to the Empire's colonies settled with a population having mainly British origins -- criminal or not. (During WWI, 70,000 Indians gave their lives -- and an additional half-billion pounds sterling -- that’s the equivalent of some hundreds of billions of dollars in today's turn-of-the-millennium money -- was wrenched from a people already impoverished as a direct result of Britain’s military-supported, economic rape of India). 

	As a result, the Brits’ being law-abiding men of their word, rather than openly disavowing their agreement, no sooner was WWI over, than they cunningly passed the Rowlatt Act. This was a law intended to counter any possibility that they would lose their absolute control over India’s economy. It allowed for the peremptory application of martial law against any Indian -- for any action deemed potentially disruptive of Britain’s totalitarian rule over the Subcontinent -- all to be determined at the whim of any one of a plethora of British officials.

*

	There’s no intent to relieve the Japanese of their guilt for their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor -- while involved in negotiations ostensibly intended to keep the peace. Nevertheless, they did attempt to restrict their attack to military targets; and, had America’s military men been on the alert, the Japs would have risked their lives as they carried out their infamous mission. Not so the Brits. The unprovoked massacre of those unarmed civilians at Jallianwala Bagh was carried out by heroic British troops without fear of receiving so much as a scratch from those folks they wantonly gunned down. 

	The Brits, having enacted laws to cover just such an event, claimed a legal and moral right to have murdered those innocents -- in the name of national interest. This allowed them to stand tall as they hid behind the legal niceties of the self-serving laws enacted by them to make lawful their subjugation of a non-threatening alien peoples. If the Japs were considered murderous sneaks for their attack on Pearl Harbor, and justifiably so, then just what should world public opinion consider the British for the atrocity committed by them at Jallianwala Bagh?

	If this were but an isolated instance of British government-supported treachery, it would be bad enough. But, the Brits had committed untold thousands of deliberate hands-on murders in the name of the Crown. The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, thanks to Mahatma Gandhi, just happened to be the one the Brits couldn’t keep hushed up.  

Raten Devi -- A Night in the Killing Ground

	Raten Devi, widow of Chhaju Bhagat spent the night of April 13, 1919 in the Jallianwala Bagh -- where the Conspiracy of Death was carried out by British troops. A legally imposed eight PM shoot to kill curfew had been posted by the Brits; this effectually caused the non-walking wounded at the Bagh to writhe in agony while awaiting a slow and painful death -- and the dead to lie untended. Raten Devi’s experience as she remained with her dead husband throughout the night, was related by her and translated into English. Her description of what took place can be found on a wall in the Martyrs Museum at the scene of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, which is located in India's northwestern Punjabi city of Amritsar. Her account is quoted below in its entirety:

“I was in my house near Jallianwala Bagh when I heard shots fired. I was then lying down. I got up at once, as I was anxious because my husband had gone to the Bagh. I began to cry and went to the place accompanied by two women to help me. There I saw heaps of dead bodies and I began to search for my husband. After passing through that heap, I found my husband.  The way towards it was full of blood and of dead bodies. After a short time, both the sons of Lala Sundar came there, and I asked them to bring a charpai [cot] to carry the body of my dead husband home. The boys accordingly went home and I sent away the two women also. By this time, it was 8 o'clock and no one could stir out of his house because of the curfew order. I stood waiting and crying. At about 8:30 PM, a Sikh gentleman came. There were others who were looking for someone amongst the dead. I did not know them. I entreated the Sikh gentleman to help me in removing my husband's dead body to a dry place, for that place was overflowing with blood.  He caught the body by the head, and I by the legs, and we carried it to a dry place, and laid it down on a wooden block. I waited up to 10 PM but no one arrived there. I got up and started towards Katra Ahluwalia. I thought of asking some students from the Thakurdwara to help me to carry my husband home. I had not gone far, when some man sitting in a window in an adjacent house asked me where I was going at that late hour. I said I wanted some men to carry my husband's dead body home. He said he was attending a wounded man, and as it was after 8 PM nobody could help me then. Then I started towards Katra and another man asked me the same question. I made the same appeal to him, and he gave me the same answer. I had gone hardly more than three or four steps, when I saw an old man smoking and some people sleeping by his side. I repeated the whole of my sad story to him with hands folded. He took great pity upon me and asked those men to go with me. They said it was ten o'clock, and they would not like to be shot down. That was no time to stir out -- how could they go out so far? So I went back and seated myself by the side of my husband. Accidentally I found a bamboo stick which I kept in my hand to keep off the dogs. I saw three men writhing in agony, a buffalo struggling in pain, and a boy about twelve years old, in agony entreating me not to leave the place. I told him I could not go anywhere leaving the dead body of my husband. I asked him if he wanted any wrap, and if he was feeling cold I could spread it over him. But he asked for water, but water could not be procured in that place.

“I heard the clock striking at regular intervals of one hour. At two o'clock, a Jat belonging to Sultan village, who was lying entangled in a wall, asked me to go near him and raise his leg. I got up, and taking hold of his clothes drenched in blood, raised his leg up. After that, no one else came till half-past five. At about six, L. Sundar Dass, his sons and some people from my street came with a charpai, and I brought my husband home. I saw other people at the Bagh in search of their relatives. I passed my whole night there. It was impossible for me to describe what I felt. Heaps of dead bodies lay there, some on their backs and some with their faces upturned. A number of them were poor innocent children. I shall never forget the sight.  I was all alone the whole night in that solitary jungle. Nothing but the barking dogs, or the braying of donkeys was audible. Amongst hundreds of corpses, I passed the night, crying and watching. I cannot say more.  What I experienced that night is known only to me and to God.”

Raten Devi, widow of Chhaju Bhagat

CHAPTER EIGHT -- Jallianwala Bagh

Part Two

	Michael Francis O'Dwyer was born a Catholic in Barronstown, Tipperary, Ireland on April 28, 1864, the sixth son of fourteen children. He was, as was his father, a loyal British subject, one antagonistic to the aspirations of his countrymen who yearned for an Ireland free of Protestant Britain's military occupation of their country. Notwithstanding O’Dwyer’s having been born within twenty years after the first of Ireland’s exacerbated-by-British-greed famines, he accepted, as a proper function of the military arm of the British Empire, the wanton application of lethal force in suppressing his countrymen's passive resistance to the indignity of their being economically and politically disenfranchised, if not enslaved.

	If O’Dwyer were to succeed in England’s Judeo- Christian Victorian world, it was imperative that he show no resentment for the inferior status forced upon his fellow Irish Catholics. His being an ambitious man, he, apparently of his own free will, condoned and actively supported the rapacious tactics of the Brits in Ireland. No doubt, his understandable insecurity, as an Irish Catholic in the service of the Crown, led him to constantly prove both his value and loyalty to England -- which, in turn, like a well-trained lackey, had him anticipate the desires and needs of his perceived social betters. This, combined with the need to feed his oversized ego -- one possessed by many aggressive, physically- and ethically-small men, gave him need to constantly reinforce his overblown concept of self. For the megalomaniac O’Dwyer, this required his demeaning those over whom he gained power .

	All of which contributed to the making  of O’Dwyer, the neurotic martinet, into a very useful and, if necessary, expendable player in the sordid game played by England’s Empire builders and maintainers. He was an obedient and willing tool of the Crown -- and, as are so many ambitious men coming from the lower end of the social order, also a bigot. All of this was to contribute to making O’Dwyer hostile towards all those folks involved in the home rule movements that he considered threatening the status he had attained as a high-level functionary of the Crown. Apparently, by the time the Brits placed him in the lieutenant-governorship of the Punjab, he had convinced them of his ability to carry on much as they, his Englishmen betters had, when they were ruthlessly squelching the demands for home rule made by his fellow Irish Catholics. 

*

	With there being a dearth of qualified Britishers willing to fill the needs of England’s occupation of India, the youthful Michael Francis O'Dwyer, having passed the required civil service test, was sent to the Subcontinent. Obviously, the Brits had their reasons for shipping so many Irish Catholic, civil servants and military men out of England. There was no need for the Brits to overly tax the loyalty of Irish Catholics by requiring them to engage in the subjugation and wanton murder of Ireland’s freedom fighters -- when their services could be utilized in the subcontinent of India. 

	At the time of  O’Dwyer’s youth, and for decades to come, Irish Catholics were but second-class citizens of the United Kingdom; their rights were greatly curtailed, and their loyalty to the Empress-Queen -- the anti-pope head of the Church of England, was under constant scrutiny. Ireland, itself, while O’Dwyer was engaged in his nefarious doings in India, was under the direct control of Protestant England. It was not until well after his involvement in the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh that the Catholic section of partitioned Ireland attained its home rule. And, to this day, Irish Catholics do not have one-hundred percent equality in England . 

*
	
	In his unquestioning adherence to the then- prevalent-in-England concept of the inviolability of the British Empire, O’Dwyer went about aping the attitude of England's landed and in-constant-need-of-money aristocracy towards those considered inferior by reason of their class, ethnicity, race, breeding, religion and whatever. And, it was his single-minded attempt to become part of the British upper class that motivated O'Dwyer's every action over the course of  his quarter-of-a-century rise from a position of obscurity to become, during England’s military occupation of the Indian subcontinent, Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab.

	It's ironic that O'Dwyer's bigotry-based, good-soldier perception of duty -- one utilized by his well-born superiors in London as a means of strengthening England's control over India, would result in the catalytic incident that would lead inexorably to the destruction of the British Empire. The racist basis for the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh united all Indians against British rule. It became obvious, to even the most ardent Indian supporters of the Empire (and there were many) that England had no intention of ever giving up her total control over India’s economy and the lives of her people. Home rule would never come to the Subcontinent as long as the English, regardless of how despicable the means, thought they could  maintain their absolute control. For Brits, such as O’Dwyer, the need to wallow in depravity would not deter them in their attempts to serve their country’s national interest -- which, for him, meant the maintaining of a militarily-enforced stranglehold over the lives of all the people throughout the Subcontinent.

*

	Duplicity, a standard tool of diplomacy, was utilized most effectively by the minions of Britain’s wealthy and landed upper classes, both at home and in their colonies. The passage of the Rowlatt Act, which only pertained to India and her peoples, was a racially-rationalized, deliberately- demeaning attempt to justify their continued absolute control over the entire Subcontinent. As previously mentioned, it subjected all Indians to the arbitrary application of the rules of martial law for any act  deemed detrimental to the good of the Empire, at the whim of any one of a number of minor British officials. The purpose of the Rowlatt Act was twofold. If Indians had willingly accepted its implementation, which the Brits had every reason to believe would not be the case, it would effectively end India’s ability to so much as request home rule. Unless totally blinded by a belief that they could do no wrong, the Brits must have known that Indians would never willingly accept the Rowlatt Act, with its inherent indignities -- indignities inadvertently, if not intentionally made part and parcel of it.

	As a result, the Brits’ in-your-face passage of the Rowlatt Act, leads to the obvious conclusion that they were hoping for a violent reaction to its enactment. England, with her WWI war machine pretty much intact and ready for use (airplanes were used by them to bomb and machine-gun unarmed civilians in the aftermath of the passage of the Rowlatt Act) was gambling, with a marked deck; they knew there would be a major anti-British reaction to the passage of the Rowlatt Act, and they hoped it would be sufficiently violent to rationalize a massive military countermeasure.

*

Japan, that island nation located at the eastern end of the Indo-Eurasian land mass, has been derisively called Japan, Inc. to stress its company-store attitude in its dealings with her own people and the world at large. Yet, despite the fact that England, its counterpart on the opposite end of the Indo-Eurasian land mass, was no different, it’s still being admired for its militarily-enforced, artfully-made-legal, company-store policies: policies enforced by threat of death that required all peoples throughout the Empire to subordinate their lives for the benefit of England’s national interests, i.e., the wealthy and landed, Judeo-Christian, British powers that be.

It was the wanton, racially-motivated disregard for human life during the “disturbances” instigated by British duplicity in their dealings with India, that was to spell the death knell of the sun-never-sets-on-it, short-lived British Empire -- its status as an empire existed for less than a century, and even then, only with America's help. 

*

	General Dyer, promoted and honored for his having inflicted the blood bath at Jallianwala Bagh, stated he would have continued firing into the originally seated-Indian- fashion gathering for more than the ten minutes he did, had his men not run short of ammunition. Estimates of those unarmed civilians present at the gathering were never less than six thousand, nor more than some twenty thousand. The British, while reluctantly acknowledging that more could have been killed and three times as many wounded, begrudgingly accepted responsibility for the murder of 379 unarmed Indian civilians, men and boys at Jallianwala Bagh. However, independent estimates of those who died as a direct result of the murderous barrage of gunfire by the Brits: one that the general commanding believed was to teach the heathen a lesson they’d never forget, was something on the order of a massacre of a thousand folks. 

*

To avoid confusion, keep in mind that “O’Dwyer” was the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, and “Dyer” was the alcoholic and mentally-unstable low-ranking general serving with the British occupation forces in India. Dyer was officially under the command of the Commander and Chief of the Army in India, Munro. Although Munro decried Dyer’s murderous action at Jallianwala-Bagh -- not for moral reasons, but for his poor judgment, he still promoted him. However, once the horrors of the atrocity committed by Dyer became public, Munro relieved him of his command and forced him to retire. 

*

	As Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, O'Dwyer's bigotry-based manner of governance, discretely endorsed by London, served to make for the racist climate that allowed for the murderous actions taken by British troops under the command of the not-overly bright, morally-deficient (as all good soldiers must be), duty-bound General Dyer. 

+

Whether from guilt, or due to the realization he had been made the scapegoat for a nefarious plan that failed, General Dyer became paralyzed two years after having ordered the murders of  those untold innocents. It was bandied about that he died a blithering idiot, its cause: alcoholism? the last stages of syphilis? dementia praecox? Possibly not, but, if true, it would give a logic to the actions taken by Dyer, who as a good soldier with his limited intellect, could be excused for blindly following the covert directives of Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer -- the megalomaniac who effortlessly convinced the simple-minded and equally-racist General Dyer of the propriety of his conducting the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh. 

+

	The warped morality employed by London, one derived from a self-serving interpretation of the Old Testament, led them to believe they could rationalize the racist, greed-motivated act of barbarity perpetrated by them at Jallianwala Bagh. However, since that atrocity was to unite the Indian people in ridding themselves of foreign rule, any benefits for the Brits resulting from their having inflicted it, were at best short lived. Britain’s believers in a One-and-Only Judeo-Christian God might very well consider the loss of India and the subsequent destruction of the Empire as proof that their God does, indeed, work in mysterious ways.  And Dyer’s years of insanity and, years later, the execution-style, retaliatory murder of O’Dwyer, might very well give substance to the cliché: what goes around comes around. 

+

	The culture-related bond of a continuing and uninterrupted, multi-millennia-long affinity, common to all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent (rooted back some 8,000 years -- to at least the early stages of the Indus River civilization), no matter how tenuous it might appear at first glance, was to prove far stronger than the divisive forces of religion, caste and language introduced in relatively more recent times. The Brits, by intensifying those differences, attempted to use them as a tool of governance. Although playing up to a people’s perceived differences is now a practice universally employed by unscrupulous politicos -- as a means of gaining office in countries functioning more or less as democracies -- it doesn’t mitigate the deceitful intent when used by a colonizing power to subjugate an alien peoples.

*
In America, those ardent, the-public-be-damned, bottom-line- motivated PACs (Political Action Committees) representing the tobacco industry and the NRA, maintain that neither cigarettes nor guns are responsible for the deaths inflicted by their products. Rather than lessen their profits, and while fully aware of the potentially murderous qualities of their products, they go about spending billions of dollars on ads to have folks buy them. Likewise, the Brits deliberately stressed, magnified and played upon India’s caste system and religious rivalries in an attempt to increase the wealth of London’s wealthy entrepreneurs. And, like the drug-selling, tobacco industry and the right-to-kill supporters of the NRA, England’s empire builders claimed innocence of any malignant intent -- blaming the naive recipients of their bigotry-based, money-rationalized sales pitch, for their reacting to it. 

+

In the mid-Eighteen hundreds, England had conducted wars to force the Chinese to import opium from British-owned sources. They rationalized their murdering (with their then-recently-acquired superior armament) untold numbers of “yellow-skinned” folks, as a legitimate means of forcing an open-door policy on the Chinese: one intended to enable the Brits to ship them thousands of chests of opium as payment for England’s imports of such utilitarian items as chinaware and tea from China. Well over a century later, Colombian drug cartels could be heard using the Brits’ rationale by claiming the maintaining of their cocaine industry is an essential part of Colombia’s economy. And, it most certainly is: it enables them to pay for the manufactures they import from the nations they sell their coke to.

It would be difficult to find one manufacturing nation that doesn’t sell war-making goods to offset the cost of their imports, as well as a means of making her wealthy citizens richer. So, how can we Americans condemn our tobacco industry for their claiming that: by their catering to the “free-will” demands of American citizens for their killer tobacco products, they are bettering the American economy -- with specific benefits accruing to farm laborers, cigar- store clerks, advertising men and women, stockholders, doctors and morticians? 
Murder, Inc., would be a far more appropriate name for those organizations claiming they’ve operated within the boundaries of the law, such as: the former colonial powers, the international tobacco cartel, and America’s wholly- owned NRA -- than for the handful of equally greed- motivated, immigrant, Jewish contract-killers to whom the name, Murder, Inc., was first applied. 

The obvious parallel rationalizations for the actions of the Brits, the Colombians and the tobacco industry can be summed up in the NRA’s claim that people have the right to kill animals as a sport, while brushing off the use of firearms by criminals and lunatics as an unfortunate coincidence. No thinking person should find fault with the right of citizens to bear arms, but, by blocking the enactment of laws to prevent their use by the young, the feeble-minded and career criminals, the NRA shows its position is merely a question of money. And, by their denying the killing effects of their products, and by their obstructing the enactment of reasonable laws to prevent their abuse by children and such, the NRA’s membership are far more than just guilty of being hypocrites, they’re guilty of murder. 

+

	There was no end to the nefarious means the British used in their desperate attempts to maintain their absolute control over the peoples and economy of the entire Subcontinent. Nevertheless, despite all their previous efforts, the past benefits accruing to the Crown as a result of their having engaged in a century of underhanded divide-and-rule tactics, were negated when they indiscriminately killed those civilians at Jallianwala Bagh, the murdered having but one commonality, a darker skin than their own. 

	As a consequence of the massacre, Indians throughout the entire Subcontinent were to come together in a united effort to oust the Brits. To replace their then-failed, divide-and-rule tactics that played on the ethnic, caste, income and religious differences of India’s heterogeneous population, the Crown’s loyal subjects resorted to the use of a mendacious, worldwide campaign to defame an entire people.

	The Brits had been prepared for either the acceptance of, or a revolt against, the passage into law of the Rowlatt Act. However, due to Gandhi’s efforts, neither consequence was realized.  Frustrated, the Brits looked for a way to counter Gandhi’s influence, both in India and abroad, where he had gained the respect of the world at large. It didn’t take long for the honor-bound Brits to come up with a means they thought capable of destroying  the reputations of both Gandhi and that of the Indian people -- thereby enabling them to maintain their stranglehold over the Subcontinent.

	The means they decided on was a propaganda campaign on a scope never before engaged in. It’s more than probable that England’s deliberate, deprecatory, racism-based propaganda campaign intended to dehumanize a subject people set the standard for that used by the Nazis, Japs, Protestants of North Ireland and Israelis (to name the most obvious to come to mind).

	Although the Brits’ dissemination of mendacious and denigrating, racist propaganda didn’t prevent Indians throughout the Subcontinent from gaining their independence, it did serve to proliferate the racist concepts about Indians that still prevail amongst those prone to believe such debasing propaganda -- a fact that many Indians migrating to or visiting Europe and America have discovered to their dismay. 

*

	It was Gandhi's home rule movement, impelled by the moral principles of Satyagraha (truth force), which he juxtaposed with deceitful England's thou-shalt-not-murder- unless-in-the-name-of-national-interest policies, such as those they carried out at Jallianwala Bagh, that proved to be the Brits’ undoing. Gandhi's ability to jar India's masses out of their fatalistic acceptance of foreign rule, without resorting to the violence so desired by the Brits, was to herald the end of the British Raj -- and the beginning of a new and free India -- albeit, a partitioned one that’s hardly trouble-free.

*

The Old Testament’s tale of the Egyptian, Moses, leading his charges to the Promised Land, gave the Brits, much as it did the Hebrews, the strength and moral conviction to steal a country along with the labor and wealth of its inhabitants. For the Brits, India was the most profitable of the promised lands. Though it was necessary for them to murder untold numbers of Indians to attain their ascendancy over that nation, there was still a huge supply of reliable, cheap labor available. This precluded the Brit’s need to settle India with England’s social rejects. They, the Brits, were then content to look to their God to justify their going about the business of methodically draining the Subcontinent of its wealth -- without the need to annihilate all of its occupants as a means of doing so. 
. 
Though it’s common practice to attribute to the One-and- Only God the written contents of their holy books, as well as those uttered in His name by His earth-bound vicars and prophets, it’s a well-known fact (but never acknowledged by those catering to the religious needs of run-of-the-mill believers) that much of the Bible stems from an adaptation of Egyptian, Sumerian and Harappan wisdom -- a wisdom later emended by Mesopotamian, Greek and Hebraic prophets, poets, madmen and fools. All of which, eventually culminated in the original version of the Old Testament -- one written in Greek, in which the concept of racism was given its basest of meanings as a justification for stealing an “unworthy” people’s land.

A self-serving interpretation of the Old Testament had imbued the Brits, much as it did the claimed-ancestors of the Pharaoh's former slaves, with a rationalization for stealing an alien people’s land. Nevertheless, once that very same racism became instilled in their psyche, it became the driving force behind the Brits’ every self-serving action. When knowledge of the massacre they committed at Jallianwala Bagh became public, their ability to justify it proved to test their resourcefulness. However, their very success in convincing the British public of the righteousness of the massacre proved so offensive to virtually all Indians that  it jarred them out of their Karma-accepting lethargy.

With the subsequent loss of India, there was to be no British Empire. Reruns of 1930s movies, the likes of “Kim”, “Sabu the Elephant Boy” and “Gunga Din”, were to act as reminders for every Englishman, from the presiding monarch to the slum-dwelling, Cockney child, that they were relieved of the onerous task of bearing  the “white man's burden”.

+

	For six years, ending seven months after the end of WWI, Michael Francis O'Dwyer was Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab. And, for all his having near-unlimited authority in the administration of that Indian Province, he was but one of many second-rung representatives of the British Crown;  as such, Michael Francis O'Dwyer was an expendable pawn: one to be sacrificed, if so required to further the interests of the Empire.

	O’Dwyer was known to the Viceroy and his administrative staff in Simla, and every Lieutenant Governor, administrator and Resident of every other geographical sub-division of the Indian subcontinent, for being a reactionary, bigoted, narrow-minded, egotistical, pompous ass. This, obviously, made him eminently qualified for the job he was required to do on behalf of the Empire. It also made him a fitting symbol of the racist aspect of the British Empire. And, it was as such that he was murdered, his death a telling omen of the imminent end of that money-driven Empire -- the dominant power of the Old World Order -- for the better part of  a century.

*

The Execution of Ram Mohamad Singh

More than twenty years had elapsed since the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh when, on March 13, 1940, O'Dwyer was shot dead at Caxton Hall in London. A middle-aged man, a resident of Mornington Terrace, N.W., London, calling himself Ram Mohamad Singh, to indicate he was acting as a representative of all Indians: Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs, felt compelled to avenge that premeditated atrocity carried out against the Indian people -- a barbarity accomplished with O’Dwyer’s connivance, and then defended to the satisfaction of England’s wealthy and titled gentry. No doubt, to the unworldly folks of India, the fact that those deliberate murders of a multitude of unarmed civilians could be legally- rationalized away in the name of profits, was most disconcerting.

On March 26, 1940, the late, knighted-for-his-service -to-his-country Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer: the man thought most responsible for the carrying out of the heinous act of barbarity at Jallianwala Bagh, was eulogized in a memorial service attended by hundreds of prominent members of British society. To blame O'Dwyer for his racist attitudes and demeaning actions against Indians would be tantamount to faulting a pit bull for its attacking and killing a man -- the result of its having been trained in a manner calculated to enhance its vicious potential -- for the intended benefit of its master.

*

British justice was swift for O'Dwyer's executioner. On June 5, 1940, after a jury deliberation of one hour and thirty-five minutes he was found guilty of murder; thereupon the presiding judge, after first prohibiting the press from publishing the defendant’s final statement to the court, sentenced him, under the name of Udham Singh, to be killed on June 25, 1940 --- without further ado. The words of Udham Singh's court-appointed, English lawyer's praising of the court for: affording his unworthy client all the benefits of British justice, were duly published in The Times of London -- that staunch supporter of Empire. 

In retrospect, at least from an historical point of view, and for the very Empire he was conditioned to protect, Michael Francis O'Dwyer, as Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nevertheless, for India, his race-based murderous actions served as the catalyst that helped rouse the Indian people out of their accepting, born-of-fatalism lethargy.

CHAPTER EIGHT -- Jallianwala Bagh

Part Three
				
	In late 1917, Edwin Montagu, the British Secretary of State for India, a supporter of whatever it takes to preserve the affluence of those landed and wealthy Brits who controlled the Empire, and who also claimed to be a liberal -- which he was, at least for his time, was in India working with the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, to determine the means of complying with England's avowed commitment to home rule for India. Howsoever, having been indoctrinated with the self-serving concepts commonly found lurking in the psyche of most Westerners: that of an Anglo-European, Judeo- Christian, racial and moral superiority over all other peoples, Montagu and Chelmsford, despite their much-publicized assurances of a new policy that would lead to autonomy for India, albeit, excluding international matters, could only recommend, in their 1918 report addressed to the British Parliament, a degree of home rule that was such in name only. If that were not affront enough, in the rules the Brits promulgated, based on that Montagu-Chelmsford report, the approval of even the minutest action taken by an Indian elected body, was subject to an arbitrary interpretation by the British government residing in India -- moreover, even that limited legislation, enacted by Indians in accordance with those rules, would still be subject to a Brit veto -- but even that was considered too liberal for the Brits in London to be enacted into law. 

*

	In late 1917 through early 1918, the idea of an appreciable degree of home rule for India had been bandied about by the Brits. However, in short order it became a case of giving lip service to the concept of Indian autonomy -- this, in an attempt to placate what they wished to believe were the demands of but a non-representative vocal minority of elitist Indians. Nevertheless, by dangling the carrot of home rule before the Indian intelligentsia, the Brits were able to maintain and even further India's support for England's WWI war effort.

	The naiveté exhibited at that time by so many Indians who should have known better than take the Brits at their word, was soon replaced with one of complete distrust. Heretofore, the duplicity displayed by His/Her Majesty's loyal servants, had been accepted as a normal part of Brit governance. The Brits, in attempting to give a legitimacy to the laws enacted for the governance of India, had allowed certain Indians, primarily those educated in British jurisprudence, and decidedly non-revolutionary types, to vote on laws the British Government in India wished to enact. On the face of it, it would cause one to question why all the hullabaloo about home rule for India. The answer is simple: the number of Indians voting was limited by law -- their number had to be less than the number of the British Government in India’s representatives. If that were not enough assurance to the Crown’s representatives that their will be done, the Indian votes were merely advisory, and had no effect whatsoever on whether or not a law was enacted. Accordingly, every controversial law passed by the Government of India, whether or not opposed by the Indians present, was said to have been approved by a unanimous vote.

*

	Having accepted their subordinate condition in the running of the Government of India, why the sudden change on the part of all but one of those Indians (a more-loyalist-than-the-Queen type whom one still runs into in India)? Never before had the Brits’ double-dealing demanded their acceptance of a law, quite so insulting to their conscience as Indians as the Rowlatt Act.

	The British government in India, to counter even the slightest degree of true home rule, enacted a law intended to subject each and every Indian to the application of martial law -- in their own homeland,  at the whim of just about any Britisher in the military, judiciary or administration of the Government of India (the wholly-owned subsidiary of the Brits).  The law was stated to apply to any individual or group of Indians arbitrarily deemed to be acting hostile to the interests of the Crown.

	Within six months after the end of WWI, that intrinsically-demeaning-to-India piece of legislation, known as the Rowlatt Act, had been enacted into law -- but not so a law allowing for home rule. 

	If, despite the protests of even the most  conservative Indians, albeit by the casting of their but-token votes and by their duly noted speechifying against its passage, the Brits were still unaware of the antagonism the passage of the Rowlatt Act would engender, all they had to do was read the independent, Indian, English-language newspapers. And, in event that didn’t convince them, their Criminal Investigating Department, which functioned in India much as the KGB and the Gestapo did in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, would have been only too aware of the deep-seated resentment its passage would engender through the entire Subcontinent. Accordingly, it was with full knowledge of the consequences of their passing the Rowlatt Act, that the British Government of India enacted it into law. There was never a question of the degree of hostility its passage would generate amongst Indians.

*

	It was in response to the passage of the Rowlatt Act that those numerous thousands of unarmed, Indian civilians had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. There, a peaceful meeting was held to discuss the affront made to all Indians as a consequence of England's passage of that piece of legislation: An Act to Cope With Anarchical and Revolutionary Crime -- but invariably referred to as the Rowlatt Act -- a law deliberately enacted by the Brits to counter the effects of their planned welshing on their home rule agreement. 

	Since no similar laws were enacted in either England, or any of her colonies populated by the dispersed progeny of England's undesirables, to Indians it was obvious that racism was a major component in India’s being singled out for subjection to laws of such a demeaning nature. Despite the West’s concept of racism being alien to Indian culture, Indians from every caste and class had made that assumption that racism was the sole cause for the enactment of the Rowlatt Act. It finally dawned on them that no matter what the intellectual, economic or social level of any Brit, he was held in higher esteem than any citizen of the world's oldest continuous civilization -- that of the Indo-Aryan: a root supplier (for better or worse) of much of what did and still does pass for modern-day world culture.

	That racism played its part, most notably as a means of rationalizing their military occupation of India, and ensuring the loyalty of British troops as they performed the most heinous atrocities, such as their massacring Indian soldiers for refusing to slaughter their fellow Indians during India’s first war of independence -- by tying them, one by one, to the faces of a cannon and then blowing them to smithereens. However, the underlying culprit for the passage of the Rowlatt Act was Old Testament racism-rationalized greed. Just about every action of a murderous and rapacious nature undertaken by the Brits, as a nation, was intended to protect or increase the wealth of their movers and shakers. This held true, whether it was to rationalize their century-long monopoly of the African slave trade and their murder of Amerinds by deliberately exposing them to smallpox (to which the Brits knew they had no immunity), or their massacre of untold Irish Catholics. Perhaps “cherchez la femme” holds true for the reasoning behind the actions of Frenchmen, but not for the Judeo-Christian Brits -- in their case look for the buck. 

	Since the white colonies that had already been granted home rule, were controlled by the very same London moneyed interests as was India, whose people were being denied it, one should readily see why,  when one considers that the indigenous population of the Subcontinent had a long-standing involvement in trade and manufacturing that dated back to an era when there never was an England. And, despite England’s deliberate attempts to deny Hindu and Moslem men of commerce the ability to compete with London’s  money men--  or those belonging to one or another minority group sanctioned by them (those incapable of threatening British rule), there were still Indians, both Moslem and Hindu who had managed to accumulate considerable wealth -- thereby proving their entrepreneurial skills. And, it was their awareness of that, that made the Brits fearful of losing their stranglehold over India’s economy -- in event home rule were to be granted to India. 

	The white colonies were another story. There, English moneyed interests had no fear of losing control over every aspect of their economies. The white colonies were populated with a people long used to their working-class status, who had little or no experience in commerce. Moreover, as in London at the time, despite the then-recent reforms, the newly formed parliaments in her white colonies were controlled by wealthy, upper-class members who had both blood and commercial ties to the powers that be back in England. Their realizing there would be no threat to London’s retaining political and economic control over them, England’s Parliament, however begrudgingly, granted the white colonies home rule. 

*

	Whether it was due to racist considerations arising from their having been indoctrinated with that pernicious Judeo-Christian belief in their racial superiority, or merely good old-fashioned greed, despite England’s WWI wartime promises, India was not granted meaningful  home rule.

*

	An article in the Bombay Chronicle of December 29, 1915 made mention of the nearsightedness of the attitude that England maintained in her dealings with India; it made mention of the opinion held by America’s Andrew Carnegie, one no doubt arrived at due to the accumulation of wisdom acquired over his, then, eighty years of living. The article read: He (Carnegie) makes no secret of his conviction that if India and England part company, the blame will not lie with India.

*

Mohandus Karamchand Gandhi 
(1869-1948)

	There appears to be little reason for doubting that the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh was instigated by the topmost British authorities. The British, due to their well-organized spy network, knew of Gandhi's being en route to Amritsar, where he was expected to address a large gathering. Moreover, the Brits were well aware of Gandhi's commitment to passivity as the sole means of obtaining a degree of autonomy for India similar to that recently granted the so-called white colonies. 

	Nevertheless, despite the calming effect his presence was sure to have -- never had there been violence associated with his leadership -- and since the Brits claimed to have had cause to believe the crowd could turn violent, the preventing of Gandhi from traveling to Amritsar, can only be viewed as part of an unprincipled grand plan: one that would allow them to rationalize a teaching-the-infidels-a-lesson slaughter -- which, coincidentally, would facilitate their honorably reneging on their agreement regarding home rule -- with WWI over, there was no longer any reason to curry favor with trouble-making Indians.

*

Found in the Archives of India file: Home -- Poll -- A -- Aug. 1919  -- 261-272, in a telegram sent by the British Secretary of State for India to Viceroy Chelmsford on Aug, 12, 1919 -- page 29: “... I have never yet heard of an instance of Gandhi’s appearance in any part of India having anything but a tranquilizing effect.” In the same file can be found the following choice of words by Montagu which, however, does indicate the condescending attitude evinced towards even an Indian of Gandhi’s stature, by one considered to be amongst the more “liberal” of Brits: “... why restrain a man who is not misbehaving?”

*

	Since the blood bath at Jallianwala Bagh was a premeditated affair, Gandhi was deliberately detained when en route to Amritsar. Although the condescending attitude towards all Indians quite naturally also applied to Gandhi, his person couldn’t be handled in quite such a cavalier fashion. Gandhi was venerated by millions of his countrymen, and the consequences of his death, if caused by the Brits, would have been catastrophic. It would have resulted in an uprising far greater than they had planned for, one with a momentum capable of sweeping away the Empire. 

	Keeping Gandhi, the adored-by-the-masses man of peace, away from the intended killing field in the Punjab, was the solution to the Brits’ problem -- for if the man of peace were killed, or even present during the massacre, it would be next to impossible to rationalize the murder of all those unarmed Indian civilians. After all, one of the primary reasons for the massacre by the Brits was to teach the Indians a lesson: by showing them how merciless they could be if crossed -- much as the Nazis did at the town of Lidice when they murdered every male, from the age of puberty on.

	The Brits had no intention of having Gandhi martyred during their ten-minute reign of terror at Jallianwala Bagh -- and thereby ignite India's second war of independence -- one so emotion-charged and broad-based that this time, India, however lacking in modern arms, could still win.

	Nevertheless, despite the Brits’ preventing  his martyrdom, by keeping him out of harm's way while the massacre took place, Gandhi, by proclaiming, in its aftermath, that all Indians murdered at Jallianwala Bagh were martyrs to the cause of freedom, thereby pinpointing the cause of the massacre, and then, by using his ability to air worldwide the carrying out of that atrocity by the Brits, he converted the massacre into the beginning of the Brit’s last-ditch stand to maintain the Empire. In doing so, he had used Jallianwala Bagh as the unifying factor that led to his successful campaign to rid India of foreign rule.

*

THE STORY OF MARY FORBES, AMERICAN

 The Lady Who Threatened an Empire 

	When in New Delhi during the winter of 1996/97, I spent six weeks at the National Archives of India, reviewing files left behind by the British in the aftermath of India’s having finally ridded herself of foreign rule. Although the purpose of my research was to delve into the whys and wherefores of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, when scanning the index book covering the files of correspondence completed in March of 1919 -- the month the Rowlatt act was passed, I came across a description of a file that intrigued me. 

*

Miss Mary Forbes: Steps taken to remove her, companion to the ex-Rani of Mandi, from British India in accordance with section 3 of Foreigners Act of 1864,  and arrangements made for her passage to San Francisco. 

*

	The doings of this Miss Mary Forbes were such that they required action be taken, over a two-year period, by: American Consul-General J.A.Smith Esq. in Calcutta; the Director, British Central Intelligence Department in India; Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer of the Punjab; the Superintendents of Police throughout India; the British Secretaries to the Government of India for both the Home and Finance Departments, and the Foreign and Political Departments; the British Legal Remembrancer; and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal -- amongst many others. Moreover, the magnitude of her offense was such that I found thirty-five pages marked CONFIDENTIAL dedicated to her doings in her dossier: HOME- POLITICAL -- B, MARCH-1919 Nos. 260-273. Moreover, the correspondence in the file gave every indication that all departments referred to had their own comparable files dedicated to the dastardly deeds of this lady. 

	For Miss Mary Forbes’s villainous treasonable actions, the Legal Remembrancer (official British practitioner of jurisprudence) felt internment in a concentration camp would be appropriate under the Defense of India Rules of 1915. 

*

The Defense of India Rules was a denigrating piece of legislation begrudgingly accepted by Indians as a result of England’s claiming they were necessary as a result of the exigencies-of-war. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of WWI, and prior to that law’s lapsing, the Brits did a cosmetic job on it, and reenacted it as: “The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919” --  which was decried for its obvious intent to insult the Indian peoples. It was to discuss the passage of that law, better known as the Rowlatt Act, that brought those many thousands of Indians to gather at Jallianwala Bagh -- where the massacre took place..

*

	The Punjab Legal Remembrancer believed deportation, as called for under the  Foreigners Act of 1864, was inappropriate -- he felt the lady, when back in the States, might possibly say things against the best interests of the Crown. To which sounder minds amongst the Brits countered that whatever Miss Forbes would say could hardly have any effect in America because it was a nation with many such “crackpots”. 

*

However, that didn’t stop the Brits from hiring spies to keep tabs on Indians in America -- many of whom were Sikhs living in California; though American authorities, at least in the States, were not known to do the bidding of the Brits in denying equal rights under the law to Indians -- Canada, which was still under the direct control of England, did deny those rights to Indians. Whether or not the Brits had a direct hand in labeling Indians as non-Caucasians under the terms of the restrictive immigration laws enacted in America in the early 1920’s, is a point of conjecture. However, with all the foreign news entering America at that time still provided by British-controlled sources, the likelihood of their having played a role in its determination is great.

*

	And what, pray tell, was the nature of Miss Forbes’s heinous crimes? The lady wrote personal letters deploring  British hypocrisy. In an effort to gain world support for their war against Germany, the Brits had claimed they were fighting for the rights of the common man. What Miss Mary Forbes said, was that America should call England’s bluff and refuse to support the Brits in their WWI war against the Germans (her letters were written in 1917 and 1918) unless England promised to give home rule to both India and Ireland. Moreover, she suggested that after the war, America be given protective custody of Germany’s colonies, claiming that America (even then) showed her good intentions by assisting the citizens of the Philippines in attaining their self- government. 

	In addition, Miss Forbes sent excerpts from readily-available Indian newspapers, with covering letters, to the American Consul-General in Calcutta -- which that gentlemen turned over to the Brits, claiming her actions, i.e., Mary Forbes, an American, sending clippings from a newspaper and writing to the American consulate, were treasonable acts against England; he also stated that his receiving them was a nuisance.

*

	According to the sketchy biography of Mary Forbes that unfolds in their correspondence; she was baptized in the Lutheran Church, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; her mother was an American; her father was a Dublin Irishman who migrated to America -- presumably in the aftermath of the famine years -- with his brothers, and all of them took out papers of naturalization; she said she was born in India, but where and when she didn’t divulge. The entire background of Miss Forbes appears to have been met with much skepticism by the Brits. Nevertheless, since her assertions of being an American citizen (she never claimed British citizenship as a result of her being white and born in India) was accepted by both the American consulate and all the various and sundry British authorities, her being an American must have been obvious. 

	Although very little of what Miss Forbes told of her background appears to have been verifiable: either by the Brits or the American Consul-General, her status as companion to the ex-Rani of Mandi was never questioned -- but just what were her job qualifications and duties in that capacity, were not discussed in the CONFIDENTIAL report. 

*

	Earlier, on May 3, 1917, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab was to describe Miss Forbes as a “capable high-minded lady all of whose actions were actuated by worthy motives.” A year later O’Dwyer, the Honorable Governor General of the Punjab, was to advise the Secretary that what he had said needed modification. It seems apparent, as we shall see, that O’Dwyer had a penchant for modifying facts -- whenever they were in conflict with what he thought the best interests of the Crown.

	There’s absolutely no evidence that the lady was a spy or agent for any foreign government, and no inferences to that effect were to be found in the British government’s dossier on her.  Moreover, no attempt was made to deport her until after Germany’s defeat in WWI became a sure thing. And, though Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer and his Legal Remembrancer in the Punjab were gung ho for the use of draconian measures against the lady, the British Viceroy’s Government of India in Simla felt no need for such harsh treatment -- preferring to accomplish their ends in a gentlemanly manner. Accordingly, with the imminent end of the war, the Brits resorted to clear-the-line telegraphic correspondence in an attempt to ensure her deportation. The urgency of the matter can only be explained away as an attempt to get the lady out of India before the preordained passage of the Rowlatt Act (which did anticipate their arranging for the subsequent massacre at Jallianwala Bagh). There were, however, conflicting reports as to when, on what ship, and even if the lady was ever deported.

*

	Evidently, as far as the Brits were concerned, what Miss Forbes was really guilty of was of being quite brilliant, if not prescient. At the very least, she was intuitive as to the realities of British hubris, hypocrisy and double-dealings. Her words in favor of maintaining the integrity of Turkey and against the land grabs by America’s WWI allies were no different than those of America’s idealistic President Wilson, whose words were ignored by America’s WWI allies. And her statements regarding the British intention to destroy the power of Islam were to prove correct. Moreover, a pamphlet, she may or may not have written, advising Moslems to refuse to kill their fellow Moslems, the Turks, unless the Brits agreed to abstain from the dissolution of Turkey, then the world-center of Islam -- was merely mimicking what was being bandied about throughout India by her Moslem population.

	As to England’s intention to divvy up Turkish territory, it had already been manifested: in 1917, Balfour, speaking for the Crown as if in possession of Palestine, which was still Turkey’s at the time, accepted money from the Rothschilds in return for the Crown’s acceptance of the concept of a Zionist presence in Palestine. 

	Miss Forbes was also guilty of making statements to the effect that a nation’s peoples, stressing those of India and Ireland, have a right to self-determination -- a belief espoused by America’s Presidents Wilson and FDR, and the founders of the United Nations a quarter of a century later. And, it’s one basic to the American ethos -- as spelled out in the American Declaration of Independence some one hundred and fifty years earlier.

	Miss Mary Forbes also wrote, in personal letters, how she thought England would end up dominating America. She’s proved partially right there; the Brits, whether directly from London, or indirectly in concert with her fellow followers of the Judeo-Christian religions residing in the primarily-white colonies of her past, have investments in America that far outweigh that of all other nations combined. Moreover, the Brits continue to influence, if not determine, America’s foreign policy in most areas where the Empire once held sway -- all to the continued benefit of London’s, and their fellow- travelers’ money men.

*

	One can readily understand why the British Government of India wanted her out of the Subcontinent. Miss Mary Forbes’s making such disparaging statements as to the intentions of the Empire, even within the smallest of circles, caused consternation amongst the money’s-my-God British patriots of her day; and when one considers that her anti-colonialist views, hardly unique in her day, were based on an equality of all peoples, it was inevitable that the opinions she expressed would conflict with the concepts of goodness espoused by that era’s defenders of Empire -- a breed much like England’s more-recent, in-search-of-an-empire-to-defend Tories: Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

CHAPTER EIGHT -- Jallianwala Bagh

Part Four

	In late 1917, Lieutenant Governor Michael Francis O'Dwyer succeeded in convincing England’s Secretary of State for India, Montagu, that the Punjab had special problems. The problems were such that the carrying out of even the slightest degree of home rule: the opening up of the Government of India to meaningful participation by Indians, would be folly. For O'Dwyer, that Irish Catholic, wannabe member of the English ruling class and racist martinet, the very concept of any degree of home rule for Indians was an anathema.

	Whether or not he truly believed Indians were incapable of self-government is debatable; however, that he was convinced they were an inferior people, is not. However, one need not have the wisdom of the Buddha to realize that he couldn’t very well rationalize the violent suppression of his fellow Catholics, back in Ireland, by their and his Judeo-Christian British masters, if Indians obtained home rule first. Ireland was not to attain home rule until three years after the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh. 

	O’Dwyer had already given evidence of being a deranged martinet in fear of losing his ego-building, near- limitless authority over the lives of a subject people. The ruthless means authorized by him, in the Punjab, as a way of surpassing the demands for money and troops made by London, in support of their WWI war with Germany (a war intended to prevent Germany from sharing in the rapacious game of colonizing militarily-weaker nations), was intended to ingratiate himself to his Anglo-Saxon betters, back in England. In addition it gave sufficient proof of his, O’Dwyer’s psychopathic antagonism towards Indians in general -- and, by extension, towards India’s aspiration for a form of self-government on a par with that granted to her white-Protestant colonies.

	Whatever his rationalized reasons, the motivation behind O'Dwyer’s drive to excel was his need to establish his I'm-no-run-of-the-mill-Irish-Catholic credentials. And, in doing so, he spent the better part of his six-year tenure in the Punjab carrying out an autocratic, demeaning-to-Indian-pride policy. No evidence appears that O'Dwyer's demeanor had ever been challenged by his superiors: the Viceroy; the Secretary of State for India; the Government of India at Simla; the India Office in London or any of the houses of Parliament. Obviously, the Lieutenant Governor was doing the job he was deliberately selected to do. His final act in that capacity was to arrange for, on the Empire’s behalf, the murderous attack at Jallianwala Bagh  -- which was carried out by British soldiers under the command of the mentally- unstable General Dyer.

*

	The initial report received by Lieutenant Governor O'Dwyer detailing the massacre, advised him that British troops were used by General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer to carry out the premeditated murders of those innumerable hundreds of unarmed Indian civilian men and children gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. Lieutenant Governor O'Dwyer, upon hearing this, damned General Dyer for his being an incompetent fool. For murdering those innocents? Hell no! He was damned for his use of British troops rather than Indian troops as planned for. 

	There’s absolutely no question that the murders were premeditated. General Dyer acknowledged in a deposition that he deliberately ordered his men to fire into the peacefully-assembled crowd without a warning -- and that he had them continue to do so for ten minutes. Despite the original confirmed report that General Dyer had ordered fifty British soldiers, on command, to fire into that peaceful gathering, the written report dictated by Lieutenant Governor O'Dwyer, at least a day later, was to state that no British troops were present, and only Indian troops did the firing. As the days passed on to weeks, British claims as to the character of the troops employed and the number of civilians they admitted to having murdered changed constantly.

	Good soldiers are paid to do as they’re told -- no more, nor less. And, it's not the intention of the writer to fault the British officers, including the unbalanced General Commanding Dyer and the enlisted men who did the massacring -- although, all were worthy of censure and surely none would be worthy of the praise of the British House of Lords, for having ordered or obeyed the command to fire to kill a mass of unarmed and seated civilians. It should be noted, however, had the Brits murdered unarmed civilians some twenty years later in a nation with whom they were at war, each and every one of them would then be guilty of war crimes -- and crimes against humanity.

	As to Lieutenant Governor O'Dwyer, the man seen as the guiding hand behind the massacre, he was merely the expendable hatchet-man selected by London to follow their tacit instructions -- those intended to set the stage for the violent put-down of Indian aspirations for home rule (in event the murderings didn’t cow the Indians into complete submission to British authority). It seems that even the possibility of the enactment of the essentially-meaningless and ever-so-limited form of self-government proposed in the Montagu-Chelmsford report, caused London’s greedy money men to fear the eventual loss of India, which would have meant the end of the British Empire -- ergo, Jallianwala Bagh.

	O’Dwyer was the ideal fall guy to head the plot intended to protect and further the economic well-being of the Empire. In addition to his reputation as a martinet and bigot, his being Irish and a Catholic, made O’Dwyer the ideal sacrificial lamb in event their plan failed -- or drew too much adverse publicity. In which case, the Brits could claim the nefarious deed, the massacre, was the doing of an Irish Catholic madman  -- and no Englishman need have his reputation tarnished. 

*

	O’Dwyer had given every indication that he believed it a moral obligation to serve the interests of the Empire, and that its very existence was ordained by God. While treating all Indians as inferior people, he was outspoken in his disdain for all educated Indians -- especially those versed in the law (interestingly enough, conservative Republicans in America hold a similar view of educated, liberal, especially-non-ASP lawyers).  Despite the fact that all the laws enacted by the Brits in India, much like those established by the Nazis in the nations they conquered and colonized throughout Europe during WWII, were intended to subordinate the dignity of a colonized peoples to the economic benefit of an alien nation, O’Dwyer, known to his superiors as a megalomaniac, resented the intrusion on his authority resulting from any appeal to those laws. To O’Dwyer: only those Indians servile to his dictatorial will (as the representative of the Crown), were good Indians; poor Indians were dirt; rich Indians, were money grubbers; and Indian intellectuals, whether or not lawyers,  were considered uppity and potentially traitorous subversives.

	The British government in India, reacting to the tacit demands of London that they put a damper on India’s drive for home rule, hatched their nefarious plan. And, O’Dwyer, for obvious reasons, was their choice to carry it out. He had proved his willingness to use his authority to degrade Indians in every manner at his disposal: by the use of intimidation, corporeal punishment and murder. And, for those found guilty of speaking or writing or distributing words protesting the British military occupation of their country, when not put to death, were ordered transported to the Andaman Islands penal colony for a life of forced labor. 

+

The Andaman Islands penal colony was England’s answer to France’s Devils Island.  Although there were a few outspoken British critics of England’s morally bankrupt policies, no Englishman in London, of the stature of an Emile Zola, was to be heard denouncing the doings of the British regime in India. But, there were those who were outspoken in their support of any and every action, no matter how heinous, carried out by the Brits in India.

+

	The publicized proposals and enactment into law of the Rowlatt Act, all before the Montagu-Chelmsford report could be acted upon, confirmed O’Dwyer’s belief that all was going according to plan. Parliament and the British government in India were laying the groundwork for the kind of disturbances required to give them a moralizing rationale for him to carry out his part in their sub rosa plan. It’s doubtful that he was fully aware of the whys and wherefores for his having been chosen to head this nefarious endeavor. Nevertheless, as the cats-paw of the  British Government, he was most successful in ensuring, at least momentarily, the retraction of the home rule agreement England had with Indian leaders -- that it eventually backfired, is another matter.

	Despite being aware that home rule had only been granted to the Empire’s Protestant white colonies, Indians, for all their having lived with a caste system as part of their culture, were incapable of conceiving of the kind of racism inspired by the self-serving, Judeo-Christian  interpretation of the Old Testament. Nor, for that matter, were they, with the exception of the likes of such men as Tilak and Gandhi, fully aware of the overall economic implications for the Brits in event India gained a meaningful home rule.

	By deliberately adding insult to injury (by offering India a limited-to-the-point-of-being-nonexistent form of home rule, and then enacting the Rowlatt Act as a means of negating its effect in event it became law), the Brits planned to maintain their absolute control over India’s internal economy and the political lives of her people -- this, in addition to the absolute control of all matters involving the military and international affairs that she maintained in her white colonies. The enactment of Rowlatt’s proposals gave the Brits the right to apply martial law against India’s civilian population at their whim (which implies the arbitrary right to kill on sight), and incarcerate any Indian deemed a threat to British authority, without benefit of trial, or a right to contest the action.

	There is a point here that Indians demanding home rule didn’t consider, and that, for obvious reasons, the Brits didn’t want publicized. At the time the white colonies gained home rule, their economies and tax revenues were all under the direct control of the same London bankers, wealthy entrepreneurs and landed gentry as those benefiting from the British occupation of India. Australian-born progeny of the original transported settlers, under their home rule, had no more control over their economies and tax revenues than  did Indians -- the powers that be in London controlled the parliaments in all the white colonies. For England, not only was home rule in the white colonies no threat, but, the belief by those former outcasts of British society that they were masters of their own fate served to make them into willing servants of the Crown.

*

	In the sense that any career government worker can be considered intelligent, Michael Francis O'Dwyer, a member of the British civil service, could be judged bright -- and, as a result of his having been perceived as a man more royalist than the Queen (a common-enough phenomenon to make the term a cliché) he was continually being promoted. Due to his real or feigned loyalty to the Empress-Queen Victoria and her progeny, he uncomplainingly bore the white man's burden -- the responsibilities of administering the British laws devised to facilitate the milking of their cash- cow, India. It was the wealth extorted from India that enabled England's Parliament, controlled by its greed-motivated, money-made gentry, to run the Empire without the interference of their nominal rulers: the progeny of the renamed, yet still German, house of Windsor -- whom they welfared-off with a life of leisure -- as a means of preventing their interfering with the running of the nation. The payoff to British royalty for their good behavior was, and still is sufficient to allow them a life free of the problems of commerce, and continues to this day to support them in lives of indolence, disturbed only by an occasional trip to the races, a bout with a fox, an inspection of the guard,  or a dispute with the press.

CHAPTER NINE --  Part One

Patriots-1

	Since it’s true in America, and was most certainly true in Victoria’s United Kingdom of England and  Ireland, it can readily be assumed that worldwide, there’s no dearth of superpatriots: wimps at heart, always eager to prove to the world, and perhaps to themselves, that they’re really the owners of well-functioning gonads. In addition, these superpatriots believe that by showing an unquestioning dog-like obedience to the will of the powers that be, it entitles them to membership in the more prestigious segments of a particular, lofty society.  These superpatriots (who invariably have become, or always were cowards, eager to protect themselves against all real danger), go about allying themselves with, and proclaiming their allegiance to, whatever dominant authority: individual, group or organized entity that is willing to accept their overtures. In an effort to become fully accepted, they’re subtly induced by the objects of their devotion into giving proof of their bona fides. Invariably, they do so by a grand display of their undying loyalty. And, like a Doberman pinscher conditioned to attack anyone threatening its master by the giving or withdrawing of food and affection -- or beatings -- our fawning superpatriots assault any person or group that opposes the doings of the objects of their affection (verbally, when not physically – but always protected by the authority of a master) – no matter how reprehensible those actions might be.

	Although this description most assuredly describes the actions of the British Empire’s Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, in America we have witnessed a similar burlesqued display of self-serving patriotism exhibited by such ultra-conservatives as: Senator Joe McCarthy; Vice President Spiro Agnew; the unscrupulous lawyer Roy Cohn; at least one ultra-rightist Supreme Court Justice; at least one mayor of New York City; the entertainers Frank Sinatra, John Wayne and the former artist’s model who portrayed Moses. All those gentlemen, amongst a plethora of others, having appealed to the powerful folk most desirous of conserving their usually unearned, elevated economic and social status, advanced their own careers by spouting the conservative cause -- often tinged with demagoguery -- but always in the name of patriotism. This catering to the needs of  the wealthy, dominant members of America’s reactionary, anti-democratic faction, by some illogical contortion of logic, allowed the fawners to be considered superpatriots -- as well as far more American than the rest of us non-old-money ASP-types.  

*

	It’s axiomatic that the citizens of a nation without freedom of the press have no real freedom; and, surely, no fault can be found with that self-evident truth. That said, many newspapers with a general readership are programmed to manipulate a free yet naive people into thinking and acting in accordance with the publisher’s wishes. It’s done by heightening their readership’s biases, patriotism or fears -- or playing upon their ignorance -- all of which tends to have strong racist overtones. The Hearst papers, single-handedly, conditioned its vast readership to push for America’s morally-unjustifiable 1898 war with Spain. Between Teddy Roosevelt’s eagerness to find a war enabling him to prove he was no wimp, and Hearst’s use of warmongering yellow journalism to build circulation -- America went to war -- and the ill-prepared Spaniards didn’t stand a chance. 

	In later years, Hearst was known to brag about the Spanish American War being his war, and for good reason, he instigated it. There are, of course, times in a nation’s history when virtually no citizen could reasonably fault the media for engaging in such deceptive practices, such as during the years leading up to and including WWII, when America faced a real or, at the very least, a believed-to-be-real threat to her very existence.

	The New York Times, most notably during the last decades of the twentieth century, became known for its somewhat-hidden, pro-Israel, anti-Arab agenda -- reinforced by its rationalization, and even glorification of colonialism’s past, present and, as the New World Order, in the future. Since the publication is owned by Americans associating themselves with those Europeans who were, earlier in the century, subjected to a deliberate and calculated form of bestiality (the likes of which is all-too-often practiced by those claiming to be civilized), and who now control and occupy that inhospitable land considered holy by various monotheistic religions, the Times’s attitude, for all its condoning of terrorism against Moslem Israelis and Palestinians, is quite understandable, if not forgivable. Consequently, it shouldn’t have taken anyone by surprise that the publishers of that paper (one of America’s most- prestigious publications) colluded in the dissemination of the fabricated anti-Iraqi propaganda that rationalized America’s going to war in support of what was essentially the national interests of OPEC; British and other North Atlantic oil interests; the non-oil-producing, manufacturing nations of Germany, France and Japan; Israel and Kuwait -- plus the overall political interests of those promoting a New World Order: Bush and his wily British mentor, Thatcher.

	The claim of the West’s G-7 economic powers, that oil prices would rise dramatically in event Iraq became a dominant force in the Gulf, had a certain logic to it;  but, in actuality, it was just another of the half- truths, and outright lies that Americans were then being subjected to. England, along with her North Sea neighbors, as major oil-producing nations, could only profit from an increase in the price of crude oil. Obviously their fears were elsewhere. On the other hand, those mega-industrial powers: Germany and Japan, which rely heavily on imported oil as a major source of energy, would definitely have suffered financially in event Iraq were to gain control of the Gulf’s oil and then increase the price of crude oil; ergo, their somewhat-coerced, multi-billion-dollar contributions to the Gulf War effort.

	Although, in the aftermath of the slaughter of Iraq’s fleeing, defeated troops, the basic price of crude oil on the world market was originally enhanced, at least to some degree, by the post-Gulf War ban of the export of Iraqi oil (a payoff to OPEC and the Brits?), it was but a small price for the world’s non-oil producing nations to pay for a relatively secure source of oil at a price low enough to allow them to continue to collect exorbitant taxes on its consumption at home, while bitching about an Arab conspiracy to hike the price of oil. The autocratic Arab rulers of the Gulf’s oil-producing states, along with England and her European partners in the now-made-even-more-profitable North Sea oil operations, were the obvious beneficiaries of the ban originally imposed on Iraqi oil. Americans, as citizens of a nation producing almost half its domestic requirements, were affected but slightly by the embargo placed on Iraqi oil. 

	Although Saddam Hussein may very well be the ogre he’s been made out to be, one must wonder why no attempt was ever made by any leader of any of the governments that were involved in the attack on Iraq, to talk to the man.  After all, American Presidents continue to deal with leaders of regimes far more threatening to American interests than the tyrant of Baghdad ever was, or ever could be.

	Obviously, the powers that be in England had their representative, the shopkeeper Thatcher, a superpatriot, join in pressuring America’s ineffectual, but basically-decent man, President Bush, into a war he knew to be immoral. For whatever implications of American intrigue and deception that some conservative Americans claim influenced our decision to get involved in WWII, that war, the one Bush had served in as a youth, had its moral overtones -- the Gulf War had none. And, he knew it.

*

One must wonder if the reasons, including those of an obvious political nature, for having continued the embargo on Iraqi oil (which seems destined to outlast the turn of the century) are not being used as an excuse to maintain the profits of the major oil-producing nations, and the petroleum industry, in general, along with its stockholders.

*
 
	There was much talk of the heavy casualty count that Israelis would suffer in a war with Iraq. Nevertheless, with their tremendous supply of the most modern armament on hand, plus America’s standing commitment that she would come through with additional supplies if needed: as she did during and immediately after the onset of Israel’s two earlier wars, Israelis believed, without a doubt, that they’d prevail.

	However, with all the prattle of Israel’s fear of incurring major casualties in event Iraq wasn’t stopped, Israel’s American connections: religious, political, social and commercial,  needed little encouragement to assist in pushing America into a Gulf war -- perhaps, due to their really believing the preposterous claims that Iraq had Nazi-like intentions in the Gulf, and therefore had to be stopped. Accordingly, many of the most prestigious American newspapers -- whose ability to influence their readership is in direct proportion to their readership’s belief in the integrity of the paper -- published material from very questionable sources, of what later proved to be totally fictitious accounts by eye-witnesses of non-existent Iraqi atrocities; the New York Times, of All the News That’s Fit to Print fame, was one of those newspapers. It would have been difficult to find one self-proclaimed Jewish journalist: liberal or conservative, who was not writing in support of an American invasion of Iraq. During that period, one of the Times’s prominent columnists, not known to have been in support of a Gulf war, took, or was given, a prolonged leave of absence -- possibly a coincidence.  

	It must also be mentioned that the major oil- producing nations outside the Gulf, most notably those located on the periphery of the North Sea, along with the rest of the world’s most economically advanced nations: those that so willingly contributed billions of dollars and supplied thousands of troops to that war effort, most likely had a far greater fear than Saddam. It was, that if they didn’t stop Saddam, Israel would be involved in a full scale war with Iraq. The G-7 had the logical belief that, having been supplied with America’s most advanced weaponry, Israel would eventually win out over Iraq. And, what with Israel’s proven expansionist tendencies, she would most likely become a major oil-producing nation in her own right -- and, as such, would surely prove far more difficult to deal with than Iraq ever was, or could be.

*

	In the recent past, one of America’s typically outspoken defenders of God, country and mom -- a man born-into-comparative-wealth, an eminent, scholarly and intellectual rationalizer of an elitist society, an above-the- masses snobbish reactionary, went about mouthing the words known to please his superwealthy, Real American betters. In return, he was sponsored by them to out-intellectualize the leftist egg-heads. In doing so, he denounced the kind of liberal dogma spouted by such unpatriotic and unconscionably-demagogic radicals as those past effete destroyers of the American way of life, those un-American types: Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

	The above description is of a particular claiming-to- be-patriotic, hypocritical bigot -- who also happened to claim Irish-Catholic heritage. However, with but minor adjustments for gender, race, religion or ethnicity, the above caricature could readily be applied to any number of other past-or- present, more-or-less-respected, bigoted American citizens -- including Presidents, Congressmen, journalists, artists, clergymen, publishers, politicians and media personalities. Moreover, no prominent citizens of any nation, including those colonized in the past, or that are still dominated by foreign powers, could be exempted from the possibility of finding themselves included in such a list of bigoted and superpatriotic individuals.

	One might readily ask: what does bigotry and a manipulative free press in America, and the dissemination of lies in support of special interests claimed to have been performed in the name of national interests have to do with the British massacre of Indians at Jallianwala Bagh -- an event that occurred some ten thousand miles distant and four score years back in time?  The answer is:

	The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh was contrived by the British government in the name of national interest, and then executed by superpatriotic dupes reacting to and from the effects of bigotry -- and their horrendous actions were then rationalized as being morally justified by a supportive free press -- most notably the Times of London.  

	Perhaps theirs was merely a knee-jerk reaction in defense of the Empire, much as its New York namesake’s blind defense of Israel. Both those much-quoted prestigious publications were (inadvertently, or not) involved in a conspiracy blatantly attempting to bamboozle their readership. Much as the New York paper could probably justify its use of lies and racism as a means of supporting a believed-to-be moral agenda, so too, the Times of London blindly supported every action designed to benefit a relatively small, yet powerful, grouping of landed and super-wealthy Brits -- along with their claque of accommodating bourgeoisie -- all in the name of national interests. 

CHAPTER NINE – Part Two

Cultural Baggage

Every voyager to an alien land, regardless of the class or price of his ticket, carries with him a weightless item of an indeterminate size: his cultural baggage. It passes undetected through the most sophisticated and powerful X-ray machines: with the vast majority of travelers’ being ignorant of its very existence. But, like his shadow, it tags along, wherever he goes --- becoming visible only when its owner is subjected to outside stimuli. Now, just as the circumstances under which a light is cast adds another dimension to the conception of a shadow, one both physical and metaphysical, such as: the sun’s rays; moonbeams; the flickering light of a campfire or candle; the beam of a headlight, spotlight or flashlight, so, too, does foreign travel stimulate the display of the many facets of a person’s cultural baggage.

Observing a cast shadow, and then determining the source of its two-dimensional shape, would hardly test anyone’s cognitive abilities. Furthermore, during the course of our lifetime, virtually everyone learns to judge the significance of any particular shadow. Should one: ignore it? be amused by it? frightened by it? enthralled by it? intimidated by it? That all depends on the why, when, where, how and to whom the shadow appears. Now, as complex as this may sound, worldwide, the reactions to a shadow by all but the most-intellectually challenged, are governed by such or similar considerations.

The outward display of one’s cultural baggage, though superficially akin to that of one’s shadow, connotes a multi-dimensional source. And, as such, both its causes and manifestations are exponentially greater and far more varied than the causes of, and the reactions to, a particular shadow. Obviously, the inputs that determine the size and shape of one’s cultural baggage are of a complex nature: its having been formed by a lifetime of subjectively-accumulated components: book knowledge, experience and environmental exposures.

To what degree the contents of a traveler’s cultural baggage manifests itself, tends to increase in direct proportion to its owner’s ignorance of the history and culture of the country being visited. Moreover, the more the traveler’s conception of morality and culture differs from theirs, the less his ability to mask the contents of his own cultural baggage. Remarkably, these attitudes begin to grow more manifest from the time the future world-traveler decides to make his trip, until they become full-blown once he clears customs and enters into direct contact with the alien people in their alien land. At that time, the true nature of the inputs to his cultural baggage is revealed --- to everyone, although not necessarily to its owner. These now-exposed biases carried in the visitor's cultural baggage (having been muted in the past by their having been in tune with the majority of the people he surrounded himself with), are not by nature evil. Everyone, during the course of his lifetime, has been laid open to a wealth of mundane, and at times powerful and overwhelming influences -- that of: friends and family, education, sex, race, religion, nationality, avocation, vocation, profession, media, environment, death, to name but some of the more obvious.

Every experience, from traumatic to fleeting, makes its proportionate contribution to the essentially unique psyche of each and every one of us. All these various influences combine to program our culture-bound, knee-jerk responses to any given set of stimuli. The accumulated contents of one’s cultural baggage reveal themselves in every imaginable way when in a foreign land. The visitor can have any one or a combination of a wide range of responses: delight; fright; awe; rapture; repugnance; proud association; obsequiousness; inferiority; impatience; boredom, acceptance; superiority; understanding resignation; and you name it. The owner of this amorphous piece of Pavlovian luggage produces a different set of reactions with each encounter with a different peoples -- which, in turn, is re-affected  by their response to him.

In the unlikely event that there is such a person, as one with no cultural baggage, he would have to be a truly unique individual, and probably a babbling idiot to boot.

*

	Having been on the receiving end of bigotry has the potential of making it the single, most influential component in one’s cultural baggage -- and it reached its potential in the makeup of  that sacrificial lamb,  O’Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab. His cultural baggage, as an Irish Catholic serving under Anglo-Saxon, Protestant masters, was filled with the effects of a subtle, yet constant barrage of bigotry which had him constantly trying to demonstrate his allegiance to the Empire -- all in an effort to prove to both himself and his masters that he belonged.

	It’s more than likely he’d have vociferously denied it; nevertheless, it’s obvious that, as the culprit left holding the bag for the massacre, he was aware of his role as an underling within the British scheme of things. Although originally commended for his participation in the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, once the full horror of it all became public, both he, O’Dwyer, and the provincial Dyer, were singled out for censure by the very same, self-righteous maintainers of Empire who had instigated the matter in the first place. Nevertheless, the wily O’Dwyer’s disavowal of his having participated in the massacre was accepted by the Viceroy in Simla and the Parliament in London. Having been in cahoots with each other in bringing the massacre about, and with O’Dwyer having the ability to name names, they had no choice. The run-of-the-mill General Dyer, was a whole other story. 

	No doubt, O’Dwyer and Dyer were disconcerted when hearing that their active participation in the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh (which from their point was a dutiful and well-intentioned, patriotic act in support of the Crown) was being publicly condemned for the heinous crime it was. Until the news of the massacre leaked out of India, the Times of London made but a passing reference to: there being casualties due to the disturbances taking place in India. However, once the hullabaloo had run its course, Britain’s free press and the sitting peers of the realm elevated those two participants in the conspiracy to murder, to the stature of national heroes -- for their part in preventing Indians from gaining their home rule.

	The two gentlemen, O’Dwyer and Dyer, had been the pawns mobilized to bring about an incident that would give the British the opportunity to squelch, once and for all, all Indian opposition to England’s continued despotic rule. Whether or not alcohol played a part in their warped sense of duty, or they were morally dysfunctional is arguable. Nevertheless, their mental state leading up to the massacre was probably no different from that of any Nazi running a death camp. However, what is not subject to conjecture is that both those gentlemen planned and participated in the premeditated shoot-to-murder firing into the peaceful gathering of those thousands of seated-Indian-fashion, unarmed civilians at Jallianwala Bagh.

*

	That vicious act perpetrated with the tacit approval of England’s top-most, official representatives of the crown, as witness the vote in England’s House of Lords that not only exonerated the participants in the massacre but lauded their actions, was intended to either cow the Indian people into a state of continuous submission, or goad them on to a controllable state of open revolt. 

	India’s recently discharged veterans of WWI (Indian troops quadrupled in number to some 600,000 during that war) were, for the most part unemployed, and with but meager compensation when discharged, were showing signs of discontent. And, even the Indian troops still on active duty, virtually all of whom had been staunch supporters of the crown, were showing signs of unrest due to the Brits’ renewed display of hauteur towards Indians and their way of life. With the end of the war, India’s support was no longer needed, and the Brits showed it.  General Dyer, prior to the massacre, was said to have doubts as to the loyalty of Indian troops; apparently he couldn’t fathom why those troops might no longer be supportive of British rule.
  
	In event the killings at Jallianwala Bagh didn’t have the effect of intimidating India’s middle class into abandoning their attempts to obtain a meaningful home rule, the Brits were prepared for the most obvious contingency -- a violent reaction to the atrocity: one supported by Indian troops, recently discharged veterans and macho youths. And, judging from the presence of aircraft armed with machine guns and bombs (both of which, without cause, were used against Indian civilians in the Punjab during the disturbances), the main objective of the massacre may well have been to infuriate Indians to the point where they would unthinkingly engage in reciprocal barbarous actions against all Europeans -- rather than have them cowed into acquiescing to British domination.

*
	Since the Brits managed to inspire sufficient indignation amongst their citizenry to fight a war against Spain due the claimed loss of one of Jenkin’s ears (1739-1741), it was obvious that it would not have taken much for the Brits to find an equivalent excuse for murdering untold numbers of Indians. The intentions of the Brits was to entice a fired-up Indian crowd, equipped with their inferior weaponry, to attempt to take on the Brits with their well- disciplined, still-intact-from-WWI Army, with its tanks, bomb-dropping and machine-gun-carrying planes, mustard gas and howitzers. The Brits wanted that showdown in the well-founded belief that they were sure to win (not a particularly original tactic) -- one that would result in the complete annihilation of the no-longer-needed Indian military, and the subsequent unquestioned submission by the Indian people to British authority. 

	In effect, what the Brits wanted was a reenactment of India’s first attempt at evicting them in 1857, which the Indians called their First War of Independence and the Brits called the Sepoy Rebellion. In the aftermath of the Crimean War, as in the aftermath of WWI, Indian troops, no longer needed, were being unceremoniously discharged and given next to nothing in compensation. The Brits circulated a story that it was due to the use of pig and beef fat to lubricate the paper shell casings then in use, which had the effect of denigrating Indians before the West for their seemingly irrational actions -- and served to obscure the true reasons for India’s reaction, which was caused by England’s attempts to make Indians into their obedient lackeys, much as they had done to their own British lower classes -- both at home and abroad in her colonies. 

*

	In America, at the end of WWII, veterans received fairly decent benefits: free college educations plus living expenses; discharge bonuses; job preferences; unemployment benefits; medical coverage; and even free burial plots -- all in an effort by the ensconced wealthy real-Americans to prevent the recently-discharged, lower-echelon serviceman (the vast majority with lower middle-class backgrounds) from making a concerted effort to get involved in politics. In the minds of Britain’s powers that be, home rule for India in 1919 was its equivalent, in both cases politicizing the people was considered threatening to the well-being of the ensconced moneyed folks. However, to protect their interests, the Brits, instead of offering meaningful benefits to the Indian people (in effect, as in America, sharing the pie -- however disproportionately) as a means of restraining their democratic aspirations, they resorted to mass murder and terrorism in an attempt to maintain their absolute control over India’s economy and her people.

*

In post-WWII America, as in most western nations, the sop of a little socialism was successful in preventing the people from asserting themselves politically. In fact, it was so successful in America, that the Taft-Hartley Labor Relations Act: the most comprehensive piece of union-busting legislation ever passed by a government priding itself in its democratic tradition, was enacted in the post-WWII years, overriding President Truman’s veto -- apparently Congress approved only his blunders. 

*

	The Brits, being racist for the most part (the better educated amongst them, when conditions require, tend to be quite good at hiding it), as well as conservative of their wealth, resorted to the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh to squelch the aspirations of the citizens of India. Always willing to sacrifice the lives of British commoners, they planned for a sufficient number of them to be murdered by Indians in retaliation for the atrocities committed by the Brits, to enable them to justify their destroying, once and for all, any opportunity for India to ever attain a meaningful home rule -- which they believed, with some logic, would be tantamount to granting India outright independence -- and the dissolution of the Empire.

*

	Gandhi had assumed a kernel of decency lie hidden within the greed-motivated psyche of the Brits, and tended to attribute the indignities, and worse, arbitrarily bestowed upon Indians, to the malignity of individual Brits. Even after their passing the Rowlatt Act, Gandhi maintained his belief in the basic decency of all mankind, even the Brits. Accordingly, he was dismayed by the calculated-to-terrorize tactics employed by them when they went about their premeditated mass murderings at Jallianwala Bagh. 
 
	Gandhi, perhaps due to the highfalutin idealist talk about the fairness of British law that he picked up when studying it in England,  had initially misjudged the British as to the lengths to which they’d go to maintain their total control over India. It hadn’t dawned on him that the enactment into law of the Rowlatt Act was intended to provoke Indians into an emotion-charged, physical reaction against all Europeans -- thereby enabling that reaction as a means of gaining Western support for a murderous retaliatory action by British troops. Soon, however, Gandhi, working on the assumption that rational people don’t, as a rule, act irrationally, began to comprehend England’s true intentions. The massacre that took place at Jallianwala Bagh, had made him fully aware of the extent that the Brits would go to, to insure their military, political and economic control over India. Accordingly, he did everything he could to maintain a peaceful, yet persistent, resistance to British authority. 

	The massacre and the enactment of the Rowlatt Act were part and parcel of the same plot. The Brits, at the end of WWI, had a well-functioning war machine at their disposal, and had every intention of using it to destroy any idea on the part of Indians that they would attain home rule. If Gandhi still had any doubts as to England’s intentions, the fact that within days of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, British warplanes strafed and bombed an unarmed gathering of Indian civilians at Gujranwala, must have convinced him of their determination to retain their control of India at any cost -- in both Indian lives and those of Britain’s underclasses -- and it could have run into the millions. For it was then that Gandhi, much to the consternation of the money-is-my-God, cunning Brits, managed to convince the more militant Indians that independence could not be obtained by armed resistance, and that he, Gandhi, had a better way -- and the only way. 

*

	It was Gandhi’s ability to convince the Indian masses that Satyagraha was the only way to go. And it was due to his efforts that the disturbances never reached a level of violence, no matter warranted, that would have allowed the Brits to resort to the kind of savagery against Indians used by them in 1857.

*

The end of the Crimean war in 1856 and the resultant availability of British troops for duty in India, allowed for England’s ruthless retaliatory murders of Indian troops during their first attempt at ousting the Brits. For the Brits, at that time, having their troops so readily available was an unpremeditated and serendipitous event -- but the lesson they learned from it was not forgotten.. 

The Brits, in 1919, realized that no amount of effort expended to prevent the rest of the world from being told of their Empire-maintaining doings, if done then in the horrendous manner and on the scale of their retaliatory barbarities of 1857, could be successful. Both the means of communication and the morality of greed-based murder had changed so during the intervening sixty years, that they couldn’t prevent their involvement in such similar heinous actions from soiling their reputation as gentlemen. Consequently, they needed an excuse of major proportions to murder on the scale they believed necessary to maintain their stranglehold over India’s economy and her people. Maintaining control of another people’s lives and their land, against their will, requires the employment of a degree of cruelty only barbarians, colonial powers and civilized religious zealots appear willing to employ.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Three

Lidice

	Lidice comes to mind when looking for actions similar to those perpetrated by the Brits at Jallianwala Bagh. There, the deservedly reviled Nazis could claim the exigencies of war as an excuse for their murdering all the adult males out of Lidice’s tiny population of some four hundred souls (Christians all) -- though that hardly made their actions moral, or their victims any less brutally murdered. The circumstances behind the massacre at Lidice were that Czechoslovakians, during WWII, reacting to the humiliation and ordeal of being conquered and occupied by the Nazis, murdered the German commanding officer. The subsequent retaliatory murderous response by the Nazis was effective in convincing the natives in the rest of colonized-by-Germany Europe that Nazi retaliation for such acts would be swift and lethal. The reaction to the atrocity committed at Lidice was to serve its intended purpose, Europe became far more accepting of Germany’s rule than India ever was of Britain’s -- and India’s resistance movement didn’t have the benefit of official American moral, financial and military support. While the executions carried out at Lidice were publicized worldwide as an example of Nazi bestiality, the British, who committed a crime exponentially more heinous against Indians at Jallianwala Bagh, continue to be praised for their gentlemanly behavior.

	 During WWII, the Nazis, never having made any claim to being fair or democratic, made no attempt to rationalize their criminal activities. They invaded all continental Europe with the sole intent to colonize it and subjugate it to Germany’s will, much as England did in order to rule over her sun-never-sets-on-it Empire. If nothing else, the Nazis were far more forthright and less hypocritical about their intentions than the deceitful Brits -- who, while claiming to be fighting Germany for the sake of freedom, didn’t relinquish their military stranglehold on their non-white colonies, nor did they cease the murderous actions required to maintain their hold on them -- until decades following WWII, then, besides America’s direct economic pressure -- because colonialism became too costly for the Brits, as well as the other colonizing powers to maintain. And, so, in the aftermath of WWII, Europe’s, ever-so-moral, Judeo-Christian, colonizing powers graciously bestowed independence on the vast majority of their colonies.

The Black Hole of Calcutta

	Though the horror perpetrated by the Nazis at Lidice -- a relatively minor incident as war crimes go -- can be found in English language encyclopedias, it’s rare to find a listing under Jallianwala Bagh, and even then it’s almost always a fleeting mention that makes light of the atrocity committed by the Brits -- talk about the need for victims’ rights. Moreover, an otherwise insignificant incident that occurred in Calcutta over two hundred years ago, is still used as a classic example of Heathen cruelty: This, as a result of its having been used extensively by the Brits as a racist rationale for despotic colonialism.  It can be found listed under its own name, or under both the History of India and Calcutta -- as if it were a significant event in its own right. It’s the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta:

	In 1756 the English were defeated in Calcutta by the local Mogul ruler. Sixty Brits who were unable to escape in time were confined overnight in a cell 18 feet by 14 feet. The quarters were cramped, the average space per person being slightly in excess of four square feet, and this required some to stand.  In the morning, only twenty-one (21) brave Englishmen came out alive -- the survivors, in a spate of fright-induced hysteria, had panicked -- trampling and suffocating the weaker members to death. This rather minor episode in the history of man’s inhumanity to man was later blown up out of all proportion by Macaulay, that renowned superpatriot, literary figure and propagandist in defense of Empire, as proof of Indian barbarity. 

*

Nevertheless, during the first half of the nineteenth century, Macaulay did earn the calumny of lesser Europeans, including Brits, when as Legal Advisor to the Crown, he revoked the preferential status they had previously enjoyed over Indian litigants in the colonial courts. Macaulay, believing Euro-Caucasians so far superior to Indians he determined that they needed no additional advantages.

The Brits were always law-abiding, whenever the application of the law was of no import, or when it was beneficial to their national interests. However, should the use of a law be considered harmful to the interests of the “Crown”, new laws were enacted to remedy the situation.

*

	Macaulay,  who wrote of the Black Hole incident well over fifty years after its occurrence, was never known for his accuracy. However, this didn’t deter England’s propaganda machine from popularizing his fantasized and melodramatic description of the incident (and may have encouraged their use of it): Macaulay more than doubled the number of Brits imprisoned and made the cell into a dungeon little larger than a telephone booth, as an excuse for resorting to the most barbarous means at their disposal to extract India’s wealth and ship it off to London. That little bit of vicious propaganda didn’t stop with the end of Empire;  well after its demise, in America, Macaulay’s description of the Black Hole of Calcutta was required reading in freshman English-lit courses, and many encyclopedias and dictionaries continue to disseminate Macaulay’s preposterous nonsense, using whatever aspects of his fiction that satisfied their particular agenda.. The result is that even to this day, it’s difficult to find anyone educated in English who isn’t familiar with the phrase: the Black Hole of Calcutta, and who doesn’t associate it with the mass murder and torture of virtuous Englishmen by the barbaric Indian Infidel. 

*

	England’s general policy was to retain all the benefits resulting from the vilest doings of her subjects -- and then disown the culprits and publicly denounce them and their actions in event a hue and cry ensued -- if and when the crimes were made public. Although this is not a unique policy, and is used in varying degrees by all moralizing colonizers, the Brits were masters of it. The Brits had it so perfected that they managed to rationalize, or separate themselves from, the criminal doings of their Empire builders -- while maintaining their gentlemanly demeanor -- and retaining possession of their ill-gotten gains. The Brits followed this policy with precision in the aftermath of the wanton murders at Jallianwala Bagh, the one-time bagh (garden) that they made a killing ground.

*

	Eventually, after a thorough and relatively unbiased investigation of the Jallianwala Bagh murders by the British authorities -- the results were accepted by even the most staunch supporters of colonialism, past and present -- it was determined that some one thousand, unarmed, Indian civilians, men and boys, were killed as a direct result of the British opening fire, without warning, into the seated crowd, and that at least a thousand more were severely injured.

	Early on, after the scope of the murders seeped out of India, and reached the world at large, London finally questioned the Brits in India about the massacre. Originally, the British government in India admitted to a casualty count at the killing ground that totaled but ten percent of the casualties that a subsequent London-controlled commission reluctantly admitted to. And, although the Brits in India never did state publicly the details of what transpired behind closed doors: before, during and after the massacre, they did cease issuing the most egregious lies about it. Nevertheless, the one aspect that was continuously changed, in an obvious attempt at obfuscation, was the composition of the military detail chosen to perform the murderous deed. The initial report to Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer was from British sources who advised him, under no uncertain terms, that only British troops were engaged in the killing at Jallianwala Bagh.

	Since the official British inquiry in the doings were held in camera, the damaging evidence as to the magnitude of high-level British involvement in the conspiracy that led to the massacre was denied to the public. Moreover, that information, plus the details as to the actual makeup of the contingent of troops engaged in the killings, and the names of the British officers and officials who participated, directly or indirectly, in the planning and carrying out of the atrocity, were intentionally deleted from the published version of the official report on the massacre (the last two sections of the seven-section document were made illegible  in the copies presented to the Indian members of the British-controlled Government of India). 

*

	Within hours after the massacre, a curfew imposed by the alcoholic and obviously mentally disturbed General Dyer; went into effect, and was enforced by patrolling, motorized, British troops armed with truck-mounted machine-guns. As a result, the next of kin of those murdered at the bagh were denied the opportunity to heal and comfort the non-walking wounded, and the right to retrieve their dead. As for the Brits, they left the bagh immediately after their ten minutes of continuing murderous fire, never bothering to succor the wounded, let alone take a body count of their kill. 

*

	The Nazis, for all their barbaric actions, were not hypocrites. They were exactly what they claimed to be: murderous and inhumane, and intent on enslaving all non-Germanic peoples. Not so the Brits, by holding to the claim of being Christians, it was incumbent upon them to find a moral justification for their greed-motivated bestiality. Being far more cunning as perpetrators of their atrocities than were the depraved Nazis, Britain’s money men and landed gentry, like high-ranking Mafioso and America’s high- powered corporate raiders, used expert legal advice to make certain that their base doings were lawful -- and if illegal, that their acts couldn’t be traced back to them. And, even then, in event their complicity still  couldn’t be denied, they always tried to fabricate a moralistic, Bible-based rationale for their actions -- one that shifted blame from themselves, for even the most dastardly of their deeds, onto the victims. 

*

	As Americans, we cannot morally justify our actions in Vietnam. And, surely no excuse can be made for the massacre of those 350 Vietnamese (that death toll included many women and children) committed by American troops at My Lai. Nevertheless, the massacre at My Lai was not a calculated event, but rather part of an indiscriminately- murderous and vicious counter-guerrilla action, one that was part of an internecine war of attrition in which some fifty thousand Americans and innumerable Vietnamese lost their lives. It was a filthy war -- and My Lai was a horrible episode, but one which Americans have never made an attempt to justify . 

	The doings of the U.S. Army in the aftermath of the slaughter was another story. Its attempts at covering it up, the dismissal of charges of murder against all the participants but one (the lowest-ranking officer, Lieutenant Calley, a platoon leader), and the army’s denials, obvious rationalizations and outright lies bear a striking resemblance to the after-the-fact actions taken by the Brit military after the airing of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

	But that’s where the similarity ends. Even America’s most outspoken hawks, were ashamed by the action. No member of the participating troops was made a hero for participating in the massacre at My Lai, and the entire trial, albeit of but a handful of those responsible for its being carried out, was open to public scrutiny. The opposite was true in England in the aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh murders. 

*

	The Nazis made no bones about it -- they were retaliating at Lidice for the deliberate murder of their commanding officer by a people whose lands were but recently invaded. All successful and wannabe colonial powers have resorted to the meting out of such or similar summary retribution as a means of terrorizing a defeated peoples into complete submission. The totalitarian actions of British troops towards the citizens of those nations invaded and occupied by England, were no different than those of the Nazis. In both instances, the citizens of Europe under the Nazis, where it was said they were occupied, and those of the Indian subcontinent under the Brits, where it was called colonialism, the people were living under conditions of servitude. However, in the West, the Germans were said to occupy a country (which was bad) and in India, it was euphemistically termed colonization (which was good). 

*

One of the reasons for the formation of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland in 1800, was an attempt to pacify the Irish by making them believe they were as one with the Brits. The intended pacification, in such a benign manner, was not the commonplace practice of England’s money men. The Brits’ willingness to resort to the most barbaric and loathsome means to protect and  increase their wealth are too numerous to keep mentioning, so why did they change their time honored manner of pacifying the citizens of the Emerald Island? Since it’s always a question of money where the Judeo-Christian morality holds sway, the reasoning becomes obvious. England’s industrial revolution was in progress and the Brits were motivated by the need to increase the supply of cheap labor.

By the formation of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, the way was eased for Ireland’s peasantry to enter the labor force previously monopolized by England’s working poor, then composed of a conglomerate of Anglo-Saxon, Welsh and Scotch laborers. Moreover, by recruiting Catholic Irishmen for overseas duty to fill the lower echelons of government and industry, and the ranks of her armies of occupation, England accomplished the dual purpose of ridding Ireland of a potentially-troublesome, lower middle class (always the majority of folks involved in violent uprisings) -- and, by shipping them overseas, instead of English troops, it allowed troops thought more faithful to the Crown to stay home and maintain order amongst the poor in the United Kingdom of England and Ireland -- with emphasis on Ireland.

*

	 In the latter part of the nineteenth century,  Indians were led to believe, that upon Victoria’s assuming the title of Empress of India, when she proclaimed Indians to be citizens of the Empire, that they would be sharing in it as equals. Perhaps Indians were confused as to just what being a citizen of the Empire really meant. With the exception of the well-to-do, the wealthy and the landed English gentry, all others, which included a majority of Anglo-Saxons, Scots, Welsh and Irish residing in Britain, as well as the colonies, were all treated as second-class citizens, if not worse. And, though the House of Commons was touted as being representative of the people, that was hardly the case -- it only represented the well-to-do middle class; and, at the time, even their actions were subject to a veto by the House of Lords. 

*

	Prior to the massacre of 1919, India’s middle class would have gladly accepted a form of home rule even more limited than that enjoyed by their counterpart in Great Britain. However, they were not yet aware of the obstacles to their attaining home rule that were being erected. The big-buck Brits had, much as they did when spreading the hokum about parity with the Irish when establishing the United Kingdom of England and Ireland,  no more intention of offering true equality to Indians than they did to Irish Catholics. The Brits used religion to rationalize the continued subjugation of the Irish, and in India they used a combination of the religion and skin pigmentation of Indians to deny true equality to them. In doing so, the Brits played the racist card, whereby all but a literal handful of Indians, no matter what their social status, education, inherited title or wealth, were treated as inferiors to virtually all whites. Nevertheless, until the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, many amongst India’s middle class self-deceptively ignored or were unaware of the inherent racism in Britain’s policy towards India and her people. All this was to change with the realization that the civilized Brits deliberately massacred a thousand unarmed Indian civilians for the simple reason that they were Indian -- all in an attempt to cower a nation into submission. It became a wake-up call for even the most Anglophilic Indians. 

*

	The British Government of India, after the first inkling of the scope of the massacre spread beyond the Subcontinent, could no longer feign ignorance of its occurrence; and, in response to a request by the British Secretary of State for India in London, stated that there were two hundred casualties (in military parlance that means the total of wounded, missing in action and killed -- and, as such, the number should have been ten times higher).  Months later, after the full impact of Britain’s Jallianwala Bagh atrocities finally found their way past the censors in India (the Brits attempted to keep all forms of communication under their direct control), Parliament, yielding to world-opinion, decided to trouble itself with the details surrounding the massacre. And, under continued questioning, the British Government in India finally acknowledged that, by casualties, they meant killed. Still later, they came up with a figure of under four hundred killed, and an indeterminate number of wounded. Independent estimates exceeded a thousand dead, and at least that number wounded, which, after viewing the area, and noting the location of the bullet holes on the two buildings still standing, those estimates would seem conservative.

	Although the initial British attempt to keep the true extent of the atrocity from spreading beyond the borders of the Subcontinent proved futile, within no time, by a clever use of misinformation and rationalization, they were quite successful in diminishing its importance. With the exception of an excellent televised Indian account produced well over a half-century after its enactment, which appears to be available in India alone, the only account of it I’ve seen in the West was an entirely unrealistic and trivialized scene in a  megamovie that transformed Gandhi into an activist Buddha. Despite the obvious fact that the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh unified the entire Subcontinent in support of the Indian independence movement -- the significance of the atrocity committed by the Brits at Jallianwala Bagh, which ultimately determined the fate of that third of the world’s population which was then colonized, is ignored, and if mentioned at all, is trivialized.

*

	Only when made fully aware of the magnitude of Gandhi’s accomplishments can the man’s greatness be realized. He single-handedly managed to counter the effects of Britain’s long-established, Gestapo cum Goebbels-like, internally-directed inquisition and externally-aimed propaganda: the dissemination of outright lies and gross distortions of facts that were being deliberately and calculatingly spread, on a day in, day out basis, by England’s well-financed propaganda machine. And last, but hardly the least, he managed to induce India’s diversity of peoples to act in a manner that averted the military confrontation with the British Army -- a confrontation that was so ardently desired by the likes of a Winston Churchill and his contemporary maintainers of the Empire uber alles, one they might morally meet with their most-modern war machines.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Four

A Conspiracy of Death-1

	The more one is aware of the world in which Gandhi functioned, the more one must admire his ability to discern its makeup, and then deal with its depraved materialism. Despite a torrent of malicious and potentially devastating propaganda, Gandhi, no doubt the century’s preeminent and most-influential spiritual and political force, against all odds, led and guided India, with its ancient culture and great diversity of peoples, in a successful effort to rid his country of foreign rule. This he accomplished through a series of confrontations with the representatives of a militarily- enforced, totalitarian, despotic government. For all of England’s highfalutin gentlemanly talk, it functioned as the principal stockholder of The British Empire, Inc. , which, in turn, responded to the demands of their greed-motivated directors, with their bottom-line mentalities. The Empire had no moral restraints in its covert use of a superbly armed, equipped and trained military. In addition, it maintained an all-encompassing, up-to-date spy system, and had a well-organized, censorship cum propaganda organization at its disposal.

	It was against this formidable opponent, that he, Gandhi, with his deceptively simple spiritual and trusting naiveté, had managed to sway world public opinion in India’s favor. He accomplished it by circumventing Britain’s Gestapo-like tactics to make the world aware of such post-WWI atrocities as the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh and the bombing and strafing by British airmen of unarmed civilians at Gujranwala. Perhaps those murderous actions were too horrid for a West to contemplate -- until then mass murders on that scale (with innumerable exceptions, though usually due to differing religious beliefs) tended to be committed in wartime, with soldiers killing soldiers -- and thereby capable of being rationalized by the phrase: all’s fair in love and war.

	Nevertheless, for all the negative fallout for the Brits, when the full extent of those barbarities were made known in the West, world opinion was far more moved by the Brits’ actions taken against Gandhi and his followers, a decade later, during their march to the sea. The Brits had a salt tax in place throughout the Subcontinent, and Gandhi, ostensibly to avoid paying that tax (a tax that fell heaviest on the poor), began his journey to the sea. As he walked along, more and more Indians joined him in his peaceful trek -- intent on obtaining salt directly from the sea. Gandhi was aware that no other government, anywhere in the world, would interfere with their citizens’ right to sun-dry their own sea water as a means of obtaining salt for their private use. Yet, this is just what the Brits did. And Gandhi had made sure the world would be made well aware of their actions. He arranged to have those on hand to record the degree of barbarity the Brits were willing to apply -- in their attempt to prevent the loss of their ability to drain every last penny from India and her people. 

	Gandhi and his followers knew full well what the consequence of their actions could be. (Keep in mind that these were the same Brits who massacred a thousand unarmed Indian civilians, without warning, for merely congregating at the bagh.) However, Gandhi, having arranged for worldwide news coverage to publicize the march and the expected reaction to it by the Brits, rightfully concluded that the Brits would refrain from resorting to the murderous tactics they had employed at Jallianwala Bagh. Nevertheless, they brutally rained blows upon his followers for what, in the eyes of the world, was the exercising of a God-given right. It was this action that compelled the smug citizens of those nations benefiting most from the inherent immorality of colonialism, to come to terms with the enormity of the actions required to maintain the white-man’s burden.

	Moreover,  those claiming membership in a civilized world were forced to face up to the reality that the Brits, and by extension all colonial powers, were but rapacious and tyrannical oppressors. The near-total breakdown of the old colonial system, as well as the end of legalized racism worldwide, was the direct result of Gandhi’s actions --- and it would have been rare to find a leader of a formerly-colonized nation, or of an oppressed underclass, that failed to acknowledge Gandhi’s contribution to their regaining their independence and pride.
*

The actions of the British in building and maintaining their empire were every bit as barbaric as those of their contemporaries: the Nazis during Germany’s subjugation of Europe; the apartheid government in South Africa; Japan in China; Holland in Indonesia; France in Indo-China; Russia in Poland; America across her fruited plains; Spain and Portugal in every land they settled in; and on and on. Now then, although the horrific actions by the peoples involved in such conduct were, for the most part, acknowledged and halfheartedly and usually hypocritically mea culpa’d, and then, occasionally after a degree of monetary restitution, rationalized away, only the Judeo-Christian Brits were, and still are, universally admired and praised for having engaged in their murderous activities -- and, even their century-long engagement as the exclusive suppliers of African slaves (the right for which they fought a war) has largely been ignored. Yet, it was the profit from their despicable doings that is the root source of that nation’s wealth. Perhaps it was the grand scale in which it was accomplished that accounted for their acquiring their well-scrubbed history.

Society has always admired the big-time and successful crook -- and mourned his comeuppance. Or, perhaps, wealthy nations, as well as opulent individuals, can clean up their reputations by using their ill-gained riches to buy the public’s support for their doings. Money can buy the services of top-notch publicity men who have the ability to fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time (though thankfully, not “all” of the people all of the time) -- much as the wealthy murderer can hire the most competent criminal lawyers to convince a jury of his innocence. 

*

	The Brits were in a double bind. They wanted to get rid of Gandhi; yet, being well aware of his influence amongst India’s masses, they were fearful that any harsh treatment of him would trigger a major, grass-root revolt against European domination. Accordingly, they treated him with a certain amount of what might pass for respect: they refrained from ridding themselves of his exceedingly troublesome presence in the same manner as they did, and continued to do, to so many of India’s other popular (but less known in the West), independence-minded leaders. With far less provocation, they were sentenced to years of hard labor in the Andaman Islands penal colony --- when not killed.

	At the same time, since racism is and was a key ingredient of Christian-era colonialism, it should surprise no one that those few Euro-Caucasians who spoke out in India’s behalf on matters of home rule or outright independence, were merely requested to quit India, and then, in event they ignored that request, as in the case of the vociferously open supporter of Indian home rule: the English publisher, Horniman, they were shanghaied out of the country. The English lady, Annie Besant, couldn’t very well be physically removed from India by British gentlemen: her being a woman: a well-connected one at that -- one having a worldwide reputation as an intellectual with integrity. As a result, for years she remained a minor irritant  for the Brits in India.

*

	There’s no question that both Horniman and Annie Besant were fine, decent people -- intent on mitigating the brutal racist policies that the Brits relied upon to maintain their stranglehold over India’s economy and her people. However, when considering that upper-class Brits and well-placed Euro-Caucasians risked little if anything for speaking out, even while in India, against Britain’s despotic rule, one must recoil in disgust at their lack of involvement. Moreover, with but few exceptions, despite their having been made aware of the horrific actions taken by the Brits in support of their Empire, Englishmen either ignored or knowingly and willingly accepted, with racist pride, the rationalizations for the continued existence of colonialism -- and condoned, when not applauded, the use of the most atrocious means, committed in the name of the Crown, to maintain it. Adolf Hitler did not grow up in a vacuum.

CHAPTER Nine -- Part Five

Moses of Jerusalem

	There were numerous telling incidents to be found hidden in the old British files retained at the National Archives of India. Since my purpose in reviewing them was to discover the whys and wherefores of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, I had requested a file: Home-Poll-Deposit 10 of July 1916, titled: LEGISLATION FOR DEALING WITH ENEMY SPIES UNDER THE DEFENCE OF INDIA (C.L.A..) ACT, 1915. The act was the precursor to the Rowlatt Act of 1919. The file had originally been compiled by the Army Department, Legal and Judical, and was marked SECRET. It was on the second page that I came across: “The case of this Moses, a Turkish Jew ...”.

+

Although the following is but a short synopsis of the overall contents of the file of 43 pages, it is hoped that the general tenor of the high-handed manner of British governance will come through. Moreover, it would be safe to assume that their attitude mimicked that of their politician countrymen in London -- insofar as the intended application of their laws for Indians,  as well as  for the particular individual concerned.

The House of Lords, despite the restrictions placed upon it in 1911, which detracted from their absolute veto power over legislation passed by the House of Commons, maintained much of its former ability to sway public opinion. The peers continued to rubber-stamp any actions taken by the British Government in India -- with the only conditions being that their doings could be rationalized, whether legalistically or morally, especially if claimed to uphold the honor of British womanhood, and that they be performed in the cause of preserving the wealth of England’s wealthy. And, so, whether in times of peace or war, the British Raj was assured that his doings in India, no matter how heinous, would win the support of the House of Lords and, in turn, the support of the press, all of which would work to convince hoi polloi in England of his virtue.

During both WWI and WWII, and for a period thereafter, the Brits dropped the two-party system. At which time, tight censorship was maintained on any matter deemed to conflict with the welfare of the state. Questions of propriety, in any actions claimed taken in defense of England’s purported national interests were handled by a coalition cabinet, more or less in secret -- and never publicly debated. There was a catch to this, however, for despite the British Government of India’s being pretty-much autonomous as far as Parliament was concerned, it still had to answer to public opinion, if and when news of their actions reached the outside world. 

A case in point was the holding of a belated inquiry by a few members of England’s House of Commons into the legality of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh (many months having elapsed since the atrocity was committed, and then only after the full scope of its horror managed to leak out of India). Parliament’s response, as is the wont of all governments, was to set up a commission to investigate the matter. When the horrors of the massacre were confirmed, the legal grounds for having committed the carnage were duly debated in the coalition-controlled House of Commons -- with nary a mention of the moral issue. Nevertheless, with a show of grief, accompanied by the shedding of a profusion of crocodile tears -- for the necessity of their having to do the deed -- the matter was finally talked to death. Meanwhile, back at the House of Lords, the demented General responsible for having ordered the murder of a thousand unarmed civilians was honored for his deeds, and acclaimed a hero.  

*

	In returning to the case of Moses of Jerusalem: he, a Turkish Jew named Ainech Meyer, alias Moisha Alter ben Zedec Gershens, was arrested in Peshawar, Pakistan: a city taken by the Brits in 1848 as a result of England’s war of expansion against Afghanistan. At the time of his arrest he confessed to being a spy, and was then duly interned. The means used to wring the confession from him were not stated.

	He had confessed to having been in the pay of a man named Eitinger, the Turkish interpreter to the German Consul in Shanghai. Moses was to communicate with Eitinger at Shanghai, in coded Yiddish (a dialect very close to German) giving him certain information about British  dealings with Indians -- none of which appears to have had any military or strategic significance. However, the confession he had made, as to his being a spy, was confirmed by the interception at Calcutta of a communiqué he made in Yiddish -- to Shanghai (whether or not it was lettered in Hebrew, was not stated). 

*

Calcutta had a “Jew Street”. The British allowed Jews to reside in the “white” part of the city, but, for the most part, they were ghettoized, nonetheless. The Brits had fostered unlimited immigration of Englishmen into the American Colonies, which was the major factor contributing  to their losing them. Once stung, twice shy. Having paid dearly for their having forcefully encouraged British migration to America, they reversed that policy in India, and actively discouraged it there. Nevertheless, in order to avoid an over-reliance on the very competent Hindu and Moslem traders and merchants -- Jews and Parsis, having no political base to speak of in India, were often given preference in those matters. 

*

	The British Army pressed repeatedly for Moses of Jerusalem to be tried under the rules of a court marshal. The proof of his guilt was irrefutable; and, with its forgone conclusion that the trial would find him guilty, he could be executed legally, with much fanfare, as a  spy -- which, the army believed, would act as a deterrent to other would-be spies. There was a conflict here, however, since the army also wanted the ability to threaten immediate execution of a suspected spy if he didn’t divulge the extent of his doings -- with the implication being that the penalty of death would be waived in event he came clean. Nevertheless, the army still wanted the option of trying a confessed spy under the rules of  court marshal.  

	Although spies are routinely and legally, under the rules of that oxymoron, a moral war, executed by the army when caught in the act of spying, in other instances, such as in the case of Moses of Jerusalem, they must first be given a trial. The legality of the matter was kicked around for a period of three months; extracts of the internal correspondence debating the pros and cons of the army’s request to try him by court-martial were contained in a file of forty-odd pages. The final result was that permission was granted to the army to try him by court marshal.  

	The attitude displayed by the Brits in their dealing with “this Moses of Jerusalem”, was obviously one of condescension. And though it might be tinged with a bit of anti-Semitism, it’s obvious that until the insanity that betook Nazi Germany during WWII, there was no way to compare the treatment that those European folks, arbitrarily designated Jews, received at the hands of those calling themselves Christians or Moslems, with that of the treatment routinely received by people not of the Book -- or who had a greater degree of observable skin pigmentation than did their Euro-Caucasian brethren.

	The writer found no corresponding comment, such as the mitigating words of the Brits’ Legislative Department, “He (Moses of Jerusalem) appears to be an enemy subject spying, though his spying was of a futile kind,” in files covering Indians who were executed in accordance with British law -- for offenses far less significant than the spying in wartime committed by Moses of Jerusalem. Individual Indians, whether in the Subcontinent or East Africa,  were routinely murdered or incarcerated by Brits with nary an ah, yes, or no. 

*

The West had established rules to spell out the niceties required of them during  those innumerable times when they were in wars countering or engaging in aggression against one another: in their homelands or the homelands of others whose countries they’d taken over with the use of stealth, pelf or military conquest. Those rules of war were honored only when European nations of relatively equal power were engaged in killing one another.

In their own countries, against their own people, there were no international rules -- nor were there any governing their treatment of citizens of nations colonized by them. In both those instances, no matter how great the atrocity, their doings were considered an internal matter, and no one else’s business. And, despite the recently enacted international laws intended to prevent “crimes against humanity”, when atrocities are committed by militarily powerful or politically connected nations against their own peoples or those colonized by them, the natural law that might makes right takes precedence. On the other hand, when easily defeated nations engage in similar vile behavior, the moralistic Western nations will, occasionally, attempt to put a halt to it.

As to the rules of war, they’re quite meaningless when a major power or an affiliate engages in wartime practice in contravention to those Rules of War --  it’s only the losers who risk being penalized for their transgressing those niceties of war that dictate the proper way to murder folks. What boggles the mind is that the religious leaders of all the major Monotheistic faiths accept the immorality inherent in those rules of war that have been promulgated by adherents to a belief in the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill!”. Those rules of war spell out the legal way for people to kill one another as they go about attempting to further their nation’s interests -- and not only in acts of self-defense, which might be excusable, but in wars of aggression. 

Those Rules of War, at the time of their enactment, pertained to Europeans who were engaged in one of their innumerable military attempts to steal each other’s homeland or foreign possessions. However, when those same honorable folk were engaged in protecting their ill-gotten gains (the colonies) from the inhabitants of the lands stolen by them through intrigue and force of arms, there were no rules. Although this might be considered beating a dead horse, this does illustrate the hypocrisy of the moralizing, landed and wealthy, Judeo-Christian Europeans who used the self-serving laws enacted by the very governments they controlled to legally kill according to their own rules. Thereby, they allowed themselves the ability to rationalize every heinous action taken by their underlings to preserve the source of their wealth.

Currently, there’s an attempt afoot to aggrandize the British Empire and praise it for its civilizing effect on the world. However, it should be noted that England’s powers that be were most guilty of hiding behind their self-made and self- serving laws -- laws that allowed them to perform the most atrocious actions against defenseless peoples -- both in Great Britain and abroad. As stated elsewhere, it’s not that other nations (most notably, at least in more recent times, the Germans and Japanese) didn’t engage in actions at least as vile, it’s that they weren’t hypocrites. The British, to this day, continue to defend, with racist innuendoes, their past money-is-my-God actions.

*

	Though the final determination of the case against the admitted-spy, Moses of Jerusalem, was that he was indeed subject to a trial under marshal-law, whether or not he was shot for his war-time crime as a foreign, enemy agent and spy, though surely important to him, is not the point here. What is, is that the massacre by the Brits at Jallianwala Bagh, which entailed the killing of a thousand unarmed Indian civilians, and wounding a thousand more, was committed by the Brits without so much as a warning, let alone a trial -- even such a meaningless one as that required by their laws that they gave to the admitted spy Moses of Jerusalem.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Six

A Conspiracy of Death-2

	Gandhi realized the way to rid India of the Brits was to maintain worldwide support for India’s right to self-rule. Gandhi was, as are most Indians, pacifist by nature, although he may have stressed it as a Realpolitik necessity. Realizing that the Brits wanted a military confrontation -- one,  due to their overwhelming military supremacy, they had good reason to believe they would win (much as Bismarck reasoned when he enticed Austria to declare war against Prussia), Gandhi convinced his Indian followers of the futility of an armed conflict with them. (Both Mandela and Arafat obviously followed Gandhi’s lead.) While duplicitously attempting to instigate an armed revolt by Indians which was bound to fail, the Brits were to commit numerous stupid PR blunders, which Gandhi was quick to pick up on. Nevertheless, unless they were aired throughout the world, they’d go unnoticed and, much like the results of the proverbial tree in the forest that no one hears or sees falling -- to the world, it would never have happened.

	A significant portion of the cultural baggage of virtually all upper-class Brits consisted of class-privilege, racism and sexism -- women, at least upper-class Euro- Caucasian women, were treated as, and were accepted as, frail things whom English gentlemen must treat with respect. Gandhi was well aware of this, and having mastered the art of playing the Brits like a yo-yo, he willingly also accepted the help of women (of whom, a few were well-placed, American and British) who were attracted to India’s cause to free herself from foreign rule and oppression. Both Gandhi and the ladies were well aware of the sexual confusion in the minds of British gentlemen, therefore by Gandhi’s accepting  their assistance, he believed the ladies would suffer little or no ill effects for helping him.

	Nevertheless, once those fairly intelligent and well placed Euro-Caucasian ladies joined his entourage, the gentlemanly Brits, being reluctant to cause a confrontation with the ladies by attempting to deport them, countered the effects of their presence by insinuating that some kind of sick sexual relation existed between the frail, ultra-vegetarian Gandhi and any youngish woman who was attracted to his and India’s cause. It should be noted that at the time, Gandhi was turning sixty and had been celibate for decades -- and the fragile Gandhi died in 1948, in his seventy-ninth year.

*

The defamation of America’s liberal presidents for their real or invented sexual adventures, though also instigated by conservative money men in fear of losing their ill-gotten gains, was at least directed against young virile men. It should be kept in mind that Gandhi was living in a pre-Viagra era.

*

	Britain’s policy of defamation by innuendo directed against Gandhi and his followers, was part of an attempt to prevent him from helping to rid the Subcontinent of England’s militarily-enforced, political and economic stranglehold over the lives of the Indian people. They failed. Gandhi and India won.

*

	As we’ve seen, in the aftermath of WWI the Brits wanted Indians to remain in a state of servitude, and if they refused, the Brits intended to foment a mini revolution by the Indian military, another Sepoy Rebellion, if you will. In addition, to end, once and for all, India’s attempts to attain any meaningful degree of independence, they wanted India’s men of military age (but not too many) to join in the uprising. They wanted enraged Indians (in responding to the wanton slaughter of unarmed Indian civilians by the Brits) to retaliate against equally-vulnerable Europeans and, if women were included in an attack by an agitated Indian crowd, so much the better. In this way, armed with the then most modern military equipment, British troops (in preparation, thousands had but recently been shipped to India) could counter the emotionally charged reactions by the Indians, with a murderous retaliation -- all under the guise of old-fashioned, British indignation, one based on a Judeo-Christian, eye-for- an-eye response that relied on a broad interpretation of what was an acceptable military reaction against an unarmed civilian population. 

*

	The rich Brits in London, as always, with hypocritical intent, tried to justify their most horrendous deeds by claiming they were both morally and legally appropriate. However, they were shrewd enough to realize that if they were to attempt to expel Gandhi from India, it would result in an all-out, emotionally-charged, violent outburst against British rule -- an outburst that, even if suppressed, would destroy their ability to profit from their rule of India. Moreover, it would enable Gandhi, as martyr, to encourage world support for the very independence they were attempting to prevent. As a result, they allowed Gandhi a more or less free hand. (It should be noted that Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer, a minor yet useful cog in the Empire’s money-making machine, and always eager to prove his worth to the Crown, had recommended Gandhi be sent to the Andaman Islands penal colony.) The fear of the movers and shakers of the Empire of anything happening to Gandhi was such that, after at first jailing him for infractions of one or another of their company-store laws, they placed him in home arrest. They were fearful of the consequences of his fasting while in their custody -- for, if he were to die, his death would be attributed to their actions. Gandhi had placed himself in a win-win situation.  And, whether he lived or died, India would gain her independence. 

	The fear of harm coming to Gandhi, resulted in his being free to thwart their plans; he convinced the vast majority of South Asians that non-violence was the only way to go. He was well aware that, although an all-out emotionally-charged revolt against British rule could possibly destroy the Empire, the number of Indians dying in the process would dwarf the loss of the twenty million lives a well-armed Russia (with American material support) suffered when ousting Germany’s WWII armies from their homeland.

	What to do? pondered the perplexed Brits. By design, or giving the devil his due, by chance, an American, Katherine Mayo, a competent author known for her muckraking reporting was approached by the Brits to write about India. Her credentials were perfect for the job: she was amenable to the chore of destroying the aura of goodness that surrounded Gandhi; she was a racist; a good Episcopalian Christian; a supporter of the Empire and all that it stood for; and she was not British, and whatever she wrote would be assumed based on objective observations.  Moreover, she fit the bill as the perfect foil to counter the effects of that outspoken woman who supported home rule for India, the internationally-known Theosophist and humanist, Annie Besant. 

	Annie Besant was a very proper English woman, a product of the Victorian era. She had fallen in love with India, her religion, and her people, but never wavered from her allegiance to the Crown. For her, India would always be an integral part of the Empire, but with home rule. Gandhi, however, realized that the Brits were as fearful of home rule as they were of outright Indian independence: either way, they concluded, with much justification, they’d  lose their stranglehold over India’s economy. Gandhi became convinced that meaningful home rule or independence would never be freely offered to India. As a result, he opted for a program of peaceful defiance: one that was to eventually lead to India’s complete independence. Gandhi knew where he was going, and, although he respected Annie Besant’s brilliance, unbiased nature and overall decency, it was obvious to him, that her cultural baggage: that of an educated, Victorian Englishwoman, was such that it would never allow her to take part in the destruction of England’s mercantile  empire -- which, without India, both Annie Besant and Gandhi, as well as the Brits, realized would most assuredly be the result. They, much like Winston Churchill, who admitted as much to FDR at a later date, were well aware that a truly independent India meant the end of the British Empire -- which, of course, is just what happened.

	Despite her total allegiance to the Crown, Annie Besant’s belief in reincarnation (a basic aspect of Hinduism) and her staunch support of home rule for India, put her on a collision course with British interests. She seemed to have a vision of a grand alliance, somewhat resembling America, but with the states replaced by colonies in a commonwealth of nations of equals, with London at its center -- something the Brit powers that be were dead set against.

	Annie Besant, even after the passage of the Rowlatt Act, actually believed that the British Parliament, that representative of England’s landed and wealthy, would, of their own volition, grant India the same home rule as it had to the white colonies. She was convinced, that in event Indians were granted the same rights as those permitted to the members of the white colonies, as limited as they were for all but the well-placed Englishman, the Crown would retain India and earn it the undying loyalty of all Indians. And, at one point, Gandhi might have agreed with her; but, by their reneging on their WWI promises, he realized India would never attain true home rule without ousting the Brits, once and for all  -- accordingly, his goal for India became total independence.

*

	Assuming that one of the statements made by the muckraking Katherine Mayo was true: that of her being a tenth generation American, it would be safe to also assume that her, no-doubt-redemptionist ancestors were loyal to the Crown; and, that they did not support the colonists’ revolt against British tyranny in America -- after all, she did, albeit, as a well-rewarded hack, write in support of the Crown against Indians, who had far more pressing reasons for wanting to free themselves from British rule than the signers of Thomas Jefferson’s American Declaration of Independence -- despite the litany of crimes committed against Americans by the Crown:

“He [the German reigning monarch of England: King George III] has abdicated Government here [in the 13 American colonies], by declaring us [the citizens of the colonies] out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.” 
  [Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. Copyright (c) 1994, 1995 Compton's NewMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved 

*

Americans didn’t give much consideration to England as a competitor, but not so the Brits with regard to early, twentieth-century America. The last thing the Brits wanted was an America, with its advanced, for those times, ideals of democracy and the rights of individuals, to be involved in the peace negotiations with the Germans and the divvying up of Turkey’s holdings in the aftermath of WWI. As a result, for a year after America’s entry into WWI, England, then the foremost maritime nation, stalled supplying ships to transport American troops destined to join the Allied cause in France. That this prolonged WW1, and resulted in untold thousands of additional deaths of British and French troops, many of them from their colonies, as well as American troops when they faced a stronger German foe (who also suffered greater casualties), mattered little to the Brits. However, the Boches, after concluding a favorable peace with Russia, moved their formidable Eastern-front army to France, where they went on a successful offensive, turning the tide of war in Germany’s favor. It was only then, fearing a German victory, that England finally made the ships available to American troops.

Britain’s deliberate delay in supplying transport had caused a concentration of American troops in Stateside army camps -- which became fertile breeding grounds for the epidemic-causing influenza virus. And, that resulted in the deaths of ten times as many Americans in the States as the number of American soldiers killed in battle during WWI.

Of course, that was not the intention of the Brits at that time. However, over a century earlier, their nefarious doings to put an end to the American Revolution were deliberate: they attempted to spread the then-deadly smallpox virus amongst the colonists. For the most part, citizens of the Indo-Eurasian land mass had developed some immunity to small pox, but Amerinds and Negroes exposed to it were almost sure to become infected by it, and then die a horrible death. That same awareness, of just how low the Brits would stoop, that helped stiffen American resistance to British rule, had, in the aftermath of Jallianwala Bagh, a similar effect on India’s diverse population.

*

	The  Brits, having decided against risking an all-out, uncontrollable revolution by attempting to ship Gandhi off to the Andaman Islands, decided to take advantage of his non- violent preachings. And, why not? It made the cost of dominating India cheaper -- at least in the short term. However, they were still fearful of his influence on India’s Indo-Caucasian masses, as well as on Euro-Caucasians, wherever they resided. To negate that ability of his, they turned to a subtle form of propaganda -- one intended to counter his power to sway public opinion -- if not in India, though some in India are, to this day, still affected by that British propaganda, than in that former troublesome colony, America. 

	The British had always been wary of America’s ambivalence in accepting their rationale for imperialism --- and America’s post WWI fling with Indian mysticism only added to their concern: making more urgent the need to destroy Gandhi’s reputation, as a means of nullifying the effects that his humble and benign presence had in influencing American public opinion, one that favored independence for the Indian people. With her growing world stature, democratic pretensions, unreliable press, vast immigrant population, America could be a problem for the Brits as they went about maintaining their empire. But, by appealing to a willingness of a sizable number of Americans to accept racist rationalizations for all the problems of the world, the Brits felt they could, at the very least, convince the government in Washington to take a neutral stance on colonialism.

To accomplish this, they attempted to counter Gandhi’s bigger-than-life moral presence in America, as well as worldwide. In doing so, they colluded in the writing and publicizing of a piece of scurrilous and demeaning propaganda designed to destroy, once and for all, the perception that Gandhi, Hindus and all Indians in general, were merely just fellow human beings. In reading the 1927 reviews of the book they sponsored, one would have to say that they certainly succeeded in spreading their malignant views.

	In conniving with the literary hack Katherine Mayo, the Brits assisted in the dissemination of her rationale for England’s rape of Mother India. This, in the belief it would help justify their continued military occupation and subjugation of the Indian peoples. The book did succeed in convincing those who needed no convincing, of the great burden England had taken on. The Times of London loved the book, and the ever-Anglophile New York Times gave it a full front page plus two additional columns in its Sunday Book Review, finding much to be admired in it. On the other hand, the scholarly Yale review said of the book, “An offensive and distorted picture of India.” However, no matter what the reviews, the perception that they, the Brits, had subsidized the writing, publishing and publicizing of a vicious diatribe such as Mother India, indicated to all knowledgeable folks just how low self-righteous Englishmen were willing to stoop in order to retain the Empire. (If the reader discerns a parallel between England’s attempt to spread the smallpox virus in her colonies in America, and England’s subsidizing the slander of India and Gandhi, it’s not an accident.)

	Nonetheless, for all their cunning and calculating,  the Brits, and possibly the world at large, were unaware at the time of what has become a publicity man’s truism: It doesn’t matter what is said or written about a client, as long as they spell his name right. And, Gandhi’s name was spelled right. Had Gandhi been steeped in the Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian culture of greed, he could have been the greatest and richest adman of them all. 

Accordingly, it should surprise no one that despite the vast amount of publicity the book had received, within a few years after its publication, New York’s depression-era Mayor, the honest Fiorello La Guardia compared himself with the dhoti-clad Gandhi, by saying: “we’re the two richest men in the world. Why? Because we both possess everything we want and need.”

*

	An Indian: C.S. Ranga Lyer, a member of the powerless, meaningless and British-controlled Indian Legislative Assembly, wrote Father India, one of the books defending India against that vicious piece of anti-India propaganda by Ms. Mayo. It’s still possible to run into a well- to-do, upper-class, educated Indian who gives every indication that he’s sucked up all the gentlemanly traditions of India’s former British lords and masters. And, in his book, Mr. Lyer comes across as having been just such a chap. He treats the author gently, as if she were a lady, and attacked her more for being an American, which is why the Brits cooperated with the lady in the first place, than for the vicious bitch she was. Moreover, Mr. Lyer’s response, sponsored by crocodile-teared Brits claiming to be helping  to defend India, served two purposes: it lessened the esteem so many Indians had for America and her people; and, it gave additional publicity to the lady’s book -- thereby enhancing Ms. Mayo’s attempts at destroying the image of both Gandhi and all Indians -- as well as all colonized peoples worldwide. Moreover, the Indian gentleman’s stress on her being an American,  lessened America’s democratic influence in India. All told, the response to Mother India seemed very much a win-win situation for the Brits, or so they thought at the time.

*

Through the astute manipulation of a more than willing free press (up until 1934 European news agencies, such as Reuters, London monopolized the sourcing of all foreign news printed in American newspapers), and old-boy agreements with fellow colonial powers, as well as their sponsoring and publicizing of such malignant, racist  tracts as “Mother India”, the Brits believed, with some justification, that, despite the bad post-Jallianwala Bagh publicity, they could continue to control the destiny of a good part of the world -- and India in particular.

*

	Originally, only occasional and nebulous references were made to the continuing disturbances in the Punjab. And, no mention of  the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was to be found in the Times of London until months after it had occurred -- and then only because a commission was formed in response to the adverse publicity caused by the horror of it all -- knowledge of its having leaked out of India, despite all the efforts of the British government to prevent it.

	However, even in the immediate aftermath of WWI (what with the horrific doings by the Central Powers and the Allies as they went about killing one another), the villainy committed by the Brits at Jallianwala Bagh was considered so outrageous, that their attempts to prevent its being made into a cause célèbre proved futile.

	Nevertheless, in short order, outside of India, the Brits did manage to damn near eradicate all knowledge of the massacre. And, even in India, where all Indians I met were aware of its having occurred, an appreciable minority amongst them (especially Anglicized Christians, and most notably in Calcutta, where they still pay homage to Queen Victoria at her memorial) choose to ignore its having happened. I’ve even heard some repeat the nonsensical face-saving claims made by Englishmen that the killings were not committed by British soldiers, and if any murders did occur, it was unintentional. It must be noted that the original report from Amritsar, by British officers, was that only British troops were involved, and secondly, in sworn testimony General Dyer said: I ordered the shoot-to-kill firing into the seated and unarmed gathering, and I would have had my troops continue firing had they not run out of ammunition.

	Many Indian youths, influenced by all the Euro- centric materialist propaganda currently permeating the Subcontinent, have gone so far as to repeat the rationale now being bandied about that if it did indeed happen, it was a misunderstanding -- because no Englishman would ever have ordered his men to murder innocent civilians. In comparison to the Brits, the Nazi head of propaganda, Goebbels, was an incompetent, rank amateur.

*

	Just prior to the massacre, most of the Indian audience was seated in what could best be described as informal and relaxed lotus positions. They were engrossed in listening to a speaker condemning Britain for having reneged on her quid pro quo war-time agreement to offer India a meaningful form of home rule. Instead of a home rule similar to that obtained by her white Protestant colonies, the Brits enacted into law the racist-based, greed-motivated restrictions inherent in the Rowlatt Act.

	India was finally getting the picture: England’s promises of home rule to India, which were intended to mitigate the protests against the massive drain of Indian resources during WWI, was just another bare-faced lie made by the representatives of Britain’s racism-nurtured empire: the lie was rationalized away as having been executed in the name of expediency, and in the name of  national interest.

	During WWI, over a million Indians were sent overseas, 600,000 as soldiers -- 70,000 of whom died fighting England’s war. To get an idea of what this meant, America had fewer men killed in battle during that same war. Yet, spread throughout America, any number of well-earned memorials honoring those men can be found. 

	India Gate, one of the uglier structures the British financed with Indian money, was erected years after WWI in New Delhi -- then frequented exclusively by Europeans and acquiescent Indians. India Gate was intended to commemorate Indians who died in the war. And, it  was done in an obvious attempt to mitigate the negative effects of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre: Indians from every caste, class and religion, realizing the denigrating role, that as citizens of the Empire they were required to play, had lost all faith in the words and doings of the British Raj. The erecting of the India Gate monument was intended to placate the anxieties of the more militant segments of the major religious groupings. And in their doing so, the ambivalent attitude the Brits had towards Indian military men was never more obvious. The Brit military had shown their unwillingness to trust them completely, yet by building the monument commemorating India’s soldiers killed-in-action, they were attempting to make them think of themselves as one-of-us. 

+

	Within a few years after the massacre took place, the then ex-Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer was to show his ability to manipulate the British justice system as a means of exonerating the mentally unstable General Dyer, and indirectly himself, for the cold-blooded murders of those thousand unarmed Indian civilians at Jallianwala Bagh. Having British courts rule on the guilt or innocence of those gentlemen, could best be likened to using Nazis judges at the Nuremberg trials to determine whether or not a German, during WWII, committed war-crimes.

	The result of O’Dwyer’s successful lawsuit was such, that it reinforced the awareness of Indians, of their true status as citizens of the Empire -- which was little more than of chattels. The emotions engendered amongst Indians ranged from hatred to disgust, with even those most supportive of the Empire, disenchanted with the Brits. Ergo, the Brits’ dedication of India Gate to the loyal Indians who fought and died in support of England in her first war to end all wars -- intended to counter the effects of the mass murders at Jallianwala Bagh -- and to continue in their foolhardy attempt to stem, if not reverse, the tide of Indian support for the independence movement.

*

Despite the monuments honoring America’s WWI heroes, there’s no question that America’s veterans of WWI got screwed, otherwise there would never have been a march on Washington demanding their unpaid bonuses -- which, incidentally, had them routed and disbanded by America’s future WWII hero, General Douglas MacArthur, with the help of saber-drawn cavalry. However, that’s a far cry from the massacre committed by the Brits in response to the gathering of unarmed Indian civilians, that included Indian veterans of WWI  -- whose crime was to participate in a discussion on Britain’s reneging on her WWI home-rule commitments to India.

*

	As WWI dragged on, 100,000,000 British pounds sterling (equivalent to about fifty billion U.S. dollars in today’s buying power) was extorted from the Indian people by England’s government in India -- and then donated as a gift to England in support of her war against Germany. This was in addition to their century-long, routine, taxation- without-representation, militarily-enforced, continuous expropriations of India’s fast-dwindling wealth. To add insult to injury, England’s post-WWI demands on Indian resources were increased to pay off her wartime debts. 

	The significance of India’s resources (financial, natural and labor) being systematically wrenched from her people and shipped off to London, was that India’s economy never fully recovered from the rapacious effects of colonialism. The enormity of the drain on India’s economy can best be seen when comparing just the WWI gift made to England, to the total cost to American taxpayers for deploying half-a-million troops with the most advanced weaponry developed to date, in successfully denying Iraq a dominant role in the Gulf -- all of which cost the U.S. (even allowing for the somewhat coerced donations from Germany and Japan) but a fraction of the amount extorted from India’s economy to finance England’s WWI effort to maintain her domination over continental Europe and her colonies..

*

	 In the aftermath of WWII, the countries ravaged by the Nazis were given billions of dollars in American financial aid. Yet, after the British troops withdrew from their rapacious occupation of the Subcontinent, the Brits left behind a partitioned land drained of its once vital economic base. (So rapacious had the Brits been, that even allowing for the gracious post-WWII donations by Americans of their surplus wheat, India still suffers from the effects of the British occupation.) 

*

	In recent years, many Indians, in anticipation of the British Queen’s visit, were heard to request she apologize for the dastardly deeds committed by the Brits at Jallianwala Bagh -- but, on orders of her masters in Parliament, she refused to do. However, Indians, instead of  their having been so damned gentlemanly in requesting an apology, should have demanded hundreds of billions of crores in rupees from the Brits as reparations for the rape of their land and the direct cause of the deaths of more than ten millions of the Subcontinent’s peoples. After all, for half that number of killings, the Israelis received at least fifty billion marks from Germany, and America’s politicians have given her at least twice that amount in dollars -- and they’re still demanding more.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Seven

Gaining Respect

In times of all-out warfare or national emergency, democracies tend to elect more-liberal leaders or, if reactionary, those leaders capable of evoking a patriotic fervor amongst the less-intelligent and less-knowledgeable of the electorate, by playing the bigotry card. In either case, the intention is to encourage hoi polloi to willingly sacrifice their lives in the belief that, by their doing so, they will preserve the integrity of their nation, religion, race, class, women, rulers or whatever. Nevertheless, once need for the support of the common man ceases -- whether it’s his money, or his life -- usually after a lapse of time sufficient to allow for the memory of his deeds and sacrifices to fade away, the influential, old-money folk always manage to reassert their political and economic control over the nation, and her people.

*

	The democratic hoopla spouted by the British Parliament in London during WWI, was not only intended to bulldoze the members of England’s own miscellany of underclasses (as well as those in her white colonies) to willingly give up their freedom and lives to defend the privileges of London’s moneyed and landed upper crust, but was also aimed at India. Though, in India’s case, the Brits’ intentions were to mislead her trouble-making, educated, upper-middle classes, into believing they would receive the same benefits of home rule that had recently accrued to their counterparts in the Empire’s white colonies.

*

	Montagu was the British Secretary of State for India during the latter years of WWI, and for a few years following it. At the time, he was considered a liberal. However, by the end of the twentieth century his conception of democracy would place him somewhat to the right of an Ollie North. Montagu was sent to the Subcontinent, and when there, he conferred with many of India’s most-outspoken advocates for home rule. By doing so, the Brits succeeded, until the end of WWI, in maintaining India’s support in manpower and rupees for England’s war against Germany and Turkey. 

	Perhaps it would be an oversimplification to sum up WWI as a war between colonizing nations. The intention of the original parties involved was to maintain possession of the lands they controlled, while trying to seize the lands controlled by the other. In the course of doing so, the former enemies, England and France, joined forces in an attempt to contain Germany. Preventing the industrial giant that Germany had become, from dominating all of Europe, while threatening to oust her from her colonies, was a primary reason for WWI. England believed, with good cause, that had Germany succeeded in her conquest of Europe, she would have replaced her as the dominant world power. Due to America’s siding with the Allies, Germany’s WWI dreams of world conquest were temporarily squelched, and her colonies were taken over by one or another of America’s Allies. Turkey, the other major Axis power, suffered an even greater loss than Germany -- with England, when it was divvied up by America’s European Allies, getting the lion’s share of the Turkish Empire. And, in one of those not-so-difficult-to- foresee quirks of fate, within a generation, once-proud citizens of Turkey (then Islam’s source of self-esteem) were turned into despised servants and manual laborers in Germany -- the land of their former Axis partners.

*

	Montagu’s advertised mission was to gather the kind of information that would enable England’s Parliament to enact legislation leading to Indian home rule. And, judging from his diary, it was what he believed was Parliament’s true intention. That same kind of liberal talk, and that’s all it ended up being, was also intended to placate that fair-minded and naive, American idealist, President Wilson. Wilson’s attempts to input his ideas of democracy into the peace process, once the war was decisively won, were completely ignored by America’s WWI allies: France and England -- which, along with America’s other WWI allies: the Japanese and Italians, went about seizing as much of the lands previously controlled by the Boches and Turks as they could get away with -- which included a significant portion of the world’s populated acreage -- all in the altruistic attempt to add to their white-(and yellow-)man’s burden.

	In obfuscating the true reason for exacting retribution from a defeated enemy, the claim of its being fair compensation is usually made. Mosaic, eye-for-an-eye retribution, a.k.a. vengeance, was considered a far-more- acceptable rationale for the course of action taken by those folks adhering to a Judeo-Christian morality, than to admit their acquisitions were motivated by avarice. (At least the Japs weren’t hypocrites.)

*

Although vengeance is not considered one of the seven deadly sins by the Roman Catholic Church -- and greed is, it was definitely not considered to be an acceptable course of action by the turn-the-other-cheek original adherents of a Buddheo-Christian doctrine. Both Jesus, at least for mortals, and Buddha rejected vengeance, since it’s nothing less than a form of self-righteous retribution -- more often than not exacted in the name of one or another of the Gods -- by a person or people suffering from real or imagined injury. 

*

	Whether motivated by revenge or cupidity, England’s (they were the main culprits) demeaning demands on Turkey destroyed her as a world power, as well as the stabilizing influence in the Near East. This was to result in the deaths, throughout the Levant and Near East, of untold millions of mostly Moslems. While at the same time, demands on post-WWI Germany’s economy by France (here they were the main culprits), set the stage for the likes of a Hitler to come to power by playing the racism card, as a means of rebuilding the egos of a defeated and humiliated German people.
 
*

The Nazis didn’t implant the concept of a master race in Central-Europeans; its post WWI manifestation had its origins in the readings of the Old Testament that led to the Protestant Reformation. Later, Bismarck, inadvertently or by design, in his successful bid to unite a group of disparate petty states and free them from Austrian domination, created a near-indelible German identity that enabled him to mold them into a major world power. For, in no time, those newly-made pure Germans, despite their having numerous racial and ethnic inputs and speaking in a multitude of dialects, and with a history of having murdered each other over their religious differences, became convinced that their newly-formed fatherland was destined to rule the world. 

The notion that Imperial Germany in WWI and Nazi Germany in WWII was motivated by the contradictory utterance of a battery of her verbose, middle-class, posturing philosophers, is nonsensical. Germany’s demagogues, as do those of every nation, select the philosophy that best served their ends. That men of action, regardless of their motives, adhere to any particular philosophy, much as a sous-chef follows his boss’s recipes, is merely a self-deluding fantasy perpetrated by egg-heads and academicians to give reason to their own existence. Unwittingly, Bismarck was to lay the foundation for Hitler. Looking to the near-unreadable writings of Germany’s ponderous philosophers to find the roots for Germany’s willingness to follow Hitler is sheer nonsense. Demagogues like Hitler pick and choose one or another form of scripture according to their needs. 

By the end of the nineteenth century, for a significant majority of Germans, educated or not, their belonging to a "master race,” had become an integral part of their cultural baggage. Nazism needed little encouragement by Hitler to grow in a soil already fertilized by the notion implanted in Germans by Bismarck, that its citizens were a unique people, a notion later expanded on to a point where they began thinking of themselves as superior to all other folks. Perhaps it’s merely an ironic twist of fate that the very people most adversely affected, percentage-wise, by Nazism’s claims of racial superiority have, themselves, fostered a similar belief amongst their own conglomerate of obviously disparate people, one that claims they’re a unique people who are the chosen of God -- thereby rationalizing their present use of a military supremacy to lord it over another peoples. On the other hand, it might just be further proof of the overlapping of Judeo-Christian, Germano-Slavic thinking.

*

	It’s time now to return to India where O’Dwyer was attempting to preserve the Empire --  and then compare him to his counterpart in America, a man who shall be dubbed O’Dollarly. The cultural baggage of these two gentlemen contained much that was similar. The most influential input to it was their extreme ambition -- with its zeal to succeed at whatever the cost -- to others. What this meant for the two men was the need to prove their worth to the dominant members of a dominant society -- one they yearned to be part of.  Although there’s no intention of making any sort of a nonsensical genetic connection regarding the attitudes of Irish Catholic Brits and their American cousins, being Irish Catholics who were attempting to succeed in an Anglo- Protestant dominated society meant both had similar inputs to their cultural baggage.  Those inputs differed little from those added to the cultural baggage of all ambitious individuals coming from one or another of the subordinate-to-the-upper- crust, arbitrarily-arrived-at, pseudo-hereditary groupings. Accordingly, what their somewhat similar heritage signifies is that neither of the gentlemen was fully accepted (at the very least during the earlier part of their careers) as a social equal by the top-dogs of the particular dominant society from which they sought acceptance.

	Quite naturally, however, the means of overcoming the arbitrary barriers to their realizing their ambitions differed tremendously. The American, O’Dollarly, had no need to resort to the murder of have-nots, as did O’Dwyer in India, in order to prove his worth to his social betters. O’Dollarly had only to assist in furthering the income disparity between the have-a-lots, and the getting-by-as-best- they-cans, in order to prove his loyalty and worth to the powers that be in America’s dominant society. By stressing his Hibernian ancestry,  O’Dollarly was able to convince a goodly portion of middle-class Americans, especially those with Irish heritage -- the majority of whom were middle-to-lower-middle income wage earners -- that he and the ultra-conservatives were acting in their best interests. For O’Dollarly, it was only required that he sacrifice the well-being of those who trusted him in order to  attest to his loyalty to his social betters -- no need for him to  engage in outright murderings.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Eight -- A

The Irish Mutiny -- James Daly

	An acquaintance, aware of my having researched the events surrounding the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, presented me with an article he had come across in the magazine, History of Ireland. The article, The Connaught Rangers Mutiny -- India 1920, was written by Thomas Bartlett, a professor of Irish History at NUL, Dublin. And, in reading it, it confirmed my belief that a symbiotic relationship existed between India and Ireland -- insofar as England’s pattern of double-dealings was concerned. All the claims of rule by law made by the Brits were, and may very well still be, more hokum than substance. The execution in India of James Daly, a youthful leader of the Irish mutiny should serve to confirm that England’s application of her hallowed laws were based more on expediency, than on justice.  

*

In more recent times, an antagonistic attitude towards Indians can be discerned in those immigrants in America coming from Ireland’s least-educated, lower-middle-classes -- an attitude, no doubt, carried over from their experiences in England, where they were probably placed in direct competition for jobs with far-more-success-oriented South Asians. 

*

	During and immediately after WWI, those thinking folks amongst both South Asians and the Irish, realized the commonality of their plight -- at least insofar as their relationship with the powers that be in London was concerned. There were Irishmen ranging from the likes of Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer down to the Irish soldier serving as batman to an English officer who, for one reason or another, but often exacerbated by differences of religion, culture and skin pigmentation, resented Indians. On the other hand, the majority of Indians, being unaware of the social differences existing in the West, lumped the Irish in with all the Brits who soldiered in India, liking them or not, as one. Meanwhile, both educated Indians and Irishmen tended to believe they had a common cause -- one due to the inability of each one’s countrymen to defend themselves against England, with her overwhelming military superiority. And, so, if nothing else, at the time of the Irish mutiny in India (a halfhearted, failed attempt to take over an ammunition dump from British authorities that resulted in the death of two men), a tenuous bond existed between Indians and Irishmen -- one based on that age-old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

*

England’s original attempts at the conquest of Ireland began when all were Catholic, which was centuries prior to the conflicts in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. Irish attempts to remain free of British domination date back to at least the twelfth century, when God’s vicar residing in Rome, Pope Adrian IV, granted the Catholic King of England, Henry II, overlordship of Catholic Ireland. And, in 1169, England’s Catholic, Anglo-French rulers of the time, much like their centuries-later Protestant Anglo-German kings, all claimed to be empowered by the very same One-and-Only God to steal, with the use of God’s gift of superior arms, the lands of Heathens, as well as those of  fellow Christians -- no matter what the denomination. 

Never a people to let an opportunity to further national interest go by without taking advantage of it (five centuries having elapsed), in the aftermath of the massacres committed by Cromwell against the Irish Catholics, the English gentry, after enlisting the aid of Catholics to oust him, were to bring in the Dutch Protestant William of Orange, of William and Mary fame. He accelerated the settling of North Ireland with Protestants and proceeded to kill off protesting Irish Catholics. (Over a century later, and shortly after the establishment of the United Kingdom in 1800, the Protestants in what is now North Ireland, began their marches celebrating the defeat of the Catholics by the Protestant Anglo-Dutch King William --- and they’ve continued on through the end of the twentieth century.) 
*
	As the result of a combination of events that took place over the course of eight centuries of conflict -- that culminated in England’s inaction and greed-motivated doings during Ireland’s famine years -- the democratic influences on Irishmen who fled to America (where even Negro slaves were being freed) greatly exacerbated their resentment of British rule -- which, in turn, was to bring about a change in British policy towards their Irish Catholic troops.

	With the establishment in 1800 of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, Irish troops had been actively recruited to fill the army’s ranks. However, ever since the 1860’s, when America’s Irish immigrants encouraged the infiltration of the British Army -- with a view of breeding dissension in the ranks -- Irish Catholic troops were shipped out to the colonies -- notably India.

*

After the American Constitution was amended to give full rights of citizenship to Negroes, women in America stepped up their demands for the right to vote, as did the Irish for their independence. However, both Irish independence and the vote for women were to take the better part of a century before being realized.

*

In America, there was a close relationship between the post-Irish-famine movement of the Fenians and the Ghadr movement of the early twentieth century which protested the exclusionary policies in England’s white colonies against Hindus (then a general designation for South Asians of all religions). One might be tempted to claim the Brits’ hostility to Indian migration into Canada was due to their recalling the Fenians’ earlier attempts, at the end of the American Civil War, to invade that country. But, in reality, it was just another example of England’s playing the racism card -- in this case Indo-Caucasians against Euro-Caucasians -- as a means of maintaining control over her colonies.

Though unsuccessful in taking over any part of Canada, Fenian activities, in 1867, were to bring about the confederation of Canada -- something the Brits had tried to avoid -- fearing a united Canada meant losing their total control over the territory. Nevertheless, since a divided Canada left her open to inroads by America-based adventurers of one sort or another, the law establishing the Dominion of Canada was passed by the Brits. The effect was such that England controlled just about every aspect of Canada’s dealings with the outside world: immigration, censorship, customs, her war- and treaty-making ability, as well as all her people’s other worldly activities. The Brits used that control to curtail Indian migration into Canada, and then to refuse them passage from, or by way of Canada, if and when they attempted to return to India. By putting a stop to the activities of the Ghadr movement, with its demands for Indian independence, the Brits were attempting to prevent a repeat of their problems with the Fenians of a half-century earlier. Protestant Anglo-Canadians, almost all of whom were from the poorest and lowest social strata of English society, had been easily convinced, on racial and religious grounds, to join in stifling the Ghadr, Indian- independence movement. (It had worked for the Brits earlier to help them fend off the Fenian invasion, and to keep the French Quebecois in their place.) 
 
To this date, despite a lessening of their bigoted attitude towards South Asians, there remains, amongst the lower-class Canadians, a residue of the Brit-sown, racist attitudes that motivate their hypocritical approach towards India, her people and her doings. One can’t blame Canada’s lower classes (as well as those in the New York area), what with their being fated to live as second-class citizens with but little more than a subsistence level income, for resenting Asians. They’ve only just begun to accept the inclusion of a more prosperous, better-educated and highly motivated Jew into everyday society (though this has been made palatable by the rationales afforded by a sub rosa anti-Semitism), and now when observing the advances made by the far more intelligent and equally motivated Indians (the result of America’s immigration policy affecting Indians, whereby only professionals and their families are permitted to immigrate) they must again face the reality of their socio-economic condition. 

*

In an attempt to blame the victim for the commission of a crime, the Brits accused Gandhi and his co-liberators of India of using racial hatred against the Brits -- when they spoke out against the massacre of those thousand unarmed Indian civilians at Jallianwala Bagh  -- who were murdered by the Brits solely because they were Indian. (This did vary from standard British policy, which was to play one identifiable sub-group of citizens of a colonized nation -- by their race, ethnicity, political leanings or religion -- against one another.). With their typical hypocrisy, the Brits had the nerve to make that claim of bigotry against Gandhi -- much as if the massacre was not the result of England’s rationalized-by-bigotry, greed-motivated, self-serving mode of governance -- one that had served them well in their usually successful endeavors to maintain their relatively short-lived Empire.

The English, in the years leading up to WWI had treaties with the Japanese, whereby the Japs agreed to assist England in event India revolted against their rule. Perhaps America should look to England for reparations for the Japanese sneak attack that killed those thousands of American servicemen at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were merely following Britain’s deceitful policies, which were accepted without an ah, yes or no by the very moral, Judeo-Christian West. To protect and expand the financial interests of the Crown, the Brits resorted to the most heinous of activities -- yet, they managed to convince a so-called civilized world that their actions were fitting and proper.

The Japs chose to adopt the Brit’s modus operandi for their own use in attempting to build their empire; and, as in many of their more recent endeavors, the Japs proved most adept at imitating the West’s manifestations of its success: in the case of Pearl Harbor, it was British duplicity. Nevertheless, despite their own initial success, the Japanese failed militarily -- and now they appear to be failing economically in their attempts to build and maintain an empire for themselves. Why? It’s because they lack the finesse of the Brits, who had the advantage of rationalizing their doings by shrewdly claiming they were in line with their laws, which were based on a Judeo-Christian morality -- an eye for an eye. And, the justification the Brits used for the massacre of a thousand unarmed Indian civilians was, that it was but fair retribution for a young English woman being pushed off her bike. Although not quite as horrible a deed as the loss of Jenkins’ ear, it sufficed.

*

	Post WWI Ireland was involved in much the same social turmoil as India -- and with the war over, the Brits wanted to rid Ireland of as many potential revolutionaries as possible. (At the time,  in an effort to squelch Irish demands for home rule, the Black and Tans were committing their outrages in Ireland.) The Brits believed they were getting double duty  -- by ridding Ireland of potential troublemakers, and then by using them to suppress their counterparts in India.

	The results of all this was most unfortunate for the Irish Catholic youth, James Daly, who, due to his ineffectual involvement in an insignificant near-mutiny, on November  2, 1920, became the last soldier in the British Army to be executed. He had been one of the many Irish youths whose enlistment had been encouraged by the Brits for duty in India -- where Indian civilians, much as in Ireland, were reacting to England’s wartime double-dealings regarding promises of home rule.

	At first glance, there appears to be no direct connection between the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh and the Irish mutiny -- which took place a little more than a year later. However, since the British Government of India, after having failed (due to Gandhi’s intervention) in their attempt to provoke Indians into reacting violently to the atrocities committed by it (besides the massacre, British pilots had also bombed and strafed gatherings of unarmed Indian civilians, killing many), they decided it would be prudent to discharge their Indian troops as fast as they could.  (During WWI  the number of Indian troops had quadrupled to 600,000.) Ergo, the influx of fresh Irish troops who were thought more willing to fight for the Crown (at least in India) than were the Indians.

*

	The article by Thomas Bartlett mentions, and then dismisses a comment by one of the leaders of the Irish mutiny, a Private in the Connaught Rangers, Joseph Hawes, in which he said: “we were doing in India what the British forces were doing to [us in] Ireland”.  Bartlett then went on to say that no other connection was made between India’s and Ireland’s independence movement. Maybe so. But, what’s obvious, is that the Irish troops were in a double bind. They were, of course, aware of the machine-gunning and bombing of unarmed Indian civilians in the wake of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh -- and Hawes had made them fully aware that the British attitude towards Irish civilians at home was no different than their attitude towards Indians. And, Hawes’s mentioning the obvious similarity between the suppression of the Irish to that of Indians, was significant enough to have been quoted in the recently-declassified documents -- which the article by Bartlett was based on. 

	England’s policy of shipping out her macho Irish youths to India must have seemed a Godsend. By their execution of the one Irish youth found guilty of mutiny while in service in India, the Brits were able to prove to the world that the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, as well as their continuing murders of Indian civilians, and even the wholesale slaughter, in the past, of those surrendering Indian soldiers in the wake of their 1857 attempt to oust the Brits, were not racially motivated. The Brits, by executing the  one Irish-Catholic soldier had satisfied themselves, if not the world, that they were equal opportunity murderers.  Nevertheless, by the continued acceptance, in the West, of their bigotry-rationalized governance of India, they managed to preserve a tattered Empire for a couple more decades.

	Within a few years of Daly’s execution, Ireland got her home rule, albeit, sans the northern segment of the island nation. Evidently, the massacring of a thousand Irish at a clip (as they did Indians at Jallianwala Bagh) as a means of maintaining their stranglehold over Ireland, would have caused even the members of the British House of Lords to find it difficult to justify. 

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Eight -- B

	Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer was a man much like the scholarly O’Dollarly. He too was fairly intelligent and attained his position despite, or perhaps, indirectly, because of his being an Irish Catholic. What O’Dollarly in America and O’Dwyer in India had in common, was their need to prove, as Irish Catholics, their worth to their Anglo-Saxon, Protestant betters.

	O‘Dwyer, the martinet Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab (much as O’Dollarly did in America) managed to gain access to the periphery of the inner sanctum of the dominant society he so craved to be a part of, and, as such, he was made responsible for the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh.  

*

	In 1917, Dyer, after being thrown from his horse (while drunk?) had been hospitalized and sent back to England to recuperate. A year later, after proving his worth as an ask-no-questions, obedient-to-the-chain-of-command good soldier, he was returned to his post in the Punjab -- where O’Dwyer was serving as Lieutenant Governor. Dyer’s return to India was due to the Brits’ unwillingness, due to the exigencies of WWI, to send a more competent general. There was also a very positive reason for their shipping him back. Being aware of both his limited intellect and his racist attitude towards Indians, they realized he was just the man to carry out the kind of nefarious scheme then being put into motion.

	WWI was still far from won, but with the belief it would soon be over, London’s money folks decided it was time to get back to their wallet-filling concerns. India’s being the greatest source of their revenue, and with the belief that the need for India’s wartime support would soon be over, they were determined to put a stop, once and for all, to  India’s demands for home rule. 

*

	The Brits had already laid the groundwork for putting-Indians-in-their-place when they sent Judge Rowlatt (a staunch defender of colonialism and a respected party hack) to India to dig up anything that would support their continuing the wartime restrictions on Indian freedom -- those that had been reluctantly approved, as a temporary measure, by India’s powerless legislators. The political climate of the time (it hasn’t changed that much, has it?) was such that any action taken by a people, reacting against their enslavement and the theft of their land and wealth by an alien power, was considered a revolutionary act committed by terrorists. And, so, the British good-old-boy Rowlatt was sent to India to dig up and enumerate any trivial instance of criminal actions on the part of Indians that he could find -- this, to claim a need for the denigrating act that was to unofficially bear his name. The obedient-to-the-needs-of- empire Rowlatt, managed to dig up some instances that occurred over a ten year period, most of which occurred in 1907 when Indians were reacting to the Brits’ partitioning of Bengal. 

	The legalizing hokum used by the Brits for the moralistic rationalizing that led to their enacting the Rowlatt Act, was such that all concerned must have known that even before Rowlatt’s heralded impartial investigation began, that its enactment into law was a done deal. 

	The Brits had been made well aware of the potential for violence that its enactment into law would have. Yet, despite repeated pleas by even the most conservative Indian legislators (that powerless group of hand-picked proper- Indians) to reconsider their plans to enact the Rowlatt Act, the Brits (for reasons that will soon become obvious) ignored them, and  the Rowlatt Act became law. 

*

	London had surreptitiously hatched their plans intended to squelch any aspirations Indians had for attaining a meaningful degree of home rule. To execute their designs, they connived with Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer and the British government in India -- all parties having given ample proof of their willingness to carry out the nefarious doings that would be required of them.

	At the bottom of the chain of command was the alcoholic General Dyer. His immediate superior in this particular venture (though not in military terms) was O’Dwyer, the preposterous little man with an insatiable ego that fed on racism: a quality rendering him so useful to the Crown that he had been rewarded with the Lieutenant Governorship of the Punjab.

	No doubt, London believed the clandestine operation would go well. Both these gentlemen, O’Dwyer and Dyer, were rabid racists with killer instincts. They were beyond doubt the two most despicable Brits then functioning in India -- which is saying a lot. To the Brits’ credit, though, they managed to come up with a sufficient number of such men, and at least one such woman, in their times of need.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Nine 

Deception

	Before circumstances could warrant the kind of mass murder contemplated by London: one sufficiently great to thwart all ideas of independence by Indians, they needed a sufficiently large number of enraged Indians to engage in a major revolt -- one of a size sufficient to rationalize their using unrestrained military force to counter (yet, one small enough to ensure their success, without turning the entire Subcontinent into a hostile and unmanageable land).

	In reaction to the Brits’ in-your-face passage of the Rowlatt Act, there were major displays of resentment throughout India -- in Bombay some eight Indians were killed by the Brits, and Indian troops refused to fire. Yet, the response by Indians to those murders committed by the Brits didn’t result in the massive revolt needed to justify the employment of the kind of devastating retaliation London had believed necessary to put the Indians in their place. 

	Even in the Punjab, where resentment had been building for years (due to O’Dwyer’s London-supported, if not-ordered, demeaning racist policies towards its inhabitants), and where the Brits expected the revolt to begin, the response to the killings in Bombay were primarily those of vocalized outrage. And, so, the ante was upped, and the Brits’ contingency plan was put into effect.

	On April 8, 1919, O’Dwyer ordered the arrest and deportation of Dr. Kichlu (a Moslem) and Dr. Satya Pal (a Hindu): the two most prominent supporters of Indian home rule in the Punjab. Neither man advocated the use of violence (although, had they done so, one could hardly fault them) when speaking out against the Brits’ racism-based rationalizations for the passage of the Rowlatt Act.

	The carrying out of those orders to remove the two Indian gentlemen from the Punjab was delayed to give sufficient time for large contingents of both British and Gurkha troops to arrive in Amritsar. By the 11th of April, the 125th British Infantry and the 216th Sussex Regiments plus 100 men from the London Regiment arrived from Lahore. In addition, three hundred Gurkha troops armed only with Kukris were diverted into Amritsar. 

	It was not until then, after the arrival of some thousand or so British troops at Amritsar, that the arrest and deportation of Dr. Kichlu and Dr. Satya Pal took place. This deliberate blow to Indian pride was believed, by the Brits, capable of stirring a mini revolt, by a resentful Punjabi populous. As was expected, there were some acts of violence that resulted in the death of five British men: soldiers and civilians (a fraction of the number of Indians civilians murdered by the Brits during India’s earlier peaceful demonstrations protesting the passage of the Rowlatt Act), and one young British woman was pushed off her bicycle. (She required no medical attention, and was escorted home by Indians -- nonetheless, her being shoved off her bicycle, was made a cause celebre by the British press, which blew it up into an “assault” -- loaded with sexual implications.) 

*

The insignificant happening (confirmed, as such, in their own secret files) was used by the Brits much as they had with the questionable episode involving Jenkins’ losing an ear, when, in that instance, his missing ear was used as an excuse to justify their fighting that eponymous  war -- one that resulted in their obtaining the exclusive rights to the African slave trade -- that, which formerly belonged to Spain). 

*

	It was then, in the late afternoon of April 11, 1919, that the just-arrived General Dyer, with an escort of 150 British troops (not an Indian soldier amongst them), toured Amritsar to assess the situation. At that time, he observed a city at peace.

	Nevertheless, in the belief that the initial response, by Indians in the Punjab, to the calculated arrest and deportation of Kichlu and Satya Pal, as restrained as it was, would be sufficient to rationalize their committing a wholesale murder such as that ordained by London, O’Dwyer and Dyer made their final arrangements to carry out their mission. 

*

	Indians had hurriedly called a meeting to discuss the deportations of Kichlu and Satya Pal, one Gandhi was expected to attend. However, he never made it. While en route to Amritsar the British authorities boarded Gandhi’s train, and forced him to return to Bombay. Amidst the concerned Indians was one Hans Raj, a shadowy character of unknown origins who, it was later determined, was in the pay of the Brits, had convinced the organizers to hold their meeting at Jallianwala Bagh. The general shape of the bagh was that of an oblong trapezoid measuring 200 plus yards by about 150 yards --  equal to between six and seven acres. It had been a private garden (bagh), and as such had limited access: the main entrance, located on a short side, was too narrow for machine-gun-carrying vehicles to pass through (which, no doubt, prevented the murder of thousands of additional unarmed civilians), and towards the far end, on one side, was a padlocked, wooden double door, and on the other a narrow passageway leading out to an equally- narrow street.

*

It seems appropriate to mention, at this point, that the Brits had a spy system in effect throughout India, as well as worldwide, that puts to shame that of the C.I.A. and the K.G.B.. And, it was believed that the man who called himself, Hans Raj, was in fact a British provocateur cum spy.

*

	When the final episode was being planned, General Dyer was advised by Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer that no troops from the Irish Catholic regiments would be made available to him for his mission; Dyer found no fault with that. Due to the disturbances in Ireland, there was a question of their loyalty to the Crown -- which  meant, even if the Irish troops were to comply with his orders to fire into the seated Indians, they’d not feel honor-bound to keep mum about it. Logically, he concluded that using Indian troops, as O’Dwyer had insisted he do, seemed foolhardy. Indian troops had already proven, in Bombay, their unwillingness to kill their own, and since he had never been made aware of the overall scheme, rather than use Indian troops and jeopardize his ability to carry out his mission, he ignored O’Dwyer, who after all was a civilian. Dyer had considered using Gurkha troops (Hindu-Rajputs who had long since emigrated from India to Nepal), but decided not to test their loyalty, and using his prerogative as General Officer Commanding, selected a number of British officers and men from amongst the 150 troops who had accompanied him from Lahore, and who served as his escort on his tour of Amritsar on the 11th of April.  (Since the author can think of no first-hand account written by a British soldier, detailing even one of the infamous actions the British military were known to have performed (even in WWI, the only meaningful account of that war was written by a German) -- it becomes obvious why Dyer decided to use only his trusted British, non-Irish Catholic officers and troops to carry out his barbarous mission.) 

	The Gurkha troops, though unquestioningly brave against armed adversaries, were not known to be ruthless in their use of their Kukris when dealing with defenseless civilians. He reasoned, that if, if armed with rifles, they refused to obey his command to shoot to kill, what he believed to be his primary mission: the massacre of the defenseless “heathens”, would end in failure? As a result, Dyer stationed the Gurkha troops outside the killing ground -- thereby securing the bagh’s main passageway. This served the dual purpose of protecting the rear of the British troops stationed within the bagh, and ensured the troops’ quick and unhampered departure once they completed their maleficent mission -- a mission believed by General Dyer to be the intimidation, by this horrific example, of an entire nation into submission to the rule of the noblest of men: the powers that be in London, whose most-obedient servant he was.

	At his disposal, Dyer also had machine-guns mounted on armored vehicles, which he manned with British soldiers. Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer had advised the general to station them outside the entrance to Jallianwala Bagh. The intention was, that in event the Indian or Gurkha troops refused to obey his orders to shoot and kill the unarmed Indian civilians, General Dyer was to have his  machine-gunners turn on them as they left the Bagh. The problem that arose for the conniving Brits, was the result of the Lieutenant General’s not being totally candid with General Dyer. For, unbeknownst to Dyer, if by machine-gunning the Indian troops it fostered an uprising by a goodly portion of them, it would be so much the better. London, and their chief henchman, O’Dwyer, being well aware that even in India, where her people were known for their passivity, when outraged, they could engage in intense outbursts of uncontrollable violence -- and that’s just what they were hoping would happen. 

*

	Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer, in his own words, is quoted in the File: Home -- Poll -- B-513 -- Jan 1920, marked CONFIDENTIAL on page four: “At 3-0 A.M. on the morning of the 14th [of April 1919], I received at Lahore a very hasty report from the [British] District Magistrate (he was not with General Dyer when the firing took place) that the meeting had been dispersed by force, and that the death casualties were estimated at about two hundred. One or both of the gentlemen who brought in the report by motor informed me that only British troops had been used, and that there was no [British] civil officer with General Dyer at the time. This caused me serious anxiety. ...”  

*

	On the day following the massacre, Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer, who remained in Lahore, an hour or so away by motor, when he was advised by messenger that which  confirmed an earlier telephone conversation he had had with the British District Magistrate in Amritsar -- that the massacre had been carried out by British troops -- his initial response was one of dismay. Dyer, the fool, contrary to plan, had used British and not Indian troops to accomplish his mission. Miracle of miracles, within a matter of days, conflicting official reports were wired to London from the British Government of India that stated: only Indian troops (90) were used; only Gurkha troops (50) were used; only segments of Gurkha, Sindi and Sikh regiments were used; only Gurkha troops (50) were used but there were also several British officers present. In Parliament many months later, one MP stated, without contradiction, that half the troops were Indian and half British -- apparently it was decided to split the difference between the truth and the lie in order to appease the consciences of  the members of both houses of the British Parliament. 

*

The British have never released the complete report giving the results of their forced-by-public-opinion investigations -- most of which were held in camera. Two out of seven sections of the official report were deliberately obliterated, and never made public. Since the surmise of the events surrounding the massacre is based on the known facts involving the mass murder at Jallianwala Bagh, it’s safe to say that the sections of the report destroyed and never aired, would have been far more damaging to the image of the Brit as a gentlemanly sort, than anything attributed to them herein. In the past, the spies operating out of the British Criminal Intelligence office were murdering those Indians seeking home rule (as their counterparts were doing in Ireland to Irishmen) thought capable of disrupting the national interests of England’s wealthy and landed upper crust. Any similarity between the heroic, suave James Bond types with their licenses to kill -- is not herein intended. However, if the reader finds a similarity between the doings of the Brits and those of the rightfully-despised Mafia -- it would not be inappropriate. 

*

	The conservative estimates of those unarmed, unresisting civilians who died as a result of the Brits’ massacre, ranged from the 379 the Brits finally acknowledged, to a minimum of a thousand -- plus at least as many who were wounded. The British government in India initially advised Parliament that there were a total of two hundred casualties and then, after some delay, ungraciously conceded that those were the number killed. Thereafter, they were to use the term death casualties to make up for their prior attempt at lessening the scale of their murderous doings. Eventually it became obvious that the total number of casualties should have been numbered in thousands, and even the death casualties, though raised by the Brits to 379 after much pressure from a Parliament attempting to save face, by putting on a show of concern about the massacre, was a deliberate understatement by well over a half of those who died as a direct result of Britain’s terrorist tactics.

*

	Poor, simple-minded Dyer, he actually believed the massacre was intended to be a straightforward sort of military maneuver. After all, murdering without questioning the morality of doing so is something generals are paid to do. And, much as armies execute mutineers, and civilian governments punish citizens who engage in unauthorized murderings and thievery,  as a means of instilling the fear of retribution in those who would engage in criminal activities,  Dyer was aware that soldiers were often called upon to kill off troublesome civilians as a means of warning the citizenry that, if they don’t accede to the demands of their rulers, more of the same will be administered.

	Now, for the Brits to benefit from their having committed the mass murders at Jallianwala Bagh, they faced a dilemma: if the dastardly deed was to serve its intended purpose, which was to either cow the Indians immediately into giving up their demands for home rule or to have them react to it in a murderous rage (one sufficiently barbaric so as to enable the Brits to retaliate with a moralizing, unrestrained vengeance), then the horror of it all had to be brought home to all Indians. However, if news of the atrocity was to reach beyond the borders of the Subcontinent, to the so-called- civilized West, it could detract from the prestige of the Empire. The obvious solution for the Brits, which they attempted to apply, was to allow word of the atrocity to spread within the Indian subcontinent -- and, then at the same time, make every effort to prevent news of the atrocity from reaching the outside world

	Their having followed that tried and true modus operandi (which had allowed them to build and maintain their empire) had served them well in the past. However, this time they goofed. The Empire’s movers and shakers were incapable of realizing just how much the world had changed since India’s first major attempt, sixty years earlier, to rid themselves of British rule. No longer could the Brits engage in the barbaric, criminal activities required to maintain control over their military conquests, without their actions being subjected to public review. They were in the process of losing their absolute control over the content of all the news entering and leaving post-WWI India.

	Nevertheless, the Empire’s movers and shakers being a resourceful people, unable to play down the horrendous nature of the action they perpetrated at Jallianwala Bagh, they resorted to that old standby, racism. Accordingly, with an assist from a most understanding press,  played on and probably exacerbated the from-time-to-time- dormant, racist tendencies that still prevail in the Judeo- Christian West, as a means of justifying the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh. In more recent times, even in America, where we rightfully pride ourselves on our freedom of the press, newspapers routinely ignore, play down or lie about activities that, if made public, could prove harmful to their particular economic, political, religious, ethnic or whatever, selfish interests. All the news that fits does not get printed -- even in the States.

*

The same WWI that made for the development of  improved means of mass destruction (which gave the Brits additional military supremacy over the poorly armed and unarmed Indians) also accelerated development of long-distance communication. It made it impossible for the Brits to maintain the total control over the news coming into, going out of and circulating throughout the Subcontinent. Radio became such a threat to the Brit governing classes that by 1925 they made it a government monopoly in England, and by 1927 in India’s main cities.(Government control of the media is a standard tool of all oppressive governments. It’s only when so-called democracies use it, that their hypocrisy becomes apparent.) Although the use of telephones and telegrams were also under government control, the attempts at total censorship continued to break down. 

+

	London’s movers and shakers were distressed by their inability, at least at first, to use the law to rationalize the mass murder committed by British troops at Jallianwala Bagh. Their concern was not with the fact that the murders had been committed, but whether or not there were laws in place that could possibly be used to justify their having committed them.

	It was months after the atrocities took place before any direct reference to the very-real murders committed by British troops was  made by the prestigious Times of London. Until then, when mentioned at all, the massacre was described in an offhand manner as: measures taken to deal with the ongoing disturbances in the Punjab. Once the cat was out of the bag, Britain’s free press went about convincing a more-than-willing-to-be-deceived British public (by printing misleadingly-inaccurate details and outright lies), that poor General Dyer was a maligned hero.

	It took a year before the Brits finally recalled the mentally unbalanced General Dyer for his having ordered the massacre -- until then he was promoted for ordering it.  And, within no time, another prominent Tory newspaper, the Morning Post, sponsored a collection for the benefit of the General;  it brought in donations totaling twenty-six thousand pounds sterling -- that sum, in its end-of-the-twentieth- century value -- would have made him a millionaire, in either U.S. dollars or British pounds.

*

Seventy years after the British massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, the Chinese Communists, in full view of the world, moved tanks and armored personnel carriers against Chinese pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen  Square. The demonstrators were Chinese students and workers. For a month they had been in open rebellion against the Chinese Communist regime, and were defying the imposition of martial law then in effect for two weeks. The deliberate killings of a Chinese people ordered by the Communist Chinese in power, who were, in their own perhaps warped way, doing what they believed best for all the Chinese people (the Chinese could not appeal to the racist tendencies of the West to justify their action), were rightly denounced by a shocked world. Nevertheless, that this same type of murderous action, more often than not with racist overtones, continues to be ignored in the West -- when taken in support of near-totalitarian, quasi-democratic regimes with a predisposition for capitalism -- even as the world faces a new millennium, does put the horrific aspects of the happenings at Jallianwala Bagh in proper perspective.

*

	There should be no room for doubt as to why it happened, and how the Brits, with the additional ammunition provided by their playing the racist card, were able to convince their own people, along with what passes for a civilized world, that the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh either didn’t happen, or if it did, was warranted. One need only peruse the pages of the London Times’s New York namesake, or listen to an ultra-rightist propaganda broadcast, to realize just how a major, influential voice can manipulate, distort and deny the facts, as a means of molding public opinion to serve the needs of a self-serving agenda. 

*

After having finally acknowledged, albeit begrudgingly, that the massacre had actually occurred, the much respected British press colluded in making the Indians responsible for the entire incident -- sort of blaming the unarmed Indian civilians for sitting and standing in the way of a barrage of British bullets. It reminds one of the rationales so many Germans were making for their having exterminated all those Gypsies, Jews and invalids -- if they hadn’t been in their country, it would never have happened. 

Perhaps mirth is uncalled for here, nevertheless, the British press’s attempt to blame the victims of the carnage at Jallianwala Bagh, though obviously no joke, is reminiscent of the tale of a New York Catholic priest driving his car so fast he couldn’t stop in time to avoid rear-ending the car in front, one waiting for the light to turn green -- and the Irish cop who, in questioning the priest asks: “Now, tell me Father, how fast was that car backing up when he hit you?”

*

	Though rarely exaltingly publicized when accomplished with the cold and calculated efficiency of the Brits’ massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, mass murderings committed in the name of national interest, isn’t now and wasn’t then an unheard of strategy. Such tactics are routinely resorted to by those governments supposedly functioning in a democratic manner -- to defend its carrying out of unpopular policies: policies invariably of an economic, racial, or religious nature intended to enhance the privileges of one segment of society at the expense of the other. Predictably, this results in governmental support of those already ensconced in positions of power, and those murdered are the ones revolting against their authority.

	Murders, such as those recently committed against the surrendering Peruvian hostage-takers, obviously ordered by Peru’s Japanese president in support of the economic interests of Lima’s Japanese businessmen (whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine?), are a more or less commonplace occurrence. However, that, and most non-wartime murders sponsored by so called-democratic governments, pale when compared with the deliberate and calculated, economically-motivated atrocity committed against unarmed Indian civilians at Jallianwala Bagh.

*

Even in the most democratic of nations, the USA, President Cleveland, in 1894, ordered  Federal troops to quell a strike against the Pullman sleeping-car manufacturer by its employees: the company had arbitrarily reduced already low wages by as much as 20 to 80 %  -- while the rent deducted from the salaries of  most workers, all those who lived in company-owned housing, remained unchanged. On the excuse that the strike prevented the delivery of mail,. American soldiers were ordered in to shoot to kill American strikers -- and they succeeded in doing just that. Meanwhile, the social reformer, Debs, was jailed for his participation in that strike; and, a quarter of a century later, President Wilson was to have Debs jailed again, this time for speaking out against America’s involvement in Europe’s WWI.. (By the end of the twentieth century, conservatives, though without the risk of incarceration, were heard to voice Debs’s sentiments regarding the wisdom of Wilson’s involving America in that first war to end all wars.) 

Union-busting was, and still is, throughout the world, a commonplace occurrence. And, in America, the nation that offers the most opportunity and freedom to more peoples of a greater diversity of backgrounds than any other nation, little more than a decade after the British massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, and close to a half century after the killings at the Pullman plant in America, the car manufacturer, Ford, hired murderous, head-bashing goons to put down a strike by union members at its factories. But, keep in mind, this was not an isolated incident, but was a  nation-wide practice .

*

	Not willing to tax the reasoning power of the dull-witted General Dyer, who had been selected as cat’s-paw by O’Dwyer and the go-betweens of Viceroy Lord Chelmsford (the forgetful folks in New Delhi, have allowed a street to remain named in honor of the gentleman), was understandably never made aware of just what his part was in the total plan to eradicate, once and for all, any hope amongst Indians of ever attaining their economic and political independence. The British Government of India had intended to have only Indian troops commit the massacre. Why? To insure one of two outcomes: that the troops would be completely alienated from the people as a result of their participation in the horrible deed; or, in event they refused to obey their orders to fire into the congregation of civilian men and boys, the British-manned machine-guns mounted on the trucks stationed outside the entranceway to the bagh would be trained on them: legally murdering them by claiming they were in a state of mutiny. Obviously the Brits were hoping that such an action would foment another Sepoy Rebellion -- a general revolt by Indian troops which could then be put down by the build-up of British troops armed with the most advanced weaponry -- developed during WWI to counter the advanced-weaponry produced by Germany. 

	Dyer was quoted as saying he would have used the machine guns inside the killing ground had the armored trucks carrying them not been too wide to gain entry. Dyer, as General Commanding of the operation, and not having been in on the overall strategy, had taken the directive for the placement of the machine guns, as well as for the sole use of Indian troops -- as advisory only.

	Nevertheless, despite his ignorance of the ultimate purpose of his murderous duties at Jallianwala Bagh, General Dyer fulfilled his mission of death -- as he saw it to be -- with all the coldness of a drill sergeant ordering his men to stand at attention. In carrying out his nefarious task he believed he had contributed to the cause of empire: sufficient to enable him to overcome his provincial background. By having ordered his men to murder those heathens at the Jallianwala Bagh killing ground, he was convinced he had proven his worth. And, he obviously did. In London, the House of Lords, in exonerating him, went so far as to laud him for his outstanding performance -- he had shown he really belonged, and was one of them.

*

	Getting back to our American bigot, while ignoring the heretofore lowly status of his forebears (a status currently being denied by every self-hyphenating, ethnic grouping, yet which was applied indiscriminately to every group of immigrants that ever arrived on America's shores) -- he voiced self-serving observations about the changing ethnic makeup of America. This haughty gentlemen has compared the effects that culture-based attitudes had on the manner and ability of various immigrant groups to adapt to American ways -- but conveniently neglected to make any comparisons between the hordes of uneducated, starving immigrants from famine-struck Ireland -- a source of unskilled and semi-skilled, manual labor for a good part of a century -- with any other ethnic or racial group. Prior to the Civil War,  in New Orleans, they were known to resort to the murdering of Negroes, in their successful takeover of the semi-skilled and unskilled jobs formerly held by them. One can almost hear them saying: “We may have been treated like shit by the Brits, but at least we ain’t niggers.”

	Had the gentleman not played the conservative’s racist card to gain access to the inner sanctum of the powers that be, and instead, wished to be forthright, he would have made the obvious comparison between the heavily-accented, English-speaking, Irish-need-not-apply immigrants from rural British-controlled Ireland with those of the heavily- accented, English-speaking American Negroes who migrated into the de facto segregated North from America’s rural South: then dominated primarily by England’s early Protestant rejects. Racism, no doubt, received one of its greatest boosts due to the competition between the unskilled and semi-skilled Irish immigrants then fleeing the effects of famine and the unskilled and semi-skilled American Negroes who had previously earned their freedom in the decades preceding Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. 

*

Perhaps O’Dollarly had good cause to avoid the comparison. During the first part of the twentieth century, a typical, double-edged, bigoted pseudo-joke, that originated amongst the South’s Protestant white trash, made its way north to Western Pennsylvania: “Scratch an Irishman and you’ll find a nigger.” 

*

	That this spokesman for the conservative cause conveniently neglected to compare the poor  migrants from America’s South with the poor immigrants from Ireland, what with their numerous parallel experiences, is indicative of the racist mentality that prevails amongst those making noises meant to convince intelligent people -- as well as those not-so-intelligent, that there’s such a thing as a honest reactionary intellectual -- an obvious oxymoron.

CHAPTER NINE -- Part Ten

The Anglo-Saxon

	The benefits derived from inventing the concept of a racially-pure, ideal citizenry -- fully-realized by the latter part of the nineteenth-century in Germany -- didn’t escape the notice of the acquisitive British. They swiped the notion of a Teutonic genetic purity, and then applied the term Anglo-Saxons to the residents of England: this, despite its being ludicrous to assume that even as much as a quarter of the gene pool attributed to the Anglo-Saxons remains a part of that of England’s collective, Euro-Caucasian population. 

*

Nevertheless, eligibility for the coveted Rhodes Scholarships -- established and financed by the adventurer Cecil Rhodes -- was, for decades, limited to those Anglo-Saxons from England, America and the British colonies.

*

	The preposterous assumption that there is such a thing as racial purity did have the effect of uniting England’s commoners in support of a policy of rapacious conquest. Moreover, it ensured her ability to maintain control of all the peoples, including those in England, who populated her rationalized-by-racism, and enforced-by-terror empire. Britain’s success in empire building, a direct result of her racist policies, didn’t go un-noticed. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, with varying degrees of application and of success, engaged in their own horrific, rationalized-by- racism terror -- as they went about imitating the Brits in attempting to attain their own expansionist goals.

	The creation of an England populated with a distinct Anglo-Saxon race came into being during the reign of the widowed Queen Victoria who, no doubt as a tribute to her late German husband, Prince Albert, of pipe-tobacco-in-a-can fame, endorsed that concept. The very notion of the existence of the Anglo-Saxon as a race had been put forth by England’s empire builders as a means of adding recruits from the impoverished Protestant underclasses in England. Due to the infiltration of the Irish regiments by the Fenians, the loyalty of Britain’s Irish Catholic troops, was being questioned. 

	Even the progeny of the ostracized felons in their white colonies were stirred -- with the added incentive of free room and board and a guaranteed payday -- to join with the British army in willingly forfeiting their lives for the glory of the Anglo-Saxon motherland -- from which their ancestors had been ejected. 

	In the unlikely event that the low wages and jingoistic calls to perform their patriotic duty failed to stir their Anglo-Saxon manhood, and thereby generate enough fodder for the cannons of war -- God’s English vicar, the then-reigning King or Queen of the British Empire, was called upon to coax the laggards into killing or being killed in the service of both God and country. 

	The beneficiaries, as is the case in all military engagements, are those whose rights are being defended. In an England, where gross inequities in both social status and income existed and still do, though mitigated somewhat in the aftermath of WWII, the common man, whether as soldier or policeman, merely defends his right to perpetuate his own self-demeaning status quo. Though a form of caste system most assuredly exists throughout much of Protestant Europe, its being firmly in place -- its existence is hypocritically denied.

	Nevertheless, there was a new-found resolve by England's lower classes to willingly die for the glory of their Queen, their God and their believed, Anglo-Saxon heritage. One need only observe the attitude of even the lowliest clerk working for giant corporations like Citicorp or Exxon, in countries throughout the world, to see how readily, and with such pride, they take on the biases and prestige attributed to the powers that be within the organization. Substitute nation for corporation, and it becomes quite clear just why the concept, no matter how absurd, of an Anglo-Saxon identity (it was invented a century after America broke away from England), was ever so beneficial to the cause of imperialist- Britain's overseas expansion.

*

	Once England’s movers and shakers had attained a certain status as gentlemen, they required a suitable rationale for the activities required to maintain the Empire. Ergo, the creation of the concept of an Anglo-Saxon race, which enabled the citizens of the British Empire to claim the perquisites that went with their white-man's burden -- and rationalized the continuing appropriation, at gun point, of the wealth and labor of militarily-weaker non-Protestant peoples -- the essence of colonialism. The determination to acquire colonies, and the subsequent need to protect their ill-gotten gains from being stolen from them by other expansion- minded nations, didn’t begin with the Brit’s invention of an Anglo-Saxon race. Greed had been the major consideration in just about every war Europeans were involved in (as are most wars by most folks) since the onset of the much-romanticized age of discovery -- and that began for them, five centuries ago.

	The consequences of England's assertions of their having a racial purity was, for the Euro-Caucasian Irish, no better than for many other folks worldwide. It enabled the British Anglo-Saxons, by claiming ethnic, racial and religious superiority, to rationalize their rule over the Irish. And, as a result of their being subjected to the arbitrary will of an alien power, Ireland was impoverished by the British in much the same fashion as the non-white colonies -- so much for the white man's burden -- perhaps it should have been called: the Judeo-Christian, North-European, white man’s burden.

	Inadvertently, England did its part in bringing the swarms of starving Irish to America's shores -- the result of their having transferred Catholic Ireland's wealth to Protestant England, which, in turn, left the Irish without the resources to counter the dire consequences of the potato famine. And, one can't help but see the parallel between the establishment of the state of Israel, as the direct result of Nazi Germany's deliberate and calculated murder of those many millions of defenseless Jews, and England's part in bringing about the conditions that caused the million deaths directly and indirectly, by starvation, of the Irish people, which brought about their exodus to America. In addition, the ancillary results from those migrations were devastating for America’s Amerinds and Negroes, as they were for Palestine’s Moslem Arabs. 

+

In the States, where the term WASP was created years after the creation of the concept of an Anglo-Saxon in England, it describes a particularly-bigoted and smug segment of its American offshoot: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Since the ‘W’ in WASP is redundant, the grammatically correct, if not politically correct term for that certain type “Real- American” should be ASP. It’s obviously more appropriate for them to be associated with the concept of a slithering snake, than to that of a wasp, one of nature’s pollinators.  

+

	The immigrants from Ireland who came to America, just as each preceding group of immigrants who had fled the poverty of England, Germany and Sweden, became, upon their arrival, the new underclass of whites. For the most part the Irish immigrants were uneducated; they were Catholic in a Protestant, anti-Papist America; and they spoke English, at best, with a heavy Gaelic accent -- which, for generations, with but few exceptions, prevented their entering the social and economic mainstream of America. As a result, Irish immigrants, along with their offspring, en route to attaining middle-class-hood, were to become the nation's bricklayers, waitresses at Schraffts, trolley-car conductors, maids, cops, gang members, stevedores, prize fighters, priests, bartenders, alcoholics, and crooked politicians. Nevertheless, with but slight adjustments, these were the standard occupations entered into by the majority of folks included in the continuing flow of immigrations who constantly change the complexion of America’s wide ranging middle classes -- along with that of her poor.

	By the latter part of the twentieth century, a good portion of the progeny of the Irish immigrants had become, along with the equally-forgetful issue of immigrants from the world over, the staunchest supporters of America's super-wealthy, and Anglo-Saxon Protestant power structure: a group that has, under the guise of conservatism, subtly, and often not so subtly, played on racial, religious, ethnic and even sexual prejudices in order to gain support for their fight against a truly open-to-all, free-enterprise social system  -- one with a conscience -- the very essence of what American democracy is all about.

VOLUME FOUR

CHAPTER TEN -- Part One

Meanwhile -- Back at the Hotel in Hyderabad

	We both needed a chance to pause and incorporate the heavy-duty stuff we’d been kicking around -- stuff that tended to alter, or at least change the focus on some of our earlier ideas about the way we tick. I poured drinks and handed one to her. She prepared a plate of open cheese sandwiches and placed it on the bed, within our easy reach. The silence probably lasted for no more than a few minutes, but it seemed much longer before Astrid Hubbel, out of the blue, and just as if there had been no break in our conversation, spoke up:

	"With but few exceptions, I find myself in agreement with you," she said, and then continued -- in all sincerity --  as far as I could tell, "In Germany, we make fun of Americans; we say: 'Americans, they may have money, but they do not have culture.' And so, you have surprised me with your knowledge, and with the way your mind works."

	"I guess I should say thanks -- and, if not for the fact that what you’ve just said is a damn good illustration of the kind of thinking I’ve been knocking, I’d accept what you said at face value -- and take it as a left-handed compliment.”

	"I do not understand -- I have perhaps said something wrong?" Then, after a short pause, she continued slightly disconcerted, "I'm sorry, what I have just told you is exactly what I, myself, have heard so many self-deluding and envious Europeans say about Americans -- which they do to belittle your country -- because of her huge impact on contemporary European culture."

	“I shouldn’t get so touchy,” I said, “After all, you’re merely reacting to the kind of generalizations everybody makes about other folks. I’m sorry, let’s forget all about it, at least for the nonce.”

	"Perhaps forever!" And then, while appearing somewhat puzzled, added, "In thinking about what you have said before, about a man's body strength and physique, I have trouble understanding how the genes that determine those, or any other physical traits, have made any real difference in the manner that different groups react to one another.” 

	I waited for her to continue, and after a few seconds she went on, “Ah, but I do now see that a morality could arise that would use those physical differences to enable a group to rationalize its attitudes and reactions to the readily observable traits of others. And, that only the rationalizations for those very same differences would differ from one group to the other -- depending on their learned biases. Am I correct in believing that? -- If so, I like what you say."

	"I think that about covers it,”  I said. Then, after pausing to sip my drink, I continued: "Essentially what I'm driving at -- is that giving life-style and attitudinal values based on the genetic inputs that determine the observable and superficial manifestations of race is pure nonsense; and, the values given those gene-caused physical characteristics are invariably arbitrary and self-serving. Moreover, when ethnicity, which is nothing more than the observable characteristics exhibited by folks who’ve had a somewhat similar upbringing  is claimed to be gene-based, as a means of justifying a group’s actions, then it seems to me that that concept is nothing but comic-strip science fiction.
 
	“But, this conversation is turning into a pseudo- scientific, anthropological discourse -- so perhaps it's best if we let it rest for the time being, and get back to what makes Indians Indian – which, I think, calls for the whys and wherefores of the common heritage of all Indo-European peoples."

	"I hope you are not going to bring up the disreputable theories of Aryans," Astrid  Hubbel said sternly. "These have been proven to be false -- this we have learned, even as school children, in Germany."

	"Hey, look," I said, "the Aryans began invading the Indian subcontinent almost four-thousand years ago. What you're talking about has to do with a decade or more of a sick Germany's shameful bout with bestiality; a bestiality rationalized by the ego-inflating concept of a pure Teutonic race. And, that concept, as you well know, was originally latched onto during the eighteen hundreds by Bismarck to give a logic to his unification of the many small Central- European States speaking a diversity of German and even Slavic dialects. It's unfair and insulting to the people of India to expect them to forego acknowledging and identifying with, one of the major inputs to their national characteristics."

	"Yes," she said, "I understand what you say, because before I came here, I read many books to learn about India and her religions -- and I was much surprised to read so much about Indo-Europeans and Aryans. But I do think that so much damage was done in the name of an Aryan Germany that, perhaps, it would not be so bad not to talk about Aryans."

	“I think if Germans were to use it, even today," I said, "in most instances it could rightfully be construed as being an insult to the human race. No doubt, their misappropriating the term Aryan had its origins in an attempt to disassociate themselves from those Semitic folks in the Old Testament, as well as from the culture of those Mediterranean types to their South.

	“As one of those goes-around-comes-around quirks of history, in their looking for a non-Semitic and non-Greco- Italian source for their cultural and historical identity, Germans used the racism rooted in the Old Testament -- much as did the Brits -- to rationalize their superiority over other folks -- including those with real and fancied Semitic roots. 

	“Nevertheless, there’s nothing about their doing it that’s intrinsically evil. And, like I said, it’s probable that the brilliant Bismarck used the concept of racial purity as an expedient to help him unify a diversity of peoples into a nation. On the other hand, there are those who believed that the adoption of a concept of an Aryan identity for Germany’s masses was done to placate the anxieties of a nation of psychopaths with inferiority complexes -- borne by their only recently having been freed from a life of slavery.”

	Astrid Hubbel made no response, but her look was one of reproach. I gave her a chance to refute what I said, but she made no effort to do so, so I continued:

	"But, I want to return to your original question, what's the reason for Eastern Caucasians: read Indians, to think so differently from Europe’s Western Caucasians? To find the answer, I think it'd be a good idea to try and find their point of departure. This should help us see just what, if anything, has contributed to their supposedly differing moral values."

	At this Astrid Hubbel piped in, a little heatedly, "Is this not exactly what you said you wished to avoid -- getting involved in a superficial anthropological discourse?"
 
	"You're really trying to keep me to the straight and narrow. But all I wanted to do was illustrate the obvious connection between peoples using the same root language -- which, in this case, is the Indo-European. In doing so, I'll be playing up the fact that perhaps as many as two billion people considered to be Caucasian speak one or more of the many Indo-European languages. It’s interesting to note that even though all Indo-European languages stem from the same parent, and despite the fact that Sanskrit is the oldest, and therefore the most likely to be either the mother of, or the conduit for, all the tongues derived from the original language of our communal past, these days, the very thought of it is shunned by the West. Yet, there’s carbon-dated evidence, going back at least to 1400 BC, that Sanskrit was being written in cuneiform on clay tablets, and that predates the writing of any of the other Indo-European languages: Greek, Latin, Celtic, German and so on."

	"That may be so. But, I think you are -- how do you say it? -- laying it on thick when you give so much credit to India."

	"Perhaps,” I said. "Maybe I am overdoing it, but I'm only trying to compensate for all the denigrating hogwash that’s been said, and continues to be said, about India and her culture. There's no question that India has benefited much in more recent times from Europe’s and America’s materialistic approach to life -- most-notably in matters requiring advanced scientific and manufacturing know-how. That said, whether or not that makes up for the screwing India was getting over the past few hundred years from European interests, during which time India’s own industries were deliberately destroyed, while at the same time she was being forcefully relieved of much her wealth -- along with the pride and lives of her people -- is quite another matter. 

	“And, I’ll tell you something else. I don’t think that colonialism’s the way Indians should have been repaid for having given the world the zero, the decimal system and algebra -- as well as a major input to Christian morality, Western literature and the vast majority of Europe's languages -- to name but a few of India’s more obvious contributions to the foundation of modern-day world culture." 

	I guess I didn’t overstate my case -- by too much. For, without much further ado we decided to pack it in, and call it a day -- so to speak.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Two

Morning Reverie

	It was morning. Astrid Hubbel yawned and stretched, extending her long and graceful limbs as best she could. Then, with a self-satisfied smile, she turned and snuggled up  against me -- saying not a word. She lay there, eyes half-open, relaxed and trusting -- oblivious to any potential hurt. The expression on her face echoed the gesture of her body: that of a sexually-fulfilled woman. There was nothing coy in her makeup, nor did she try to flaunt a feminine allure, despite its undeniable presence. Uncovered and ungowned; lying curled up, her head on my chest, my arm caressing her shoulder; neither brazen nor immodest: she played no role as a once-chaste ingenue -- there was nothing phony in her makeup. Though a modern-day German, she was more a creature of an earlier era, that period in America when the idealistic demands of a broad cross-section of the nation’s youth appeared to crumble the very foundations of the entrenched advocates of a reactionary status quo.

	As she lay there in a fetal-like position, a blissful expression on her free-of-makeup face -- she seemed to be nothing more, nor less, than a throwback to that of a naive and trusting flower-child: one of those youths who defined the last, major, American contribution to the concept of a truly- moral, one-world culture. A time when the disenfranchised peoples throughout the world looked to America, for that fleeting moment, for something more than as a source of armaments and gifts of money, or to come to the defense of their country against anti-capitalistic forces. America appeared capable of making possible a classless, democratic, worldwide commonwealth of nations -- nations of peoples respected for their individuality.

	Those youths scared the hell out of the establishment. In defense, beginning in the 1970’s, the powers that be made use of a likable actor to advertise a repackaged timeworn product: a greed-motivated economy serving the interests of the well-heeled -- those I'm-gonna- get-mine, screw-you, money-is-all-there-is, big-buck boys and girls. And, like the companies selling magazines by offering millions in prizes, they conned a substantially large portion of America's broad-ranged, middle class with promises that the conservative approach would make them all rich. How? -- by taking away the assistance then being given to those most needy. Those flag-waving racist reactionaries, cavorting in Republican’s clothes, were so successful in using the same robed-in-religion racism that had served Southern Democrats so well, that by the end of the twentieth century they, the once-hated-in-Dixie Republican party, became the new standard bearers of “Southern” values. However, what with anti-Semitism being currently out of favor, the conservatives, which now includes an awful lot of Israel’s supporters, have added being anti-Palestinian and anti-Moslem to their anti- union, anti-Negro, anti-Latino and anti-immigrant platform.

	Nevertheless, despite America's headlong rush to return to a pre-FDR, rationalized-by-greed materialism, we, as a nation, can truly be proud of our ability, as a people, to have given birth to the age of the flower-children -- though only a blip in terms of human history, this period that never reached maturity, and which, by the mid-1970's, seemed destined for extinction, may yet have a rebirth in the likes of the Astrid Hubbels of this world.

*

SOLDIERS OF LOVE

During the mid and late sixties,
Unkempt, young, idealistic children,
Bold soldiers of love,
Came with flowers in hand,
Long hair in a band,
To our city of neon and dirt.

Soldiers most willing to die for a cause,
Are best suited when still in their teens.
But hippies, when first to our town,
Were often far younger than that.

Misguided ideals lead the young on to war,
Perhaps not to kill, 
But willing to die.
The youth of that day,
While not out to do harm,
Were but bold soldiers -- inspired by love,
Not hate.

And, though untouched by the acts,
Of the bigoted masses,
They were done in by those whom they loved.

*

	Astrid Hubbel left sometime after I fell back into a deep sleep. There was a note lying on the desk: "Dear Nance, I must go to the hospital. Perhaps I will see you tomorrow. Love, Astrid." 

	I felt relieved, sort of: though ours was a no-strings involvement, there's always the potential for an emotional scene when it comes time to move on. But the tone of her note was so new-woman, that I was sure none would take place. In no way was my independence to be threatened. I wasn’t going to be faced with the dilemma of making a choice between my need to be free, and my need to relate to a female presence -- in, and especially, out of bed.  But, although our splitting would, no doubt, make my life simpler, I wasn't quite sure that that was what I really wanted.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Three

The Birla Temple

	In exploring Secunderabad and Hyderabad,. I visited the Sri Venkateswara Temple, one of the many Hindu temples built in major cities throughout India as a gift by Birla, a Hindu entrepreneur and manufacturer. He was said to be one of the richest men, if not the richest, in all of India. The temples I've visited were located on hilltops, and were visible from miles away; besides offering awe-inspiring panoramic views, they were in themselves magnificent structures. They were made of snow-white marble, carved by Indian craftsmen with the same expertise evident in the near-thousand year old Jain temples on Mount Abu. Their being Hindu temples, scenes from India’s ancient scriptures decorated the walls -- all exquisitely carved in bas-relief out of a pure-white marble. For all of that, the Birla Temples, while using all the ancient Indian skills and engineering techniques, were but modern structures celebrating a rich man's dedication to his faith; they were devoid of a history. After viewing them, I left with the impression that the Gods of India had yet to take up residence in those beautiful structures.

*

	I had gotten into the habit of picking up The Hindu (difficult to obtain in Delhi, but readily available in Hyderabad and most other South Indian cities)-- which I found to be amongst the most informative and even-handed of India’s many excellent English-language newspapers. I’d then take it with me to a nearby restaurant and read it with my breakfast of an omelet, roti and tea. Some of the youthful members of the local field-hockey team would, before practice, crowd into a nearby booth and have tea -- and in no time they befriended me. One of those young men offered to accompany me to mid-town Hyderabad, and I jumped at the opportunity. He met me outside the hotel, and we went by bus the few kilometers into downtown Hyderabad. We then walked for five minutes or so until we reached a narrow, stall-lined passageway -- which eventually led to the beautiful but sterile Birla Temple. Upon leaving, we stopped to have tea in a nearby restaurant -- one where the sons and daughters of India’s growing number of well-to-do professionals frequented. They reminded me of American college kids: blue jeans, fancy sneakers, well-groomed -- and acting a little superior to the less-well-off townies -- at least that’s the impression I got as I observed my fellow tea-drinker, Kumar’s reaction to their goings on.  After a few minutes, with an attitude that I thought smacked of envy, he advised me that those girls who were hanging out so immodestly with the boys, “would soon find out they were ruining their chances for marriage.” And the more I’ve learned about India, the more I think he may have been right.

	At the time I had wanted to try the food, but Kumar said he had to be home for dinner so I returned to the restaurant at a later date. It was very good, and the side-dish: a fresh-fruit and yogurt mixture, made the raitas served in most New York’s Indian restaurants seem ridiculously small and uninteresting. It was cool and refreshing and was a welcome compliment to the large portions of, at that time, too-hot-for-my-taste, South-Indian food. The cost was not much more than for a slice of pizza and a small soda at a stand-up counter in New York.

	Kumar had advised me where and when his team's next game would be held. Field hockey is a rough and grueling sport. And when I went to see his team play, I saw in those young men the makings of a modern, vibrant India. But I also noticed that, like the Birla Temples, though undeniably Indian, they seemed a little too influenced by Western tastes and materialism.  But then again, these day, who and what isn't?

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Four

In the Beginning ...

	It’s, of course, common knowledge, but if anyone is not aware, he can open a reliable encyclopedia and verify that all the West’s Monotheistic religions have their roots in the Old Testament. Moreover, the reader can refer back to an earlier conversation between Nansink Tagore and Astrid Hubbel -- when a discussion took place regarding the source of the Bible’s: In the beginning .... At that time it was determined that those conceptions were based on two of the earliest of ancient river cultures: those of the Sumerian (now Iraq) and Egyptian civilizations (the other two being those of China and India). Those earliest of direct sources of the West’s culture were prefixed to that of the Ancient Semitic peoples to which, in the Old Testament, the history of the Hebrews was then annexed. In turn, the Christians and Moslems were to adopt the history of the peoples of the  Old Testament as the history of their own beginnings. (Sikhism retains both its Indo-Aryan history and the rituals and spiritualism of Hinduism -- despite having adapted Mohammedanism’s Semitic concept of a One-and- Only God to its own use.) 

	Western tradition has it that the Old Testament’s orally transmitted history of how it all began was formulated during the third and second centuries B.C., by seventy Greek rabbis, each working independently and coming up with the identical wordings -- obviously the One-and-Only God was busy working  His miracles long before the wine bit by Jesus. (It was not until 100 A.D., that a slightly altered version of that written-in-Greek Bible was written in Hebrew.) 

	The upshot was that the West still conceives of a Greco-Semitic concept of a Zeus-like Jehovah. The Monotheistic God was projected as being terrifying. He was an unforgiving and demanding all-powerful Old Man: One so dreadful, His name must not be uttered; His presence so awesome, His visage is inconceivable -- and thus ungraven. He was a judge presiding over a flock of penitent sinners: supplicants with a priesthood acting as lawyers pleading their case to obtain His beneficence -- when not His mercy. He was the King of Kings, so powerful He could vanquish any God or other king. 

*

	Over the course of a hundred years, beginning in the mid-1800’s, the West’s concept of an In the beginning ..., after allowing its adherents to prolong its demise long-enough to placate their corporate consciences, the plug to its artificial life-support system was pulled. It was then allowed to die a natural death. And, so, after relegating the Bible’s In the beginning ..., to the land of ethnic myths, man began to openly discuss their observations that conflicted with the words attributed to their God, usually without fear of being punished by His earthly minions. 

*

	From its out-of-Africa beginnings, going back many hundreds of thousands of years, the ancient Mediterranean civilizations gradually developed. They spread for thousands of miles -- from Iberia on west to Myanmar, evidence of its beginnings going back to the works of  the cave painters -- which date back at least twenty thousand years. And, despite the destruction, going back some four thousand years ago, in Crete, Sumer and Harappa, much of that early Mediterranean culture, in varying degrees, lingers on in the modern-day progeny of those early Aryan, Semitic and Mongolian hordes who had absorbed the very cultures they appeared to overwhelm and destroy.

	And, despite Egypt’s isolation, which had protected her borders for centuries after the fall of Crete to Greece’s barbarian hordes, she was vulnerable to the infusion of ideas from at least as far East as India. There was a flourishing sea trade between India and Egypt dating back at least four millennia. Indian vessels were sailing from ports such as Lothal, a seaport in India on the Arabian Sea, to Arabia, the East coast of Africa, and Egypt for something like a thousand years before the concept of a single ineffable presence was promulgated by the historical Pharaoh Ikhnaton. (This obvious adaptation of the universal Brahma may have also found its way into Egypt by a land route, since there’s carbon-dated evidence that there was a Sanskrit-speaking, Indo-European presence in the Levant going back to at least 1400 B.C.) Nevertheless, no matter what his source, Ikhnaton’s based-on-Brahma, One-God concept was eventually trivialized by the mythical Egyptian, Moses, into the eye-for-an-eye Jehovah. Eventually this was to lead to the Bible’s Old Testament, Greco-Semitic concept of a One-and- Only God -- a Man-God more powerful than any and all the other Gods. 

	Still, according to the Greco-Semitic Bible, in declaring themselves chosen of their own Creation, the early converts to what we have come to know as Judaism, began a merry chase: one resembling a dog chasing his own tail. Being chosen of God, whatever they did was okay provided they lived up to their contractual obligation with the self-same God they created in the first place. The obligation was that they abide by a conveniently- and continually-made-more- flexible interpretation of the Ten Commandments. If they didn’t abide by their God’s law, He would punish them. The Heaven and Hell for the Semitic Hebrews was here on earth.

	Latter-day adapters of the concept of a One-and- Only God were to introduce Jesus, a Buddhistic-type aspect of Him in an effort to make Him more approachable, and lessen the fear of His horrible retribution for trespasses against His laws. In time, as Christianity veered further and further away from the contractual materialism associated with the laws handed down by the Hebrew God, many early Christians converted to, or back to, Judaism. 

	Nevertheless, no matter how abiding of a universally-accepted morality the followers of non- Monotheistic, non-Bible-based religion were (and are, to this day) and no matter how conforming of the golden rule, as far as the followers of those Monotheistic religions synthesized in the Levant were concerned, they were but Heathens. And, as such, the followers of a most-fearful, One-and-Only God believed they had His moral support when they went about murdering, raping and enslaving the Infidels: those non- adherents to the infallibility of the words attributed to the One-and-Only God. 

	Moreover, even before the introduction of proselytizing Christianity and Mohammedanism with their carrot and stick means of facilitating conversions, being chosen of God was seen as a pretty good deal. As a result, Levantine converts to Judaism were plentiful: according to Durant, at the time of Titus’s conquest of Jerusalem, there were seven million Jews living within the Roman Empire.

*

Despite the fantastic rate of begatting that was said to have been going on by the folks in the Old Testament, and despite the nonsensical claims of both the Nazis and Israelis, it’s obvious that Judaism, from its very inception, and continuously on to the birth of Nazism, pertained to religious belief, and not to an ethnic group with a genetic homogeneity. 

*

	In time, both Greco-Semitic Christians and Jews, bringing with them one form or another of the Cyrillic alphabet, ventured out into Germano-Slavic Europe -- at which time they converted the native population to either Orthodox Christianity or Helenized Judaism. However, since Christianity rendered under Caesar what was Caesar’s, the nobles supported Christianity rather than Judaism.  And, to this day it’s next to impossible to differentiate between Germano-Slavic Christians, Germano-Slavic Jews and Orthodox Christian Greeks by outward appearance alone. This was a problem for bigoted Christians in Central Europe, which was solved by forcing Jews to wear those outlandish black outfits when traveling outside the ghetto (as a means of distinguishing them from their former landsmen), which, either due to a willful loss of memory, or as an act of defiance, like the Afro worn by Americans with African heritage, is still being worn by Hassidic Jews.

*

	For centuries before the Christian era, the effects of Buddhism were being absorbed by the Greeks, who then, as it permeated their culture, spread it throughout the Levant. It was this that caused a rethinking of the overall materialism that had prevailed in the fertile crescent. However, it was not until the effects of Titus’s devastating suppression of the Hebrews, due to their attempt to avoid the payment of taxes (not a singular endeavor), most Jews, feeling betrayed by their God, turned wholeheartedly to Greece -- with her Buddhist-influenced culture -- which was to serve as the dominant factor in determining Christian Theology.

	When Bertram Russell says Catholicism was the result of a synthesis of Jewish history, Greek theology and Roman government, he is at least partially correct -- providing one accepts the limitations of his superficial, Euro-centric world view: one that ignores the massive influences of Sumer, Egypt, Harappa, Persia, Buddhism and Mithraism on every aspect of the West’s Judeo-Christian culture: its rituals, theology, government, history and morality -- to name but some of the more obvious sources and inputs that the otherwise brilliant and erudite gentleman ignored.

*

	Indian spiritualism is essentially Godless. "What! Whose leg are you trying to pull?"  This would be the kind of response given by the majority of those few Westerners who have but a superficial knowledge of India. And, who could blame them? There's so much apparently contradictory evidence. Just look at the proliferation of graven images depicting a seemingly-endless pantheon of Gods and Goddesses, along with an abundance of their innumerable avatars. But that's exactly what proves Hinduism's Atheistic character.

	The overview of Hinduism is that its ineffable Pantheistic-Brahma is everywhere; and, It ain’t a He you can dicker with. For the followers of the major pre-Christian-era indigenous religions of Buddhism, Jainism, and the Trimurti of Hinduism, each individual is personally responsible for his actions -- since, in theory, at least, Dharma, the obligations of caste, is determined by his Karma: the caste he has been born into, which, in turn, was determined by his actions in a previous life. None of this required the need of an intermediary to judge his actions -- there’s no lawyering with any God(s) -- you’re on your own, Buddy. Since there’s just no way to negotiate, one has no need for a list of thou shalt nots to know what’s right and what’s wrong, if you search within yourself, you know damn-well the difference between what’s right and wrong. Only personal conduct and abiding by your obligations as a member of a particular Jat (sub-caste) can change your hereafter (your life in your next reincarnation) or, if you’re lucky, allow you to obtain a release from the continuing cycle of rebirth and death  -- and become as one with the all-encompassing, ineffable Brahma: the attaining of a state of nirvana. 

*

	The peoples of the Indus river basin, dating back to prehistoric times, appear to be the earliest believers in the universal God, i.e., God is not only everywhere, but is everything. With the influx of the Aryan tribes into India -- similar to those barbarians that, somewhat later, had gone about simultaneously absorbing, destroying and superseding the ancient Minoan culture of Crete -- it became apparent that, as the centuries rolled by, and the rulers changed from those who relied on their brains to those relying on brawn, many of the by-then-partially-homogenized, newly-formed, Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit-speaking peoples, lost their ability to comprehend the abstract. To cater to India’s newly- made-dominant segment of that population, a means of conveying the concept of a Brahma, less ethereal and more accessible, was devised. This resulted in the personification of every aspect of the observable world -- which gave a physical and graphic form to everything in the universe, from the obvious to the unknowable.

	Nevertheless, within a millennium after the Aryan invasions of India, the old beliefs of the Harappan-Dravidian culture resurfaced -- and, by the sixth century B.C., both Buddha and the Mahavera were to express those simple principles of Ahimsa: non-violence -- kill nothing. (Some two thousand years later Saint Francis of Assisi was to adopt the principle of Ahimsa -- for which he attained sainthood.) In modern-day India, as a matter of course, two million Jains practice an extreme manner of Ahimsa -- as do hundreds of millions of Hindus (though not normally carried to the same extremes). 
	
Its acceptance was so widespread in India, that Gandhi, by applying the passivity inherent in the concept of Ahimsa with that of Satyagraha (truth force -- called on to counter the duplicity of the Brits), was able to convince the overwhelming majority of the entire Subcontinent that passive resistance was the one and only means capable of freeing India from foreign domination -- that of Europe’s ruthlessly-racist, greed-motivated, militarily-far-superior, Judeo-Christian and Catholic, movers and shakers. (Tilak, though a less charismatic fighter for home rule than Gandhi, was the initiator of India’s concept of passive resistance as a means of attaining home rule -- for which Gandhi not only gave him full credit, but proclaimed him the father of the independence movement.)

*

	Though not conforming to the concept of Brahma, a similar manifestation of one aspect of Pantheism prevailed in pre-Christian-era Rome. That the political realities associated with Rome's being the seat of an all-inclusive Empire (its being a conglomerate of diverse nations and peoples practicing a multitude of religions) contributed to its Pantheistic character, cannot be ignored. However, since the massive presence of Indo-Aryan peoples throughout the entire Near East predated, by as much as a millennium, the establishment of the three monotheistic religions in the Levant and two millennia in most of Europe, credence can readily be given to the assumption that Rome's Pantheism had its roots in the cultural beginnings common to all ancient Mediterranean people -- a peoples who ranged from the Iberian peninsular to Myanmar.  It was this culture, with the addition of Egyptian, Sumerian and Harappan inputs, as reinforced and amended at a later date by the marauding ancient Semitic and Indo-Aryan people, that was eventually re-introduced to Mediterranean Europe. This was accomplished through the efforts of Moslems as they, and their newly-acquired culture, infiltrated Southern and Eastern Europe. That Moslem influence -- by way of their centuries- long occupation of Spain and the Balkans, and their intercourse with the Crusaders -- brought about that amalgamation and synthesis of the world’s accumulated knowledge that was to eventually bring on the Renaissance which, in turn, was to form the basis for modern-day, scientific thought. 

*

Chinese influence on world culture, and Western culture in particular, date back to the stone ages, and not with the romanticized appearance of the peripatetic Venetian, Marco Polo. The vast majority of prehistoric archaeological artifacts found in Eastern India, the crossroads of East and West, were identical to those produced in the West, yet, also present were stone-age artifacts produced by the Mongolian branch of our common Homo sapien ancestors. 

*

	Rome’s Pantheon, in accordance to its name, was erected as a place to worship all the Gods. And, since similar fates befall all religious edifices, the Pantheon was converted a century after the fall of the Roman Empire into a Roman Catholic Church: Santa Maria Rotunda.

	The transition from the universal empire of Rome to the universal church of Rome, was made with no apparent disruption, at least as far as the new converts to Christianity in the West were concerned -- the last phase of the transition was so painless, that in parts of Europe, Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar were thought of as one. The authority of the pope merely replaced that of the emperor -- and it took most of Europe more than a thousand years after the fall of Rome to chuck that residual yoke of the Roman Empire. This was accomplished by their replacing the Universal Church of Rome with one or another of the bourgeoisie-friendly, Judeo-Christian religions.  

*

	The ultimate split between the Catholics in Western Europe and those in Byzantium, with its dominance of the Levant, had to do with the economic and cultural ascendancy of the Hellenistic East. Byzantium had benefited from its proximity to the trade routes carrying the goods and advanced cultures of China and India, as overlaid on the long-since- absorbed elements of the ancient cultures of Sumer and Egypt. Meanwhile, the Roman West was suffering from major economic and cultural setbacks resulting from attacks by one or another horde of barbarians. Nevertheless, although Rome's proximity to the uncivilized masses of Western Europe proved to be her initial downfall, it was also the source of her eventual salvation.

	By their very nature, barbarians are an unworldly lot. It was this that allowed the Roman Church to gradually acquire the respect for its primacy in religious matters that had once been generated amongst the Germanic barbarians by the military prowess of the Roman Empire. In time, with a helping hand from those very same barbarians, and with the blessings of the popes -- with flying banners bearing Christ's logo, the Crusaders so weakened the power of Byzantium that, despite some early successes, instead of recovering the Holy Land, it soon ceased to exist. The upshot was that the Roman Catholic Church of Western Europe won out over the Christian Orthodox Church of the East -- which proved to one and all that God concurred to the claims of  the pope that His vicar in Rome was indeed bishop of the rock that Christianity was founded on.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Five

Concepts -- Indo-Caucasian versus Euro-Caucasian 

	I don't know whether or not Astrid Hubbel was using the bit about, What makes Indians different from Europeans? and,  What makes Indians Indian? as an excuse to continue to see me, but no matter what her reasons,  I was pleased when she came striding into my room asking me if I was prepared to finish giving her the answers to those questions. The food and drink she brought with her, however, did act to temper the impact of her brusque entry.

*

Last year, after my return to the States, and subsequent to one of my many previous visits to India, I thought much about just such questions. Moreover, I wondered, even if there was such a thing as a special Indian quality, did it actually make them, individually or as a group, intrinsically any different from other folks? At the time I was totally incapable of giving a nice, pat answer. That’s despite, or perhaps it’s because, with each trip to India I get to know more and more about the country and her people -- which has the effect of making me see both the similarities and differences amongst the different Indian peoples.

*

	After telling her I’d try my damnedest to come up with the answers, I made us drinks with the remnants of the liquor left over from her last visit. We then settled in for another cozy symposium for two, although I did most of the talking:

	"I'm going to start out with aspects of India's religiosity -- even though it's not a particularly original place to start out with when discussing anything to do with the people of South Asia. Nevertheless, since the spiritual values that evolved on the Subcontinent have been absorbed, to a greater or lesser degree, by most of the world's major religions -- all of which had their beginnings in, or have major followings in India, I thought it a good idea to start with that aspect of the Indian mystique."

	She took exception, "I do not know if I agree completely with what you say about India's spiritual effect on other religions. But, I would still very much like to hear what it is you wish to say about it."

	"Thanks, Astrid," I said, trying not to be overly sarcastic -- after all, she had entered the room demanding that I state my opinion. "Both Buddhists and Jains derived their spirituality and morality from a pre-Aryan-influenced India. Now, despite the fact that in India, Buddhism, as a distinct religion, has lost most of its unique identity, what with its moral concepts having been absorbed from, and then by, India’s ancient spiritual traditions -- Lord Buddha, Himself, and, though to a lesser degree, the Jain’s Mahavira, have become the intellectual and spiritual property of all Indians, and this is the single most-important factor contributing to the unity of all those peoples inhabiting the Indian subcontinent, regardless of their professed nationality or religion."

	“I must agree with you to the extent that, with but few exceptions, I cannot tell what caste or what religion an Indian belongs to, but what you say seems to me to be much too simple and facile -- after all, you do have Christians in India," Astrid Hubbel interjected, a little defensively, and then hastily added, “and Sikhs, and also you have, how is it you call them? -- the followers of Zarathustra, and you even have a few Jews. Yet, you say that Buddhism is what makes Indians Indian?”

	“First, I'd just like to say that Americans, if we think about it at all, call them Zoroastrians, and all Parsis and many Iranis living in India are Zoroastrians. Next I'd like to say that what I'm talking about is something that goes far beyond the way Indians dress, which, for the most part, and most notably in the cities, is not overly affected by the wearer’s religion, and varies little from one section of the Indian subcontinent to the other -- which is one of the reasons why Westerners see them as a homogeneous people -- the other being that the vast majority of Indians have skins darker than the vast majority of Europeans. What I'm referring to is a certain something that runs through the overwhelming majority of all Indian men, regardless of their professed religion; it's a kind of heterosexual, masculine softness, which, in the West, would probably be considered an oxymoron.

	“Notwithstanding the occasional poverty-driven bouts of brutal sectarian outbursts and caste-related murders, it's their non-violent nature that makes for a uniquely Indian quality -- and which gives religions in India their uniquely spiritual quality. That quality is even evident in our powerfully-built friend, Dr. Moti -- for all his acting out of his delusions of grandeur with his pompous strutting-about, he’s not, in any way, a violent man. In America, more discerning folk, and they’d be a rarity, indeed -- would consider such men to be true Christians.”

	"Ah," said Astrid Hubbel, "now I see, this is how you are going to show the difference between Indians and Europeans. In Germany, if we see this trait, this softness in a man, we do not admire it. To us, it indicates weakness. And, in America I think you would also doubt the manhood of such men -- and think of them as being effeminate, and possibly even as homosexuals. I am not right, yes?"

	"You're beating me to the punch," I said, "it's not only that we in the West don't admire such gentle men, but we belittle them, scorn them as weaklings and freaks -- and feel free to take advantage of such people. Despite giving lip service to the moral worth of turning the other cheek and the practicing of Christianity's golden rule, we in the West, despise those incorporating such non-macho practices into their everyday way of life.

	"Ja, I see" Astrid Hubbel broke in, "But here in India, even I have noticed that most people tend to treat each other, and even animals, with respect." 

	"Uh huh, that's what I'm driving at, Astrid. The vast majority of Indians have, unintentionally, absorbed and internalized the morality of Harappan India, by way of Buddhism -- whereas, in the West, the remnants of Buddheo- Christianity's original morality have been superseded by a stress on the materialistic aspects of the Old Testament. If that were not bad enough, those portions of the Bible that rationalize racism and tit-for-tat retaliation, combined with its legalistic and contractual relationship with their One-and-Only God, now dominate the ever so litigious West’s everyday dealings that ordinary folks have with one another.”

	"Nance, if I do not make a mistake, what you are saying is that Christianity in India is not needed -- in the past, because its moral values were but an adaptation of those inherent in Buddhism, and now, because it has become a religion lacking much of its original spiritual and moral base.”  She paused for a moment before continuing, “I must admit that those few Indians whom I have met who are Christians, have a certain something in their attitude towards life that I have always associated with that of true Christians -- perhaps it is a kind of spirituality -- but it is something I find lacking in so many Christians in Germany.

	“And, now, I believe I understand why you say Christianity’s spirituality and non-materialistic morality are derived from Buddhist concepts, concepts that are part of India’s heritage. And, it is this that marks the difference between Indian and European Christians. And, although I do not like to say so,  I must agree with what you say -- for I too find the attitudes of so many Christians in the West lacking in both a spiritual and a moral quality -- qualities I find far more prevalent in India, amongst Indians of all faiths.”

	"My intention isn’t to get involved in the comparative worth of different religions," I told her. “I’m only contrasting the effects of religious attitudes in India with those in the West as a means of determining what makes Indians tick. And, as a by the way, I’d like to remind you that I consider myself an Atheist -- which, I’d like to think, allows me to be objective when considering the effects religion has on the way people think and react."

	At this, Astrid Hubbel broke into a big smile. "Your talking about religion and being an Atheist reminds me of the Indian who unmanned himself in order to be objective when writing the Kama Sutra."

	I thought that was pretty funny, and told her so. We both then burst out laughing. I don't know if her joke was all that hilarious, or if it was the alcohol, but I think we both wanted a break. However, within a few minutes she got serious and asked me to continue, saying she was afraid we'd get so distracted that we'd never finish our talk. She then went on to ask me what the Jains, whom I had mentioned earlier, had to do with India.

	Most of what I'd been talking about was stuff I was in the process of working out for myself, and I didn't really know where to start.  So, feeling my way, I said: 

	“As far as I know, the Jains, though numbering but two million or so, managed to maintain their own uniquely-Indian identity. That said, Jain temples built in more recent times, despite their otherworldly aura, what with the niches holding the small, idol-like statues of the Tirthankaras, appeared as constructed by a set formula and had an overall orderly quality to them -- more as places to pay tribute to the Tirthankaras rather than to worship Them.

	“On the other hand, even those small modern Hindu temples overloaded with clusters of multicolored avatars of a particular Deity, were places conducive to meditation and worship that radiate an atmosphere of religiosity. And, mind you, I’m not even comparing the Jain temples to those holy of holy temples: the Lingraj Temple complexes in Bhubaneswar and those of the Jagannath Temple in Puri -- or any of a dozen other major Hindu temples I’ve visited throughout India, all of which have that lived-in-by-the-Gods atmosphere”

Entry to many Hindu temples is limited to Hindus. At Puri, after my father’s ancestry was verified in the temple’s records (necessitated by my Western appearance), I was allowed access; and at Bhubaneswar, Indians who were aware of my Indian ancestry conducted me through the gates. Both experiences were mind boggling -- not at all museum-like or antiseptic as were the otherwise splendid Jain temples. All this notwithstanding,, the early Jain temples at Khajuraho and the Jain temples at Ellora exuded a lived-in-by-the-Gods atmosphere every bit as real as those dedicated to Buddha and the Gods of Hinduism. 

	“The best way for me to sum up Jainism, albeit, from a layman’s point of view, would be to describe those Jains I’ve met. And, I found them to be intelligent and generous, although I thought some a little too materialistic. Moreover, I found them to be amongst the least violent of people in a country known for its non-violent people -- perhaps it’s because their belief furnishes them with an acceptance of the unfathomable aspects of life -- which they, as do virtually all Indians, acknowledge as culminating in death. I think one of the biggest differences between Indo-Caucasians and Euro- Caucasians is that in the West, the inevitability of death is so often fearfully denied.”

The Egyptian concept of a physical resurrection of the dead was adopted by early Christians. The Egyptians, having witnessed the desiccating effects of the desert sun on a corpse, came to the conclusion that the life force of a body remains intact, merely awaiting a propitious time to move on to the world of the dead. It’s interesting to note that despite all the “ashes to ashes and dust to dust,” sermonizing, Christianity still maintains that a day will come when all those putrefied bodies rotting away in those silk-lined coffins are going to be resurrected -- as is.

	“I understand what you are saying about Jains, Nance. But I have heard mention that they are thought to be shrewd merchants and businessmen -- and many refer to themselves as Marwaris -- which, I am told, signifies their having come from an area of Rajastan whose people, and this does include Hindus, are known for their materialistic goals. And, I have heard that they are sometimes compared to Jews. But, they are not, in any way, treated the way we Germans treated Jews.”

	“They’re not,” I added, “with the possible exception  of a few of those Indians exposed to the bigotry so prevalent in the West -- a bigotry that rationalizes a dumb concept of equality in which everyone considers himself to be just as good as anyone else -- which, if it stopped there, would be just fine. But, human nature being what it is, they add the condition that they’re not only equal to, but also at least a  little  bit better than the next guy. And, so, if someone beats you out in anyway, whatsoever, it’s necessary to rationalize your shortcomings -- and the ignorant and incompetent ambitious losers from every background have resorted to bigotry, in one form or another, to do so.”

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Six-A

KHAJURAHO -- (1)

	If Khajuraho is known at all, it's almost always for the wrong reasons: with even the government known to tout Khajuraho as an ideal place for a honeymoon -- stressing the erotic aspect of the temples' iconography. However, it would seem to make more sense to tout it as a means of enticing old married couples, who might be in need of  stimulation, rather than newly-weds, whom one would assume have little need for outside stimuli to effect an amorous arousal.

*

As a by-the-way, it should be noted that ninety-five percent, or more, of the temples’ sculpture pertains to human and animal endeavors that have nothing to do with erotica. Furthermore, it's rare, indeed, for that small percentage of artwork that some view as intended to stimulate an amatory reaction, to ever approach the level of our modern-day, hard-core, readily-obtainable and freely-distributed pornography, or for that matter, that which prevailed in the repressed societies of East Asia and North Europe -- most, if not all of which was intended for the private titillating viewing by guilt-ridden, “antisocial” types.

*

	Most of Khajuraho's temples were erected within a little more than a hundred years, a period that ended before the first millennium A.D., was out. These temples must be numbered amongst the world's most fabulous collections of humanity's artistic accomplishments: monumental, sophisticated architecture with superbly-executed, exotic, erotic, naively-sensual, earthy-at-times, yet essentially- spiritual and religious sculpture -- conceived and executed as an integral part of each individual structure.

	Virtually all the sculptures, on and in the temples of Khajuraho, are in high relief -- or free-standing. With few exceptions, they measure in height from five or six inches to four or  five feet.  And, but for the surfaces of the massive, yet delicate-in-appearance, steeply-rising curvilinear roofs that reach as high as seven or eight stories, the otherwise- ubiquitous statuary appears to be an essential element in making the temples both structurally and aesthetically sound.

	Just what the special qualities of the components of the temples are that prevented Khajuraho from becoming an adults-only rococo rendition of an Indian precursor to Disneyland, is beyond my comprehension. But the fact remains that, after my two-week stay, I came away overwhelmed by a sense of the grandeur of the buildings, and the dignity connected with the human condition -- despite, or because of what is commonly considered, by hypocrites who may or may not be numbered amongst the sexually repressed, our human frailties.

	The feeling of having been a select and very lucky witness to an otherworldly celebration of the earthly joys of life, remains with me. This, despite the occasional intrusions of snickering by titillated European tourists -- or by moralistic outbursts such as that of the strident, macho-type, guttural voice of a stocky, young, Dutch woman showing her disapproval of the fantasized display of the joys inherent in heterosexual foreplay and gratification by belligerently asking the guide, "What other reason could there be for the sculpture than to arouse one sexually?" Apparently the lady was equating the glorification of the pleasurable experience of the aesthetically erotic sensuality that pervades the temple area of Khajuraho with the dehumanizing atmosphere that permeates the red-light district of Holland’s Amsterdam. 

	No doubt, her coming from a country where sex has been relegated to a legal guilder-making commodity, left little room for an appreciation of the all-encompassing aesthetic inherent in the makeup of each individual temple, let alone the overwhelming effects when viewing the temple complex as a whole. Few middle-class folks from the West can appreciate the aesthetic eroticism that permeates the temples of Khajuraho. They’ve become accustomed to the attitude towards sex such as that displayed by the practical burgers of Amsterdam who use it as a tourist attraction. There, in Holland, the erotic is advertised by scantily-dressed, pay-for- sex ladies seated in picture windows, displaying their wares as a means of enticing men to enter the adjacent, red-light topped doors -- and pay for ten minutes of erotic bliss. Few folks brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition, whereby sex is a sin, can ever fully appreciate the joyous eroticism evoked by the naively-conceived yet sophisticatedly-rendered, sculpted displays on view at Khajuraho.

*

Nothing herein is meant to suggest that pay-for-sex districts don’t exist in Indian cities. It’s just that they’re treated in a fairly matter-of-fact manner -- and they’re not promoted as a tourist attraction.

*

The individual British tourist visiting India today, with notable exceptions, tends to be far more sophisticated than the average Euro-Caucasian tourist -- whereas, in America, the opposite is true. The average British tourist whom one runs into in the States is a fairly common type from the lower classes of England's very class-conscious society. Whether it's the result of the aftermath of the Beetles phenomenon in the States, or due to a carry-over of a Victorian-era bias favoring all Europeans with British accents, no matter what their status in their homeland, British tourists and immigrants tend to find themselves made welcome in America. 

India is a nation where many amongst her upper-middle classes, especially those educated in England (or in English and involved in academic studies formerly dominated by the Brits), have taken on much of the snobbery of their former rulers, the Brit Raj. And, since they pride themselves in their proper use of English, and readily recognize a Brit for the social status he belongs to, they’re treated by India’s nabobs in line with their social status back in England. And, so, with the obvious exception of the pseudo-Latino, one-time- Portuguese-colony of Goa, and a few isolated, drug-oriented- ashrams found primarily in the more northerly areas, one shouldn't be surprised by the near absence, throughout India, of lower-class English tourists.

This adopted-from-the-Brits, class-oriented (as contrasted with caste-oriented) attitude permeates the entire Indian subcontinent -- but especially in those areas where the Brit presence was once dominant. It's especially apparent amongst those Indians who have so assiduously and successfully replaced the British Raj in government: the high-caste, politically-ensconced Indo-Raj who has taken on all the snobbish trappings of the former British Empire's privileged whites. And, in doing so, they have, with much alacrity, eagerly adopted all the biases of England's upper classes. Consequently, it should be no mystery as to why lower-class Brits (including those from the ex-”white” colonies) come to America, and so few go to India.. 

Although certain Anglophile, Indo-Raj academics have taken on the airs of their former rulers when dealing with Americans, for the most part, since Americans come from a relatively classless society, in India they tend to be judged more by the size of their wallets, and less by the cut of their clothes -- and almost never by their obviously un-British accents.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Six-B

KHAJURAHO -- (2)

	The Melody Hotel was located a hundred yards from the entrance to the main grouping  of Khajuraho's universally-acclaimed treasure of exquisite temples -- which, like most of India's remaining ancient and medieval art, owed its non-destruction by Moslem and Catholic religious fanatics to its remoteness. Nevertheless, the very nature of some of its sculpture could have also played a part in preserving Khajuraho's temples; perhaps it induced a desire to overlook the overwhelming religiosity of the temples in order to preserve that small portion of the iconography that’s sexually explicit -- if so, thanks must be given for the great favor to humanity, resulting from the hypocrisy exhibited by the God-fearing. iconoclastic followers of the monotheistic religions.

	Each morning, with art supplies in hand, I’d walk from the hotel to the enclosed temple area, and then spend a good part of each day working. 

*

Although I feel most comfortable when using oil paint, when traveling, for convenience’ sake, I carry  watercolors. To counter the innate limitations of watercolor, I use an opaque white when attempting to replicate the definition readily attainable when using oils. This allows for an in-depth study that has the appearance of a pastel, but the durability of a watercolor. Nevertheless, there’s a drawback; the study lacks the beauty of the delicate, albeit superficial, wash-on-white effects of the quickie academic watercolor that sells so well to the I-don't-know-anything-about-art-but-I-know-what-I- like art buyer. 

That entry to the park was denied to hawkers (who, in their eagerness to sell postcards and guidebooks, tend to overwhelm visitors when they’re entering or leaving the park) had two beneficial results: it allowed for an uninterrupted, contemplative tour of the temples; and, as it contrasted so with the hubbub without, it magnified the serenity and quietude within its confines.

*

	The Khajuraho temples were located in the expansive, well-kept park.  They stood out, framed by the park’s sprawling, lush lawns on which a variety of brightly colored birds could be seen hopping about. The lawns were bordered by vibrantly-colored flowers and well-tended hedges that surrounded the paths leading to the temple steps.

	Afternoons, I would often sketch in the nearby three-room museum. The stone-carved sculpture on view, though small in number, all attest to mankind’s ability to develop skills that enable him to manifest his innermost emotions in the form of truly great works of art. And, so, with all the works on view being of such high quality, it reminded me of The Frick Collection, in New York (although I understand some aspects of the Frick are being jazzed up). All the works on exhibit, in both those museums (the Khajuraho museum being by far the smaller), are examples of the greatest works of their kind. Neither museum’s collection gives the impression it was assembled by a curator with a stamp-collector’s mentality. The result is that the works on view, in both those museums, are of an overall superior quality to that of the big-name museums with their huge collections displayed in chic, department-store atmospheres. That said, there’s no intention to denigrate the many fabulous works on view in those huge all-encompassing museums now located in virtually every major city, worldwide.

	In many ways, museums in India are redundancies. The entire Subcontinent is one, huge, living museum. Nevertheless, despite the fact that one visit to Elephanta, Ajanta, Mount Abu, Ellora, Khajuraho, Puri, Madurai, the Taj Mahal,  or any one of a number of other sites of equal artistic and historical importance is at least as rewarding as a visit to the Louvre, there are also many fine museums in India with exceptional collections that are a must-see for anyone seriously involved in art, world history, Indian culture or, for that matter, in the concept that a sense of the aesthetic is universal. As I recall, the National Museum in Delhi, the Indian Museum in Calcutta, and the Prince of Wales Museum in Mumbai (why they don’t rename the museum tells something about those Indians who control the city) -- all had extensive and exquisite examples of Indian sculpture, as did lesser museums throughout India.

	The entrance fees to all Indian museums, ancient temples, monuments, and places of that nature -- range from none to a few pennies and up to about a quarter. The entrance fee to visit both the museum and the main grouping of temples at Khajuraho was at that time, 1993, about a  penny and a half (albeit, if you left and wished to reenter, you had to pay another entrance fee).  And on Fridays it was free to all -- thereby insuring that even the poorest Indian might have access to their artistic and religious heritage.

*

Until quite recently, when an excellent permanent exhibition of Indian sculpture was installed at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, Indian artwork on view  in major American museums, was, but for a very few excellent pieces, second rate. Moreover, the commentary then accompanying the work was far more appropriate for that applauding the utterings of a talking dog, than descriptive of minor examples of some of the most significant artistic creations of man. In the past, even on those rare occasions when Indian sculpture was put on view, though often well organized, the exhibits were so heavily weighted with the crudely-executed, provincial, Greco-Buddhist Gandharan stuff -- hardly Indian, or even Indo-Buddhist, for that matter, that it appeared the intent was to poke fun at the very concept of there being a body of great art indigenous to India.  

Due to their self-serving, Euro-centric view of the world, on through much of the twentieth century Western scholars (primarily Brits) manufactured the idea of a Greek origin for India’s indigenous artwork. They did this by asserting that those inane Greco-Buddhistic Gandharan works were proof of India’s awkward artistic beginnings. 
  
Western scholars were aware of the continuing influence of Greek art on European aesthetic sensibilities. Close to two millennia after Greek art reached its peak, it continued to manifest itself in the sculptural works of such great Italian masters as Michelangelo and Bernini. Yet, the fact that Gandharan art was but a blip on India’s artistic history, no more influential on Indian art than Alexander’s pin-prick invasion had on India in general, didn’t seem to phase those Western scholars as they made their self-serving assumptions regarding Greek influence on Indian art. In doing so, they deliberately ignored the obvious continuum of indigenous Indian art that dates back at least five to six millennia to the ancient Indus River civilization -- and that continued on well past the time of Europe’s Renaissance.

At best, or perhaps at worst, the effects of Gandharan art on indigenous Indian art could find its parallel in the aftereffects of the intrusion, during the 1800’s, of the worst aspects of London’s academic approach to art. The ill effects of that approach were carried on by such institutions as the J.J. School of Art in Bombay (Kipling’s father having been hired by a wealthy Indian as its first director), and the continuing display of awful British academic art at the Prince of Wales Museum in Mumbai. 
.
And, so, in the western reaches of the India subcontinent, Gandharan art, that unfortunate result of an amalgamation of Greek art long past its artistic peak, and a revisionist Buddhistic sensibility watered down over the course of eight centuries, and over a thousand miles west of the point of its realization, is still being used to justify the colonialism- fostered theory that Indian culture was non-existent until five hundred years after Alexander of Macedon made his insignificant excursion into the western-most segment of the Indian subcontinent -- an event of such magnitude, that no mention or evidence of its ever having occurred can be found in India.

Since the claims of Euro-centric scholars (both Euro-Caucasians and naive Indo-Caucasians) had the effect of denigrating every aspect of Indian culture, and since there’s always a logical reason for supposedly-intelligent folk to distort the truth --  the question: why? -- deserves an answer. (As the reader might have ascertained,  the answer to that question is a substantial part of what this work is all about.)

*

	The walk from my hotel to the park's entrance took me along a partially-paved street with  entrances to two other neat, clean, small, inexpensive hotels. There was also a nondescript, foreign-tourist-oriented restaurant, as well as  two or three gift shops and a few other stores of a miscellaneous nature. Numerous, small, makeshift, wooden stalls filled the gaps: they catered to the needs of the local Indian population and those Europeans traveling on the cheap -- and, on festival days, residents in the nearby village of Khajuraho would frequent them. 

*

By early 1993, buildings were being planned throughout this area. Since then, its development may very well have caused the loss of much of its color -- but maybe not. Indians, throughout the Subcontinent, have a way of incorporating Mother India into just about everything they do, say or make.

*

	The particular festival I witnessed was in honor of one or another avatar of the Hindu God Siva. It brought out a continuous flow of celebrants from the village which was located about a kilometer further east, near the smaller and less spectacular groupings of Khajuraho’s temples. Although most of the residents of the village of Khajuraho would be considered poor by Western standards, I saw no evidence there, or anywhere else in India, of anything even approaching starvation (but undernourished, yes) -- and I covered a fairly large segment of the country -- for a total of over two years over a span of seven years. On the other hand, except amongst the well-to-do middle class, I saw no adults who seemed in the least overweight. And the villagers that came flowing along the road in front of my hotel, as well as those that thronged along the main thoroughfare during festival time, all appeared to be lean, clean, well-nourished healthy and strong -- with only the very young children plump, yet they too looked healthy.

	On a few occasions, in order to people-watch, I've had lunch at an inexpensive, so-so restaurant with a balcony overlooking the main thoroughfare. The festival was a perfect time for doing so. The obsession with and continuous stress on poverty, oddly-enough by both Indophobes and Indophiles (but usually with opposing agendas), might cause one to think the constant flow of villagers would cause a diner to feel ill at ease or have pangs of guilt. But, over the years, since the peaceful ejection of the Brits, India, while more than tripling her population, has been able to feed her people, while at the same time increasing their life expectancy by some 20 years. And, although the calorie intake of Indians is considerably less than for Americans, there are no major problems in the distribution of her food supply, and there are no longer the kind of colonialism-exacerbated famines, that plagued India while the Brits were still there. Nevertheless, there sure as hell are some Indians who are in need of additional nourishment. Visitors to India should bear in mind that not every lady in a sari, with an adorable, yet obviously well-fed baby straddling her hip, is conning you when she comes over to your taxi and makes hand motions implying her need for money to buy food. 

	Since I was idly considering how healthy the surging groups of handsome, brightly-clad and animated people appeared as they passed by on the street below, I gave no consideration to the difficulties India had in trying to increase her people’s calorie intake. And, I proceeded to enjoy my lunch of mutton, fried dahl, rice, green salad (with no greens as we know them in America) rotis, a fresh lime soda, fried bananas and a pot of rich, sweet, aromatic Indian tea -- while at the same time literally eaves-dropping on a people engaged in a uniquely Indian happening: an ancient, quasi-religious, street-fair-type festival (the actual religious ceremony was to take place in the one, still-in-use temple). 

*

	When returning to the Melody Hotel, after having eaten that hearty meal, I stopped first for  a minute or so to join a small group watching a bright-eyed, young girl as she coaxed a cobra out of its basket by playing a tune on a simple reed instrument. I dropped a rupee on her blanket and continued on my way. Then, before I had gone a hundred feet I stopped again to see just what the attraction was that caused such a large gathering of locals -- most of whom  were children.

The Magic Show

In the center of an oval area that measured about six feet across and nine feet long was the magician, a man in his mid-thirties. He was bare-footed, turbaned, wore the sarong-like longhi, and a threadbare vest over a seedy white shirt. Ringing the perimeter of the oval, sitting cross-legged, or squatting on their haunches, were twenty or thirty scruffy-looking children; and, standing in back of them were at least thirty or forty others, most of whom were older children. I stood in back of the standees and watched as the magician, with the assistance of a child from the audience (possibly a ringer), proceeded to do some long-drawn- out, sleight-of-hand card tricks, after which a collection was made, for which he received a few rupees. But, this was just the warm-up to the piece de resistance.

*

Another youth (who turned out to be part of the troop and was probably not a boy, but rather a young teenage girl with a still-boy-like body -- possibly the magician’s daughter), one who was dressed as well as any one of the best-dressed older boys in the crowd, was pressured into entering the ring. After a display of much mumbo jumbo by the magician, the youth was persuaded to lie down in the center of the oval. After more incantations were made, all very theatrical and prolonged, the youth, with eyes closed, appeared to stop breathing. The use of a scarf was solicited from the audience, and one was finally obtained. The scarf was used to cover the reclining youth. More abracadabras were chanted and the youth under the scarf was then proclaimed dead. At this moment, the audience was solicited for two rupees each, in order to pay for the necessary effort to bring the youth back to life. The adult shill, who was standing in back of the crowd, quickly gave two rupees to start the ball rolling. Having nothing smaller, I gave five rupees, a few men and some of the older boys gave two rupees, and many of the little children dug deep in their pockets to come up with a quarter- or a half-rupee in order to buy the dead youth's deliverance. After considerably more time elapsed, in which all kinds of incantations were made by the magician, the scarf showed signs of movement. The youth lying under it stirred. Observing the looks of relief and glee on the children's faces, once the youth was brought back to life, was a priceless experience.

*

	For all of his effort, and that of his crew of three or four children and one adult shill (probably all members of the same family), their combined effort realized, at most, thirty or forty rupees. This was for an hour's intensive work by half a dozen people.  Nevertheless, all the members of the troop appeared well-fed, healthy and happy; they seemed quite content with their lot. The youths in the troop displayed a kind of camaraderie I hadn’t witnessed since my own youth, but which seems to have disappeared in America -- due to the advent of the over-competitive, super-materialist, greed- glorifying, post-Vietnam War years.

	Though I didn’t like the idea of the magician's working the crowd of village kids, I realized that the children were able to witness a live magic show -- one that transported them to a never, never land of mystery -- and for the majority of kids, those who had nothing to give, they had the experience despite not having contributed so much as a fraction of, a penny. And, none of the children, as is the case in the States, were  coaxed by high-priced entertainers  into pestering their parents to buy an overpriced box of nutritionless, sugar-coated cereal -- in return for having watched a free TV kiddy-show. 

CHAPTER TEN – Part Six-C

	Mister Chadha, the owner of the Melody Hotel, was the type of intelligent man one has a  better chance of running into in India than in the States. Although Mister Chadha’s English was tinged with that lilting, lyrical Indian accent so peculiar to the residents of South Asia, unlike so many English-speakers, worldwide, and all too often even when it’s a person’s first or only language, Mister Chadha’s vocabulary was not only extensive, but his use of it exhibited full control of its innumerable nuances and variable meanings. 

	His ability to understand and use the English language could best be compared to that of the more intelligent, well-read and educated, native-born Americans: English, despite our being a nation of immigrants, is not only our principal language but, Spanish notwithstanding, is America’s only language. Furthermore, as far as I could tell, judging by the attitudes of the hotel's transient French, German and Italian guests, he was equally well-versed in their native tongues.

*

	I had been in Khajuraho for a week or so. I was seated in a simple plastic chair in the small, but well-kept, rear garden of the Melody Hotel when Mr. Chadha came by. During an exchange of the usual pleasantries, he mentioned he was considering adding rooms to his hotel. Whether or not to make small talk, he asked me, as an artist, what I thought of his plans. I made a few suggestions, and he seemed genuinely appreciative. As we continued our conversation, we touched on the comparative costs and peripheral expenses involved in educating one's children -- along with such other mundane yet universally troubling thoughts that occupy the minds and time of caring parents, at least when their children are still young and subject to parental will.

+

In India the family remains a fairly-cohesive unit, with its members subordinating their goals as individuals to the hierarchical authorities governing the traditionally-extended, nuclear family. However, with India's ambivalent attempts to enter the competitive international marketplace affording many of her youths financial rewards and the potential for upward socio-economic mobility (obtained without the help of blood-related connections), a rigid adherence, by its junior members, to the will of the family, appears to be loosening  the cohesiveness of the extended-household unit.

Since family traditions in America were associated with the countries from which a people's forebears had fled, and old country ties (ever since the nation was originally  formed) were necessarily discarded by the American-born as they moved westward, the  concept of a duty-bound, extended nuclear family, such as that found in India (which is based on age-old traditions and physical and economic survival) was but short-lived as an integral part of the American way of life -- Norman Rockwell's "Saturday Evening Post", Thanksgiving Day covers of the 1930's and 1940’s notwithstanding.

[If an artist’s stature is based on the ability of his work to capture the imagination and respect of a nation, rather than basing it on the determinations of paid-by-the-industry, art experts, then Norman Rockwell was indeed rightfully placed amongst America’s greatest and most  influential artists by the much-maligned “I-don’t-know-anything-about-art-but ...” American.]  

In America, our nation of immigrants, each new group of arrivals does its part in frustrating, at least to some extent, the cumulative efforts of the earlier arrivals to develop an overly-burdensome, stagnated and stultifyingly-stratified society: one dedicated to maintaining a status quo in which the earlier immigrants place themselves on top of a well-defined and permanently-fixed, economic and ethnically-oriented preferential pecking order. (This holds true especially, but not exclusively, to those earlier immigrants who’ve become more or less economically- successful and socially-accepted.) 
 
Although not as openly acknowledged, nor so fixed as in India, a caste system of one sort or another exists, whether or not given a name, with varying degrees of rigidity throughout the world -- no matter what the nation’s political structure; yet, for all that, America has managed to maintain what is probably the most open society one could reasonably  hope for: an obvious result of the multi-cultural input of each new group of arrivals that, for better and worse, keeps our social structure and national identity in a state of constant flux.

Perhaps it was to be expected that the lack of an accepted, common-to-all, American heritage would lead to the  seeking out, and often inventing, by many of our born-in-the-U.S.A. citizens, of glorious, old-country lives for their, in actuality, quite beaten-down European, African and Asiatic immigrant ancestors. This has resulted in easy-to-manipulate- politically, hyphenated-according-to-ethnicity, voting blocs which have a tendency to promote, or endorse, the policies of foreign nations -- policies that often conflict with those designed to benefit the American people as a whole. And, much of that legislation supported by those foreign- controlled, political blocs, has been in outright contravention to the letter and intent of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, despite the inherent danger in this stress on the national origins, and the catering to the selfish demands of every self-designated, hyphenated group, the overall openness of American society, with its relatively easy access to naturalized citizenship, and despite the growing pressures by the self-righteous “real-Americans” to box it in, remains a nation whose policies, with some noteworthy exceptions, are worthy of being emulated.

*

	Over the course of my stay at Khajuraho, Mr. Chadha and I, along with a few other men belonging to his peer group: all of whom were more or less dignified, worldly and intelligent (with the possible exception of two merchants who were present on one occasion), were to have many more conversations. The talks took place during the evening, at the hotel, as we all sat around drinking Indian rum and soda -- they tended to be somewhat weighty and philosophical. The conversations covered problems of the world relating to such diverse subjects as international trade, economics, politics, social inter-relationships, the philosophical aspects of religion and artistic universals. In most instances, we usually ended up making commonplace comparisons between things Indian and American.

	Now, in order to realize the caliber of the Indian men engaged in those informal symposiums, one must bear in mind that competition for any job, let alone those offering an opportunity to maintain one's economic dignity, was so great in India, at least through the end of the 1990’s, that it can only be compared to that which existed in America during the Great Depression of the 1930's -- when only college graduates were hired as salesclerks by Macy's. And, that was at a time when obtaining a college degree, for all but the well-to-do, required that a student apply himself whole-heartedly to the acquisition of a broad-based knowledge -- and, once learned, that he have the intelligence to apply it.

	Since Khajuraho’s sole attraction is the world-famous temples: caring for them and catering to the needs of both foreign and Indian tourists, as well as the far from lucrative needs of less affluent Hindus on religious pilgrimages is the primary, if not the sole source of income for its inhabitants. As a result, all those locals attending our informal symposiums, due to the demand for their language skills, were involved in one or another aspect of the tourist trade dealing with foreigners.

*

Career opportunities still abound for most individuals with brains and tunnel-vision ambition in the States. There, one's ability to function in one's chosen profession -- while ignoring the advantages of wealth and family connections, and the negative aspects of bigotry of one form or another -- is limited only by the degree of one's effort and intellect. As a result, with rare exceptions, American men and women involved in the service trades dealing with tourists are not generally thought to be high on the social ladder, deep thinkers or particularly brilliant.  

*

	And, so, Mr. Chadha's friends in Khajuraho, suffering from the same economic pressures as Americans did during the depression years, should not be confused with the West's current crop of glib, unemployed-actor, tour guides, or the putting-on-airs, run-of-the-mill staffs of big-city, top-of-the-line, tourist-oriented hotels, restaurants, limousine services and their ilk. Nor were they to be considered in the same light as the otherwise-well-meaning Indian hawkers, or the government-authorized, yet often bothersome guides who hang around the entrance to the park where the main temples are located -- all of whom were also involved in Khajuraho's tourist trade. Mr. Chadha's friends were the elite who worked at the nearby multi-star hotels in management or as well-paid, multi-lingual, knowledgeable tour guides for the moneyed, assumed-to-be-worldly, mainly-European guests of those upscale hotels.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part  Six-D

	I don't recall exactly why it came up, and the entire incident accounted for but a few minutes of the evening's conversation;  one of the men mentioned something about Jews: it had none of the mean-spirited overtones that one picks up when voiced in America by the unworldly and ambitious yet unsuccessful of all races. Nevertheless, the opinions voiced were far from favorable --they reminded me of the way many Americans with similar multi-sourced gene pools, e.g., those with Greek, Italian and Levantine ancestry as well as many Jews, themselves, talk about Jews, when annoyed by them -- whether or not for cause. And, as such, it had none of the racist overtones associated with the anti-Semitism routinely expressed by lower class Germanic and  Slavic Europeans, as well as the whole range of real losers from throughout the West.

*

In the States, anti-Semitic sentiments tend to come from the lower echelons of American society -- those hyphenated groups not generally accepted as equals by those in the more solidly-entrenched ASP society. It’s primarily those near-ASPs from the lower middle classes, whose Protestant ancestors emigrated generations ago from England, Germany and Sweden, plus later Catholic émigrés from Central Europe and Ireland, who showed a resentment towards Jews -- in the belief that by doing so, it made them more acceptable to their social betters. In addition, bigotry breeding bigotry, there are those that come from the fringes of America’s Euro-centric, Christian society: Blacks, Armenians, Latinos and their ilk -- some of whom are presumed to be fairly well-educated and intelligent who, in an attempt to associate themselves with the Protestant majority, tend to mimic their perceived prejudices. 

It should be noted, however, that with anti-Semitism having become a no-no in America, South Asians have become a convenient substitute for Jews as a means for those very same ambitious losers to rationalize their own failures. Moreover, those losers now include a goodly number of Jews, most of whom come from a social element similar to that of all America’s bigots. On the other hand, there was a small Jewish presence in India that dated back to before the Christian era. And, with the possible exception of the Catholic enclaves, notably Portugal's, during the time of the inquisition, Jews, in India, were not only never persecuted, but were accepted as fellow human beings -- and at worst ignored. Moreover, during the early years of Christianity, Christians, though admittedly minuscule in number, were preaching freely in India centuries before doing so in most of North Europe. Yet, those ancient peoples indigenous to India, those followers of Hinduism and its allied religions, were the only residents of the Subcontinent to have been systematically murdered by non-Hindu governments, solely for their religious beliefs.

*

	For the most part, at least in India’s past, since the functions of religion and government were administered in accordance with the dharma of people belonging to two distinct castes, religion, throughout the entire Subcontinent, was incapable of becoming an Indian despot's political tool. This was both good and bad for the Indian people. The good being, even if Brahmans entertained the thought of compelling the people to follow their particular orthodoxy, there was no one to physically enforce it; kings in India required no priests to confirm their right to govern -- as such, they were not inclined to strengthen the authority of the Brahman. The bad was that this didn't prevent the Indian people from being inflicted with the horrors of war resulting from endless feudalistic conflicts (not that the West’s rulers didn’t engage in internecine warfare -- but, there, wars were supported by, and often instigated by, Christian religious leaders.) Worse still, since the Kshatriya (the caste of soldiers and kings) were the only ones involved in fighting, when they lost a war, all other Indians within the princely-state (those not belonging to the military caste) had no option but to acquiesce peacefully to the rule of the new raja.

	In principle, the dharma of caste required a new ruler (while demanding acceptance and obedience to his authority in accordance to his caste-born rights) to honor the prerogatives, though slight for some, that were enjoyed by the members of the noncombatant castes living in his newly-acquired lands. As a consequence, as long as the new rulers, those replacing the old ones, were, like the population as a whole, followers of one or another avatar of Brahma, Siva and Vishnu, life went on for the vast majority of Indians -- much as it had for the unnumbered millennia of their ancient past. However, when the victors were not products of Indian culture, the Indian masses, virtually all of whom were villagers and farmers, having no one to protect their religious rights and status of caste, were at the mercy of the alien, non-Indian conquerors.

	Rapacious invasions of India, under the banner of one or another of the monotheistic religions, were to take place from the 8th century on. The early Arab invasions were relatively small and had but slight effect on the Indian ethos. However, in time, the intensity of Moslem invasions increased, as did their effect on Indian culture. Nevertheless, India’s ancient traditions, despite murderous attempts from time to time to destroy all remnants of Hinduism, the carrier of that culture, remained ever present. Mohammedanism offered the members of the lower- and non-caste Hindus a temporary respite from both the social and economic hardships resulting from the fate of their birth. But soon, Indo-Moslems were to readopt (in event they ever gave it up) the very-same caste system that had originally attracted so many Indians to Islam. 

	In later years, Christian invaders, motivated by greed, rather than a desire to relocate in a prosperous land, were to select areas capable of being defended against counterattack from India’s disunited petty rulers. As a result, the Indian subcontinent is now home to hundreds of millions of Indo-Moslems and millions of Indo-Catholics -- a goodly number of whose ancestors, on penalty of death, were forced to convert to one or another of those God-fearing monotheistic religions (those choosing to avoid proselytization, and who could flee, did so -- others were less fortunate).

	The British were not overly supportive of the conversion to Christianity by Indians. Moreover, converting to one or another form of Protestantism, had neither a spiritual logic, nor an economic advantage for Indians. Spiritually, the Protestant religions had nothing to offer. And, due to the Brits’ reliance on depredatory trade practices and their resorting to the assessment of confiscatory taxes throughout the Subcontinent (as a means of maintaining the Empire’s powers that be) -- Indians, whether or not Hindus, Moslems, Sikhs Buddhists or Christians were all, equally subjected to a taxation-without-representation that afforded them an equal opportunity to dye from  starvation. Talk about Holocausts -- during the course of two famines, but a century ago, over ten million Indians died. The Brits, at the height of those famines were shipping vast quantities of foodstuffs out of India to those countries whose people were not suffering from the ill effects of famine -- or from  the economic woes resulting from British plundering-based rule. London’s money men, by exporting Indian produce at that time, to those countries capable of paying higher prices for it, satisfied their greed, while maintaining the economic underpinnings of the Empire.

*

	Recently, a vocal minority of ultra-nationalist Hindus, who were trying to counter their perception of undue Moslem, Catholic and Judeo-Christian influence in India, destroyed a Moslem monument erected some five hundred years ago at a site devoted to Rama. Not only do they claim that those religions are alien to India -- which they are, but they also claim that the fanatical invaders of India: the followers of those religions, were directly responsible for the massive destruction of much of India's ancient cultural heritage -- which they were. One need only visit such places as Elephanta, Mount Abu or Hampi to get the point. As a consequence, there is an anti-Moslem, and anti-Catholic sentiment amongst some far-to-the-right Hindus that advocates making India into a Hindu religious state -- an unfortunate sentiment that would destroy the nation.

	Although I could find no evidence, whatsoever, that Hindus could be morally capable of carrying out a cold and calculated genocide -- why should anyone deny twentieth-century Hindus the same right to join in, in the ego-fulfilling practice of ethnic cleansing -- which the whole world now seems to ignore, if not condone, when practiced by twentieth-century Iranians, Lebanese, Serbs, Croats, Israelis, French, Germans, Hutus, et al.?  Though the presence of an anti-alien-religion movement in India might seem possible, it's contrary to Hinduism's basic tenets -- whereby each individual must answer to his own conscience for his actions. Indians' being peaceful by nature, it's doubtful that anything more than an occasional, very emotional and very violent outburst will ever materialize -- a calculated and sustained violence appears alien to the Hindu temperament. Nevertheless, it would probably be a good idea if the Indian government worked something out that curtailed the non- spiritual, politically-motivated proselytizing, practiced by the my-God-is-the-only-God, monotheistic religions.

	There’s an obvious connection, in the minds of many Hindus, between the dangling of material rewards by foreign-government-controlled, Holy-book-backed religions (an apparent device used to gain control of the minds and votes of Indians -- spiritual matters don’t seem to be of major concern), and the disproportionate influence their followers are perceived to have over the Indian government. 

	And, there’s a parallel to what’s occurring in India, where Hindus claim political decisions are being made for the sole benefit of Moslems and Christians, and in the States, where many Americans, including some Jews, believe that the supporters of Israel have an undue influence over all branches of government. Democracies dedicated to religious freedom, and with multi-ethnic and multiracial populations, such as, America, the richest, and India, the largest and poorest, are consistently faced with problems caused by the undue religion- and ethnicity-based influence exerted on segments of its electorate by exploitative foreign governments. 

	Although there’s some truth to the claims made by Hindu extremists, of foreign influence, India has managed to build her economy and her defense forces to a level that will probably enable her to fend off any new alien attempts to readily dominate her economically and politically. However, it still remains for India to determine a means of preserving her overall religiosity -- while maintaining  a non-reactive, live and let live attitude towards all religions, and, at the same time prevent the self-serving, materialistic concerns and inputs espoused by alien governments, under the cover of religious freedom, from affecting government policy.

*

	Indian intellectuals can understand and accept the spiritual concepts of both Moslem and Christian dogma. Islam's, dogma when free of all the political implications and legalistic requirements, when simplistically stated, is fairly direct and unpretentious: an absolute belief in God; specific obligations in the manner of honoring Him; and the giving of alms to the poor. 

	The doctrines and rituals involved in the practice of New Testament Christianity, on the other hand, is a more complex matter. But those complexities may very well be what makes Christian dogma easier for Hindus to empathize with. After all, there are innumerable avatars of Hinduism's Trimurti: Brahma the creating, Vishnu the preserving and Siva the destroying principles -- the three master manifestations of the various aspects of the Eternal Essence. 
	
	In accordance with what I believe to be Hindu thought, all that exists has its individual Karma. Nevertheless, all that exists is an integral part of, and totally connected to, the all- encompassing Universal Spirit. So, it’s easy to understand why many Hindus can see the logic in Christian dogma with its Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Divine Spirit as being all one and the same -- even as they maintain individual and unique identities as God, Jesus His Son and the Holy Ghost. (Bear in mind, though, that during Christianity's early centuries, this was but one of many contentious theories being debated amongst the Church’s founding fathers.) 

*

	The result is that many knowledgeable Hindus accept the Christian claims that Jesus was indeed the Son of their God, Jehovah -- much as Krishna might be considered the Son of Vishnu (His being one of the most popular incarnations of Vishnu). Howsoever, when those same Indian intellectuals take the trouble to read some of the Old Testament, they find it lacking in spiritual values. The conclusion seems to be that the Judeo-Christian segment of the Bible is a self-serving interpretation of the non-spiritual, conjectural aspects of the earth's and humanity's beginnings -- one in which the tribal Semitic God of the Hebrews is said to have created a tiny, circumscribed, easy to behold universe in which they, His followers, were chosen by Him to dominate. 

	The Old Testament’s concepts of an in-the- beginning, as is well known, had as its source the mythologies and assumptions circulating amongst those ancient peoples of Sumer and Egypt -- both those cultures were contemporary with that of the Indus River. And, all three of those early civilizations predate, by millennia, the date assigned to the doings of the mythological Sumerio-Semite, Abraham, and the Egyptian, Moses. 

	The ease in which Europeans were converted to Christianity was owed in part to their need to fill the void left by the fall of Rome -- with its then fabled authority. The small accessible world described in the Old Testament, with its so-easy-to-adopt history, and its ready-made ancestry, gave a feeling of security to post-Roman Empire, barbarian- dominated-Europe's war-ravaged, impoverished peasantry. Besides offering a ready-made and somewhat-rational past, one clothed in hand-me-down, age-old Eastern mystical ritualism, the peasant could look forward to more than his escaping, once dead, from the horrors of his everyday existence. Now, he could eventually have a physical resurrection, after death -- with Saint Peter judging him on equal terms with his former master -- as to whether or not he was worthy of the reward of an eternal life in a palatial Heaven -- all while basking in the glory of the One-and-Only God. WOW!

*

	Since Indians had a plethora of their own far-more- interesting ancestors and an "In the  beginning...", far-more exotic, and going back for an infinite number of millennia in time before the Judeo-Christian world was said to have come into existence, they had no need  to adopt either the ancestors or history of another peoples. After all, the Noah story of the Bible was but a direct swipe from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh -- written in cuneiform some two to three thousand years before the Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews -- when they were first exposed to it. The Sumerian name for Noah was Ziusudra, a name with a very common Indian suffix. So, although Hindus, by and large, did take kindly to the spiritual aspects of the New Testament, unlike their European counterparts, Indians had no need to adopt the Old Testament’s “in the beginnings” (those going back to God's six days of labor and the subsequent enumeration of the interminable begatting that led to the eventual making of the chosen people) to establish an historic identity for themselves. In addition, Indians avoided being indoctrinated with the Old Testament’s rationalizations of racism, along with its stress on materialism -- being the oldest continuing civilization; they had their own source for those as well. 

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Six-E

	Up until the Melody Hotel symposiums, by which time I had already spent some four months in India, I had not heard a mention of the word Jew. And, and so I was surprised when anything about them came up. Virtually all the few Jews who had once lived in India had long since emigrated to Israel, where the vast majority, being dark-skinned and more Indian than Euro-Jewish in temperament and appearance, were only halfheartedly, at least at first, accepted by their Slavo-Germanic counterparts. I had thought that Joyce's (I think he said it) observation that there was no anti-Semitism in Ireland -- Why? (Bloom to the contrary) "Because there were no Jews there", would have held true for India as well. And I was right, there was no anti-Semitism, as such, in India. 
	
	Indians (though it’s not necessarily true once they leave the Subcontinent) are unaware of the existence of the sicko-interdependent relationship that feeds the inferiority complexes of those losers from amongst both ethnic Jews and ethnic Christians. It’s one, whereby, in return for being treated as pariahs by Christians, the claim by modern-day Jews of their having a genetic tie to the chosen-people of the Bible, goes uncontested. Perhaps as a defensive measure, many Israeli Jews when traveling abroad (this may be truer when they visit America than when in India), have a tendency to display an inflated sense of self. Nevertheless, the citizens of the Subcontinent’s various nations, being oblivious, for the most part, to the ego-building, symbiotic relationship that’s existed for centuries amongst the followers of the various Judeo-Christian religions, tend to ignore any signs of arrogance displayed by any individual Westerner, its being a commonplace attitude exhibited by so many of them -- regardless of their religious affiliation. 

*

	Being a born and bred New Yorker, and with so much of the media there appealing to the sentiments and interests of a well-to-do, middle-class, Jewish segment of its population, what with its political and economic clout, I often found myself speaking out against the pro-Israel, pro- colonialism, essentially-racist, anti-Moslem agendas aired on TV, over the radio, and printed in numerous publications. The hypocrisy of the city's claiming-to-be-liberal, leading newspaper, downplayed or ignored the most egregious doings of Israel, while at the same time damning Moslems for participating in doings surely no more evil than those committed by the Israelis. This, despite the fact that, during the numerous centuries that Moslem Turkey controlled Palestine, Jews were never persecuted for holding their religious beliefs or their involvement in economic activities. 

	I never did, nor do I now, consider those denunciations of hypocrisy to be anti-Semitic -- no more than my faulting the greedy-to-the-point-of-being-felons, TV Christian evangelists, the hypocritical stance of the Catholic church on birth control (rhythm’s okay, pills ain’t) and its attempts to circumvent U.S. law pertaining to the separation of church and state, or the crooked dealings of corporate executives and elected and appointed U.S. Government officials -- causes me to believe I’m anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, or un-American. Nevertheless, despite an evenhanded approach to all that's phony (which includes that which I’ve found in India) -- when I go about attempting to puncture inflated egos, many Jews -- albeit having good cause to be oversensitive, considering the often totally-uncalled-for fault-finding of them, when not a whole lot worse, for no other reason than that they're Jews, see anti-Semitism (currently, by being so self-righteously and indiscriminately condemned by them, that it’s become little more than a meaningless cliché) at the root of any criticism of Israel, or of any individuals thought to be Jews -- no matter how vile the deed. Moreover, there are those calling themselves Jews (usually those with physical, mental or personality shortcomings -- who’ve been disparaged by Jews, themselves) who have learned to benefit from Christian guilt -- and, as a result, go about deliberately reinforcing, if not instigating, anti-Semitic sentiments amongst non-Jews. 

*
In America, if one is to avoid running afoul of one or another of the politically-powerful, manipulative and self-serving, so-called minority groups, it’s imperative to avoid saying anything negative about any member of any one of them, whether or not warranted. By ridiculing the ludicrous presumptuousness of any self-appointed member of any self-segregated grouping, one is automatically labeled a bigot.

There’s no denying that anti-Semitism exists. However, due to its being applied to the statements of anyone who finds fault with the actions of someone who claims to be a Jew, it’s become misused and overused, even for a cliché. This chosen business, when added to a self-deluding, yet very-real belief, mainly amongst their least educated, in their having a shared genetic heritage, are the obvious cohesive elements that binds Jews to their religion. Nevertheless, without the belief in their singularity constantly being reinforced by their own reaction to the anti-Jewish sentiments (anti-Semitism) that they have, all-too-often unthinkingly, when not deliberately, generated, it’s difficult to believe that a religion that’s totally lacking in a heartfelt spirituality could continue to exist.

*

	Not being an ashram type of person, the few Jews I've run into in India tended to be either American professionals who were totally oblivious of their ignorance of all things Indian -- and went about blaming Indians for being unaware of the chosen status that they had as Jews (though Euro-Christians often displayed the same attitude for having a less pigmented skin), or else were Israelis who fell into two classes: young, slumming-amongst-the-heathens, traveling on the cheap snotty kids: identical in every  respect to the vast majority of snotty Euro-Christian kids that I’ve come across. And, the others were the intelligent Israelis with a purpose: one in particular went about methodically learning everything about India he could, while being neither outwardly critical nor judgmental -- I had the feeling he was then, or would soon be, an Israeli government official.

	Indians, if they were so inclined, could probably find reasons for having some antagonism towards Jews. Although Jews were merely used in India by the movers and shakers of the British Empire in their belief they’d be controllable tools in trade and finance, they did, nevertheless, eagerly join in making a killing out of European colonialism. Furthermore, under both the British and Boers in South Africa, entrepreneurial Jews had been major participating beneficiaries of apartheid: that social order that perpetuated a racially-motivated degradation of non-Europeans -- which included a million Indians. Moreover, Israel, a Jewish state, had, with her great financial interest in South Africa -- most notably in  the diamond industry -- maintained diplomatic, economic and military ties to, and strongly supported,  that, until quite recently, dedicated-to-racism government.

	Besides the understandable, though slight, anti-Israel attitude found amongst some of India's hundred-million-plus Moslems, most knowledgeable Indians tend to empathize with the plight of the colonized-by-Israel Palestinians: India was also colonized by a people bearing the most advanced weaponry of its time  -- who also originally came in peace only to end up claiming sovereignty over them. After giving it due consideration, the conclusion I came to is not why a few Indians, in India, have a negative feeling about Jews, but how wonderful it is that a people who could, considering all the various negative inputs of the past, display no hostility towards them -- or, towards Europeans, in general, for that matter. 

*

	As are most non-Westerners, Indians are incapable of comprehending the extent of the symbiotic relationship that exists amongst those of European ancestry who consider  themselves and each other to be either Christians or Jews. That small percentage of Indians who are aware that Jews are thought to exist as a distinct people, received their  impressions of Jews from the attitudes expressed by Christian Westerners. 

	The greatest majority of Europeans and Americans have been indoctrinated with the somewhat ludicrous idea, espoused by virtually all those professing to be Christians or Jews, that those claiming to be chosen of their mutually- revered God, are entitled to follow the laws of the Egyptian, Moses: the very antithesis of Buddheo-Christian morality. This is accompanied by an exaggerated display of noblesse oblige on the part of educated, upper-class Christians as they accept the right of those Europeans designated as Jews to consider themselves chosen of the same One-and-Only God Whom they fear and worship in common. This acceptance, was done to mitigate the well-deserved feeling of guilt Christians have for having abetted or, at the very least, stood by as the decimation of Europe's simple-law-abiding Jews took place -- for the most part, the wealthy, the professional, the well-placed and the shrewd left Europe before the onset of the Holocaust. 

*

	It does give one cause to ponder why there’s no guilt felt by Europeans for their having stood by when the lives of considerably more folks were lost as a result of Europe’s rapacious involvement in colonialism. No doubt, had the Nazis won WWII, Europe’s Christians wouldn’t be inclined to feel responsible for their having remained silent while those millions of Jews were getting their “comeuppance”.

*

	Perhaps it was the attitude of the guests at Khajuraho's multi-star hotels, many of whom were German businessmen, that contributed most to my fellow conversationalists’  understanding and opinions about things Western. Apparently, many of those Germans are still attempting to rationalize Nazi bestiality, especially that which they inflicted on  Jews. As a result, some German, as well as Austrian businessmen, possibly as a means of competing with Americans in India, stress the influence of Jews in America. 

	Sikhs, who overlap genetically with well-over half the population of India, while accounting for but two or three percent of the nation's population, claim to be something special and then some go about somewhat-overzealously acquiring a slightly disproportionate percentage of Indian wealth, which hardly makes India controlled by Sikhs -- so it goes for Jews in America. Although they too overlap genetically with well-over half the population, while accounting for two to three percent of the nation's population, and  many amongst them claim  to be something special and have been motivated to go about somewhat overzealously acquiring a slightly-disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth, this hardly makes America controlled by Jews. (However, this doesn’t alter the fact that a very powerful Israeli lobby, its intention to influence Congress, does indeed function in Washington -- as has a weak Sikh independence lobby.) 

*

	Without giving any thought to the reasons my fellow conversationalists at Khajuraho might have had for displaying, if not antipathy, a chiding disapproval for the ways of Jews, I felt obligated to make it clear to them that, although some Jews could indeed be  bothersome, what with their all-too-often misplaced belief in their intellectual prowess, and the habit of some to seek out, if not welcome, a negative response to their  presence, it’s best to stay clear of the West’s sick game of Christian versus Jew.

*

Despite there being very real historical parallels to the cold and calculated deliberate annihilation of Jews, and the religion-based atrocities committed against Hindus and Sikhs by fanatical Moslems and Catholics, the intent of those massacres was to expedite the conversions of those folks, not necessarily genocide. The murder-by-law Brits, though rationalizing their rapacious policies in India by a self-serving, rooted-in-racism interpretation of the Old Testament, were motivated by greed. Their innumerable murderings of Indians, though tinged with racist rationales, were not motivated by racist considerations, as such. Depriving India’s peoples of their freedom was the Brits’ intention, not genocide. That said, it’s doubtful that the tens of millions of Indians who died at the hands of the Moslem, Portuguese and British invaders of their homeland would feel any better about their having been murdered than any of those Jews who were killed by the intent-on-genocide Nazis. Germany, a highly-industrialized, modern, and claiming-to- be-Christian nation, with the tacit support of their supposedly-civilized citizenry, went about methodical, with Teutonic efficiency, attempting to  annihilate an entire peoples.

*

	I then asked my fellow conversationalists, perhaps a little dramatically, in order to illustrate the enormity of Germany's descent into barbarity, to consider how they would react if all of us were living in England, and every one of us now in the room, as well as every other person with Indian ancestry living in England, were to be rounded up by heavily-armed, elite British troops with skin-head mentalities, and were then, unaware of the intent, led into huge, specially- constructed gas chambers where poison gas was released -- killing every one of the occupants. Until this point, my Indian audience didn’t seem overly impressed; after all, with but slight alterations, I could very well have been describing the atrocity the Brits committed at Jallianwala Bagh. However, when I went on to describe how the Nazis, while using all the most modern, efficiency-ensuring devices, then rendered the fat from the corpses for use in making soap, extracted the gold from their teeth and then used their skin to make lampshades, they realized why this was a European matter -- one they couldn’t possible relate to.

	When I finished, a pregnant silence prevailed. They, as well as the great majority of all peoples in the world, had no conception of the magnitude of Germany's disgrace. I also mentioned that half-a-million Gypsies were also deliberately destroyed, in the same manner, by those very same Germans, for no other reason than that they were Gypsies. I then reminded them that Gypsies had Indian roots -- their Romany language having an Indic origin.

	Perhaps I was guilty of resorting to overkill, but I think they began to realize the enormity of Germany's inhumanity -- and why Indians -- as well as other non- Western peoples -- should remain on the sidelines, and refrain from getting involved in the complex and very sick, mutually-destructive, interdependent relationship that exists between those Europeans who consider themselves, and each other, as being either ethnic Christians or ethnic Jews.

*

	By and large, in India, most people, if they thought about Jews at all, considered them to  be more or less just as they did Sikhs: which was with a humorous disregard for their inflated egos. Amongst many middle- to upper-middle- class Hindus, the haughty, no-use-for-barbers Sikhs are made the brunt of Sikh jokes, which poke fun at them in the same manner that the once-in-vogue-in-America Polish jokes did of Poles. However, the Polish jokes were bigotry-based, but the Sikh jokes are no more than a response to the hubris some Sikhs are known to display. Nevertheless, despite Sikhs' being  self-appointed, rather than caste-designated warriors (they took to arming themselves a hundred years after Sikhism’s founding as an offshoot of Hinduism, to defend themselves against being massacred by invading Moslem fanatics), they make excellent and fearless soldiers -- and most Indians not only acknowledge their bravery, but respect and admire them for it -- with the overwhelming number of Sikhs joining in, in taking pride in the fact that they’re Indians – which, of course, they most certainly are. 

*

Sikhism, in relation to India's other indigenous religions, is relatively new: it's only some four-hundred-years old. Guru Nanak, a Hindu and the founder of Sikhism, formalized the then-prevalent-in-the-Punjab attitudes which adopted certain aspects of Mohammedanism as a rather superficial overlay on Hinduism's ancient morality, religious practices and basic Indian traditions. However, within a century of Sikhism’s original founding as a non-violent religion, in an effort to protect themselves from religious persecution by that era’s reigning, fanatical Mogul ruler, they armed themselves. (Although, there is a segment of Sikhs -- the Udasis that appears to hold to the original peace-based tenets of Sikhism). 

*

	Though non-Indian-born observers are, for the most part, ignorant of the more subtle effects of the underlying influences of social, caste and economic pressures imposed on individual Indians, any perceptive person should be able to recognize that despite the continued presence of a small, fanatical minority of Sikhs who claim to speak for all Sikhs, and the tendency of some Sikhs to distance themselves from other Indians, they still possess an undeniably-Indian quality. That Indian quality could best be categorized as one of gentleness, spirituality, humaneness, civility and generosity, and it’s as much a part of the Sikh persona (allowing for the exceptions that prove the rule) as it is of the vast majority of the diversity of peoples residing in any of the various political entities spread throughout the entire Indian subcontinent -- regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliation. 

CHAPTER TEN -- Part Six-F

That my father was Indian afforded me the opportunity to relate fairly freely with virtually all Indians, regardless of their religion or caste -- that he was born a high-caste Hindu didn’t hurt either. As a result, the more time I spend in India, the more I tend to empathize with India -- all of which contributed to my ability to transcend the very real barriers to an understanding that exists between Indians and Westerners.

Whether or not this is a passing phase, on my part, I can't say. However, what with familiarity known to breed contempt, and my lifelong exposure and involvement with all things Western, I've come to believe that the term culture used to describe what passes for it presently in the West, what with its unrelenting greed-motivated appeals to materialism -- is a misnomer -- to put it kindly. Every aspect of both science and the arts is being subjected to the economic pressures of the marketplace. In the sciences, in certain instances, there might be some justification for an appeal to greed: possibly in pharmaceuticals where there may be costly research and testing requirements to be met before the product can be marketed. However, in the plastic arts, the product’s price is determined by agreement between a hustling art dealer and a purchaser whose sense of the aesthetic, more often than not, has been acquired by watching the latest PBS gallery tour -- and whose motive is primarily to turn a profit. Nevertheless, despite the buyer’s motivation having little or nothing to do with the aesthetic, and everything to do with his love of wealth -- his purchase enables him to be dubbed with the ego-building honorific, “ patron of the arts”. 

In addition to the monumentally-destructive results of such transactions, most notably, today, in America, where everything is art and everyone’s an artist, the concept of a universal esthetic is being destroyed in order to cater to the demands of every politically-active group. No matter what the artistic merit, or how banal the music, art, literature, choreography and ideas, artistic considerations are based almost entirely on the ethnic, racial, religious and geographic origins of the “artist”.  

In India, I found something equally disturbing, and that was the naiveté of so many Indians who, despite their past exposure to the deceptive practices of the West -- which resulted in their being subjected to Europe’s mercantilist colonialism-policies that led to well-over a hundred years of indignities of a most egregious nature, go about accepting, whole-hog, the West's self-serving propaganda that glorifies and stresses the great benefits of a totally-materialistic, spiritually-bankrupt, survival-of-the-greediest approach to life. Perhaps those forgetful Indians will have their memories jarred sufficiently by observing the fate of the Pac-rim nations who fell prey to the siren song of those expounding on the benefits of a New World Order. 

Understandably, I found this headlong rush to become Westernized, and own the latest, now-made-essential, electronic and mechanical inanities produced by Western and Pac-rim nations to be most evident amongst those former residents of the Indian subcontinent who now reside in the West. Nevertheless, this same lure of materialism was also very much in evidence amongst many of the younger, better-educated, resident Indians that I chanced to run into.

Considering the barrage of demand-promoting advertising that now permeates India’s airwaves, many Indians, from all strata of society, seem only too anxious to ditch their own, age-old ethic of right and wrong in order to participate in the West’s values --  with its much greater stress on materialistic rewards.
 
Nevertheless, the members of the Syrian Catholic church (its founding in India contemporary with, if not predating that of the Roman Catholic church) appear to have maintained their intrinsic Indian qualities. On the other hand, many other Christians, including Catholics, were weaned away from Mother India by being fed a constant diet of rice and pro-everything-Euro-Christian and anti-everything-Indian pap. This was most evident amongst certain Indian subgroups found in the urbanized sectors of the Subcontinent -- most noticeable amongst the Latino-type Catholics in Goa, and to a lesser degree amongst Church-of-England Christians in Calcutta and Madras, as well as generic Christians in South India. 

However, despite the intrusion of a Judeo-Christian, ultra-materialistic morality into the Indian ethos, there remains a certain spirituality, as well as civility, that manifests itself in the disposition of the vast majority of the indigenous peoples residing throughout the Indian subcontinent -- and this includes a majority of the most avidly materialistic individuals -- whether or not Christian, who are most affected by Western goals.

Granted, that from their European beginnings when the seeds of Protestantism’s Judeo-Christian, greed-is-good values were sown in the West, it paved the way for a surge in the creation of major works in the arts and sciences. Nevertheless, those very same values led to the West’s then and continuing materialism-rationalizing morality. And, it’s that blessed-by-the-grace of God relentless striving for wealth that has given the death blow to those Christian values adopted from Buddhism: values that formed the moral basis for early Greco-Hebrew Christianity. Which, sad to say, this Bible-based justification of greed is probably the single most important factor contributing to the popularity of the West’s present-day, Judeo-Christian morality, one that’s in the process of spreading worldwide. 

The irony of all this is that the growing stress on materialism in India is presently being abjured by untold millions of thinking peoples in the West -- as they go about rejecting the spiritually-bankrupt, greed-rationalized morality now being promoted by most Judeo-Christian religions. In doing so, those Westerners are re-adopting the Buddhistic inputs that were once the basic input of non-materialistic, early Christianity. 

*

The Mumbai Midas from Cuff Parade

I was in Bombay, then only recently renamed Mumbai, working with the typesetters in designing and laying out my book: "A Different Time -- A Different War". The protagonist of that novel, which is biographical in nature, has a very real, yet tenuous, Hindu-Indian heritage; and the book deals with the underlying realities of the life and times of that American soldier, who served as a teenager in the post-WWII Occupation of Japan. 

While taking a break, and as I sipped a glass of steaming hot tea, I was asked if I'd like to meet an important literary figure: one knowledgeable in the ways of India's book-publishing world. Yes, was my immediate response. At which time, my questioner, Ananda Mehta (the youthful, bright and overweight owner of Unified Typesetters Ltd.) picked up the phone and dialed a number from memory. Whether he spoke in Hindi, or Gujarati (the Indic language adopted by Parsis), was beyond my ability to discern.  As he was talking over the phone, he broke in on his conversation to ask me if 9:30 AM Saturday, the next day, would be good for me. Again, yes, was my immediate response.

Ananda Mehta and I agreed to meet the following morning, at nine-thirty sharp, outside the very important Mr. Zubin Mohansinghe's place on Cuff Parade.  I took a taxi there. And, using the explicit instructions I had been given, I arrived, at the appointed time and day, in front of a nondescript, yet somewhat imposing, door-manned structure.

Within two minutes, Ananda Mehta joined me as he stepped out of his chauffeur-in-mufti-driven car: a big, boxy-looking, air-conditioned, ten-year-old (at least) gas guzzler.  His car, apparently of American make, was as out of place on the streets of Mumbai as those cars now being imported as a result of India's recent opening-up of her economy to a flood of consumer goods -- and intended to appeal to the ostentatious intentions of India's nouveau, well-heeled, middle class: those buyers of the prestige-building, monstrous, luxury automobiles. The anachoristic aspect of Ananda Mehta's bulky, white car, as well as those new imports seen lumbering along Mumbai's people-packed thoroughfares, was as jarring to India's urban scene as the garish and blatantly-eye-catching, Pepsi, Coke and Cadbury signs meant to make essential the consumption of those overpriced products for any Indian with a tenner in his pocket.

After passing muster by the doormen, together we entered a clean but hardly impressive lobby, and stopped at a massive, artistically-hand-carved door. In response to our pressing the buzzer, we were permitted entry by a slight-of-build, deferential male clerk, servant or whatever.

The entry hall was imposingly large, thereby stressing the importance of our host -- whose stature was further enhanced as a result of our being required (as in a temple: no options here) to remove our shoes before continuing our thirty-foot march along the wide, bookcase-lined, marble-floored hallway that led to a made-to-impress-the-impressionable, huge, apparently professionally-decorated, salon cum reception room.

Plush, beautifully-designed oriental carpets were spread out on the room's stark-white, polished, marble floors; all along the walls were waste-high bookcases filled with hard-covered books. The books, though covered in their original dust jackets, had lost their bookstore, brand-new look; they appeared to have been used but once -- for as long as it took their erudite owner to read.

Above the bookcases hung numerous paintings, many with Indian religious themes. There was an aura of quality about this artwork; they evidenced skillful execution along with a judicious use of color, line and design -- all working in conjunction with a figurative, yet non-illustrative subject matter. This is not necessarily true of most contemporary Indian painting, which differs little from either the crass commercial renderings, or the manifestations of self-indulgent incompetence, that masquerade as art in the West.

The couches that we were led to, and on which we were requested to be seated while awaiting the entrance of the great man, were simple, modern, free of all frills, and were upholstered in a buttery-soft, beige leather. They were of a size and design one finds in the lobbies of only the best five-star hotels -- with all the warmth that that connotes. In a word, the room spelled class: the kind intended to impress a visitor with the wealth and power of the host -- and diminish one’s own concept of self.

*

After a few minutes -- a period, whether or not calculated, that enhanced and stressed the host's intellectual and artistic prowess -- he, the great man, entered.

When Zubin Mohansinghe, dressed in a stark-white, silk kurta and pajamas, sauntered in, he made a most imposing figure. He appeared to be around forty years of age, but could have been older. He was a big man: even in his bare feet he appeared to be almost six-feet tall, and must have weighed in at least one hundred and twenty kilos (264 pounds), which made him appear a little on the flabby side. Ananda Mehta had advised me that our host had a Sri-Lankan father and a Parsi mother, so I was surprised to see that he was as dark as he was. Perhaps it was his full, black beard and mustache, that gave him his swarthy complexion -- by overwhelming his well-formed and delicate, yet masculine, features.

After Ananda Mehta made the necessary introductions, tea was served.  We then proceeded to make small talk -- which centered on the high quality of the tea being sipped. I was getting into the whole phony bit -- and it's only with great embarrassment that I recall hearing myself emoting:

"It's a pleasant light tea, with a very definite yet deliciously-mild flavor -- it reminds me of the better Chinese teas that I've come across, but, unfortunately, only on rare occasions."

We went on talking about tea, much as wannabe sophisticates prattle about wine: its bouquet, body and all that kind of crap. Our host seemed to appreciate my apparent interest in tea, for it enabled him to make us all aware of his superior connoisseurship in that field: the growth, selection and preparation of tea -- which, by extension, was meant to imply the high degree of his discriminating abilities in all the other finer things in life.  And, so, like a Rothschild's expounding on the virtues of his private stock of wines, Zubin Mohansinghe went on about the pedigree of the excellent tea we were so fortunate to be drinking:

"This tea was formerly purchased by the Emperor of Japan and the Queen of England. Moreover," he informed us with great pride, "every year I receive, as a gift, a parcel of this tea, which is identical to that supplied to those esteemed rulers -- its being grown on the very same small plantation. They say it can be seen from Darjeeling, with the Himalayas in the background.  But I can't be sure; when I was there, the low-flying clouds completely obscured the view."

At this point, Ananda Mehta, who had been sitting between us, got up and seated himself on another couch, thereby allowing me to converse, unobstructed, with the great man. I had brought along a typewritten Zerox copy of my book: the one being typeset at Mehta's place. And, I gave it to Zubin Mohansinghe to peruse, along with a printout of the edited and redesigned preface that I had just finished working on.

*

I had already made a perfunctory attempt to get my book published in New Delhi, India's publishing center. Only one publisher gave me a definite, positive response. But, after being strung along for a month or so, he finally offered me a subsidy deal -- which, I decided, was all he had in mind from the very beginning. So, although the subsidy required would have been but a fraction of the cost of printing it in America, having lost all faith in anything he said, I walked away from it. My thoughts were, that if a bona fide publisher were interested in the book, he would do the kind of job that, because of his investment and desire to enhance its sales potential, would result in a well-designed and accurately-proofed book -- one I could be proud of having authored. On the other hand, once a subsidy publisher (in whatever country) received his advance fee, he would probably lose his incentive to do an adequate job, let alone produce a really good-looking quality book.

That’s why I decided to publish the book myself. And that’s where Ananda Mehta (whom I met through someone who knew someone who knew him) entered the picture. As owner of Unified Typesetters, he allowed me free reign of his office.

It was there that I had the good fortune to work closely with a most skillful and willing computer programmer cum operator. Besides being an exceptionally intelligent man, he was technically expert in graphic design, typesetting and book layout. Moreover, he was amenable to acting on my judgments as to font, design and layout. The man in charge of producing the final product: the size of the page, the quality of the paper, the silk screening of the cover and the printing and binding of the finished book was equally willing to go along with my suggestions. The end result was, that besides doing all my own editing, proofing and illustrations, I was able to control or oversee every input affecting the appearance and quality of my book: "A Different Time -- A Different War" -- at least to the best of my abilities, and within the limits of my budget.
*

Zubin Mohansinghe glanced through my book, and then spent a few more minutes scanning the typeset preface to it. He thereupon suggested that I try to get it reviewed in a trade or economics journal, since, he said, according to the preface, the novel was concerned with the world-wide, socio-economic inputs affecting the story's protagonist. My immediate reaction was to tell him he was a fool and a pompous ass-hole. But I didn't -- despite my feeling that his analysis of my book was as valid as if he had opined that the intent of the compilers and authors of the "Mahabharata" was to decry the evils of shooting craps -- or that, in "Moby Dick", Melville's concern was with the unfair labor practices prevalent in America's nineteenth century whaling industry.

I had been told that Zubin Mohansinghe, our host, was a very important figure in the English-speaking literary world of India.  And, since I really wanted to get my ideas out to a broad audience, I sidestepped his conclusion, and politely mentioned that I had rather hoped that my novel would be viewed in the light of a book like Persig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which, of course, was hardly intended to be a manual distributed by Harley Davidson, but a complex literary work that required the reader be, not only intelligent and literate, with a broad-based, worldly knowledge -- but also that he have an open and receptive mind.

I reminded our host that Persig had submitted his book to over fifty publishers before it was finally accepted for publication -- and that I had no indication that my book would fare any better or, indeed, if it would ever find a publisher.  And, it was for that reason that I was showing the book to him -- to get his opinion as to its marketability in India. (Once the layout and design of my book reached the final stages, and Ananda Mehta and I began kicking around numbers: like the size and cost of the printing, he had suggested the meeting with our host.)  I then went on to tell our host how, to date, I had been unsuccessful in finding a bona fide publisher in India.  But, if I thought my book could go over, I'd have a thousand or more copies printed at my own expense, as a Skunk Publication. And, in any event, I'd be having at least fifty to a hundred copies printed as a limited edition to take home with me -- as an example of Indian production skills and capabilities.

Whether or not Zubin Mohansinghe was truly a nabob in the world of publishing, became academic. Our conversation’s having drifted into the world of India's government, immigration to America and the caste system, I gave vent to my opinions and ceased to be politic. As a result, by the end of an hour of talk, I proceeded to blow whatever chance I had of getting any assistance from him in meeting his publishing and media contacts (assuming he actually had them).

The subject of Indians' migrating to America came up. And, I said that, since India now has her independence, the result of the death-defying efforts of their ancestors, Indians should be doing what they can to improve the living conditions for all her citizens -- instead of running away from India and her problems. I then went on to relate how so very many young men had approached me, here in India, with the intent that I assist them to enter the States. 

*
 
Nevertheless, this desire to come to America is not a unique thing. Not having the easy access to an American visa that West Europeans, Japanese and Israelis have, if and when they wish to attempt to illegally migrate to America: Mexicans risk life and limb to cross the Rio Grande; Chinese submit themselves to grave indignities in the holds of unseaworthy ships; Cubans and Haitians brave shark-infested waters in overcrowded wooden raft-like boats -- and on and on we find peoples, the world over, of every race, nationality, ethnicity and religion lying, trying and vying, legally or not,  to enter the States.

*

	According to our host, the reason why young Indians were so anxious to leave India was because they were denied the opportunity to get an education in India. Why? Because, the government allocated forty percent of the places in schools and universities throughout India for the lowest castes, tribals, and minorities. I told him I didn't think reserving forty percent of the seats for eighty percent of the population was unfair -- after all twenty percent of the population, the middle class, still had at least sixty percent of the seats at their disposal -- moreover, most of those Indians migrating to America come from the better educated amongst the upper echelons of India’s stratified social and economic order. I also pointed out that, here in India, there were many private schools, both religious and lay, that were readily available to a goodly portion of India's upper-middle-class -- the very group that made up the majority of those Indians so intent on leaving India. Furthermore, I mentioned that minorities were also given preference in the States, yet there was no mass exodus of Americans wishing to give up their citizenship.

*

The next point of contention was his support of the caste system. In rationalizing what I consider a vile and despicable means of pigeon-holing people (despite my father’s having belonged to the caste of warriors, landowners and kings), Zubin Mohansinghe stated how this was a perfectly logical and equitable arrangement:

"There are those who function as scholars and as intermediaries with the Gods; there are those whose obligation it is to rule and defend the country; there are merchants who act as middlemen in supplying the necessities and luxuries of life; and then there are the farmers and laborers whose job it is to serve as such -- and, of course, there are also those outcastes whose abilities and birth preclude their functioning in any but the lowest of occupations.  This," he concluded, "makes for an excellent arrangement of an orderly society that benefits all its members."

I refrained from telling him he was talking bullshit. Instead, I merely stated, "It's a great system, as long as you happen to be born into one of the preferred castes."

Now, then, had our conversation ended there, there would have been a chance that the meeting could have ended on a positive note. However, that was not to be the case.

Our host, the Mumbai Midas from Cuff Parade, began a diatribe on the inequities of democracy in general -- and India's government in particular:

"The politicians cater to the will of the masses. This they do by reserving jobs in government and places in schools for members of the lowest castes and tribals. And in doing so, they deprive the most deserving of the nation's largess. Democracy," he went on, "is what is keeping India down, since it caters to the majority, and the poor in India comprise the largest, and therefore the most powerful voting bloc, and they have the least to offer in the way of knowledge, skill and business abilities."

"It seems to me," I said, "that you're damning the poor for being poor, while insisting that the very system that condemns them to a life of poverty is the most beneficial for all concerned – despite the fact that they, the poor, make up the vast majority of India's ever-growing population. Don't you really feel that your position is at least a little self-serving?"

The conversation was still transpiring along fairly civil lines, though when he insisted that it was the government's attempts at appeasing that majority: India's massive underclass, in order to win their votes, while stating that it only proved how poor democracy was as a form of government, it did test my ability to suppress my contempt for him and his opinions – which I almost succeeded in doing. But, I failed. It was probably a subconscious, nevertheless, deliberate act. I ended up putting him down -- which made me feel pretty good at the time, but certainly wasn't a very prudent act on my part -- when considering the purpose of my visit.

"I'll tell you something," I said.  "Churchill was never one of my favorite people, and so I feel a little reticent in quoting him. However, it was he who said that democracy was the worst form of government," and as I paused, our host Zubin Mohansinghe beamed at me in agreement, believing me, at heart, to be a kindred soul --- until, that is, I added: "except for all the others."

It was then, after a pregnant pause, that our host, his face having lost its genteel composure, and as his eyes narrowed, indicated that the audience was at an end.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part  Six-G

Mr. Chadha

	Mr. Chadha, what with his fluency in the major West-European languages, also acted as a special tour guide for the well-heeled tourists staying at the large, upscale hotels that were located some distance from the main temples. One morning, as I entered the park with watercolor equipment in hand, I recognized Mr. Chadha walking in my direction; he was in company with a tourist couple: well-dressed and middle-aged; I'd never seen them before, but something about their demeanor made me assume they were German. As we approached one another, I caught Mr. Chadha's eye and gave him a wave and a friendly hello. His response was interrupted by the male tourist, who, unable to conceive that anyone so apparently Western as I,  could be on such amicable terms with an Indian, returned my greetings -- which I good- naturedly acknowledged with a nod; and as we passed, I observed a knowing yet bemused expression, accompanying a faint smile forming on Mr. Chadha's lips; his face exhibited a subdued and thought-provoked mirth.

	Mr. Chadha’s hotel was small -- it had, at most, fifteen neat, clean airy rooms, each with a tiled bathroom. Indian bathrooms are truly rooms to bathe in, although all that I've seen also have toilets -- either Indian or Western. Those in the Melody hotel had the standard sink with mirror, and located at the far end of the room, a toilet that was designed for use for either sitting or squatting. Taking up the entire central area was the bathing  area with a shower head to accommodate Western tastes. However, there was also a knee-level faucet for filling a large bucket from which pitchers of water could be scooped up by a squatting bather and poured over his body. All three-star-and-up hotels have modern, Western-style bathrooms.

*

Although I took showers whenever I could when I first visited India, once I got used to bathing in the Indian fashion, I found it far more satisfying: almost a religious experience, one that many Christians baptized as adults could probably relate to -- India was, no doubt, the spiritual source behind John's urge to submerge -- as a means of purifying the soul..

*

	Since the fine dust, so prevalent throughout India during the many dry months, penetrates  every open area, the polished stone floors of the hotel were constantly being wiped down with a damp cloth by one or another of the young men working there. One of those youths was Arjuna, who was about fifteen years old, and his job included making the beds and cleaning the rooms -- which he did expeditiously. 

	When I first observed him working about the hotel, I was struck by the resemblance his features had to those of the various sculptured figures adorning Khajuraho's temples – though I gave it no more thought at the time. However, when I got around to doing a portrait sketch of him, I realized just how uncanny the resemblance of his features was to those of the Chandela dynasty’s thousand-year-old statuary.

	Initially, I had assumed the uniformity of the facial features on the temple statuary was the result of a stylistic convention, a mere mannerism. And, when I first noticed a resemblance of the boy's features to those of the statuary, I assumed it merely a fluke. But, when I learned  he came from the same village, one about five kilometers from the hotel, as did Mr. Chadha -- whose features were quite similar, I became intrigued by the possibility of their being genetic heirs to the peoples responsible for establishing the great culture that originally inhabited Khajuraho. In jumping to my conclusion, I ignored the facts that,  Mr. Chadha’s brother, though displaying an obvious family resemblance, didn’t have the same unique features, and that I’d read the geneticists’ claim that within nine generations the chances of any specific gene being passed on by an ancestor is something like one in four-hundred million. 
*

	It has long been my habit to give a Xerox copy of the portrait studies I do to those who willingly sit for it. I had assumed there’d be a photocopy shop near the main tourist area, but there wasn’t. However, Arjuna, through interpreters, advised me he could get a copy in his village, and volunteered to get the drawing copied there. But, instead, what I did was to get Mr. Chadha's permission to have Arjuna accompany me the following afternoon to his village, Raja Naga. Since that village was not directly affected by the presence of tourists, I thought it might be a good opportunity to test my theories about the possible connection between modern-day residents of Khajuraho and those of Arjuna’s village. But, even if my speculations proved groundless, I’d still get to take in yet another aspect of non-tourist India.

	The following afternoon the boy arrived, ready to go. It became apparent that he expected me to sit side-saddle on the rear rack of his bike (a commonplace in India). Well, aside from my not having any desire to make a fool of myself by having a child half my weight pedal me five kilometers and back, I had had every intention of pedaling my own bike. He spoke very little English, and had obviously misunderstood me. There was a bike-rental stand nearby and I rented a bike. One realizes that they're growing old when the gradual grades of a road become troublesome. Nevertheless, considering that I hadn’t been on a bike for some twenty or thirty years, I felt quite pleased with myself; although I found it necessary to make frequent stops when pedaling uphill, I had managed to navigate the five kilometers to Raja Naga – a little winded, but, nevertheless, in one piece.

CHAPTER TEN -- Part  Six-H

	A reliable water supply has been a prerequisite to the formation and procreation of even our most minuscule of slimy antecedents which had their debut some four-hundred- million years back. And, over the course of the past millennium, communities worldwide seem determined to grow from small and manageable towns and villages, with ample yet modest local water reserves, into mega-metropolises overcrowded with people seeking the better life. These new huge urban areas, having needs far in excess of their original water supplies, require mains and aqueducts to carry water from distant reservoirs to outlets spread throughout the community. Raja Naga was but a small and insignificant town (perhaps to all but her residents) facing a body of water that could be considered, depending on one's perspective, either a very large pond or a modest-in-size lake -- but was apparently able to supply  sufficient water to meet the needs of the town..

	As we pedaled past the ghat, women, gracefully draped in vividly-colored saris, could be seen thrashing clean their sopping-wet clothes on the tiered steps leading down into the water. Oblong patches of color: brightly-dyed saris, sun-bleached white dhotis, towels, sheets and whatnot were very much in evidence -- spread out to dry on every unoccupied part of the ghat. Meanwhile, bathers: fully clad men, women and children, deftly managed to maintain their modesty as they soaped themselves down before ducking under or, as the boys do, diving headfirst into what appeared to be clear, cool and clean water. 

*

Seeing women in villages and the outskirts of cities doing their laundry, calls to mind Mark Twain’s comment (made during the era before washing machines, as we now know them, became a commonplace in the West) that Indian women spend their time breaking rocks by beating them with their clothes. For those in the West too young to remember when all but well-to-do women mauled the family wash against the corrugated surface of a washboard, the subtlety of his humorous observation might be lost. It should be added, that on his visit to India, Mark Twain also reverently described her people and their civilization as being as old as time.  

*

	The broad, open road fronting the water led to the narrow streets of the more commercial  section of Raja Naga, whereupon we stopped pedaling and walked our bikes, with Arjuna leading the way along a bustling-with-people, unpaved roadway. We proceeded for a  few-hundred feet, dodging around children at play, sleeping dogs and an occasional cow until we reached a one-amongst-dozens of small, uniquely-Indian, up-a-few-steps, store-front-with-a- counter shops: the one with the copying machine that was our destination. Although the sign on the shop read XEROX in large, black, block letters that stood out vividly against its yellow background, the actual  copy machine used bore the name of a Japanese manufacturer: Xeroxing having long since become an internationally-accepted (with the probable exception of the French) generic term used to describe all kinds of photocopying  -- no matter what make machine is being used.

*

Until well after the easing-up of import restriction in 1991, virtually all consumer goods sold in India were at least partially manufactured there or, if not, then merely assembled there as part of her burgeoning screw-driver industry. The ban on imports, either outright, or as a result of restrictive duties, had given birth to an industry requiring the assembly of parts, rather than the total manufacturing of the more-sophisticated consumer goods. No doubt, all these factors contributed to the far-from-new Xeroxing machine ending up in Raja Naga.

India, as a redeveloping nation, adopted a protectionist policy that banned outright, or assessed prohibitive duties on, imported, manufactured, consumer goods. The intention was to give her indigenous manufacturing industries the opportunity to grow, free of predatory competition from those countries already-industrialized. For all the negative results for India’s economy (insofar as her ability to satisfy the material demands of her ever-growing, middle classes) that resulted from her socialist planning, India has managed to remain free of the economic domination of the West. This is more than can be said for the once-economically-powerful, Pacific-rim nations.

One must keep in mind that India did not, as did: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, have billions of dollars poured into their economies. Those nations benefited from the serendipitous effects of having America stationing troops in those countries, while, at the same time, footing the bill for the buildup of their military potential -- all of which was done in support of the West’s containment-of-communism policy.

The results of the multi-billions of dollars poured into the economies of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, were such that their wealthiest citizens, those controlling the economies of those nations, were able to establish industries in both their own and other then-developing Pacific-rim nations.

South Korea, having suffered greatly as a result of her devastating war with the North, much of which took place within her boundaries, plus the ensuing years of despotic and unrestrained corrupt rule by her own people, was no more capable of withstanding the discombobulating monetary pressures caused by a reliance on foreign trade and foreign investments, than were the other Pac-rim nations -- those not having had American money unconditionally poured into their economies.

Presently, all those once-proud, emerging economic tigers, with their faltering economies, appear well on their way to again fall prey to the will of the big-money boys who control the New World Order.  The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Nevertheless, due to the cumulative effects of Arab, Turkish and Mogul invasions and then the stealing of her wealth when she lost control of her economy to Europe’s well-armed colonizers, India still has major problems. 

*

Despite ridding herself of foreign domination, due to her industries being subjected to the intervention of Indian bureaucrats, either as a result of government ownership or their being burdened with excessive regulations, the government’s advocated and enforced half-way, socialist policies, were to stymie the growth and modernization of her industries. Eventually, perhaps by remembering that the country was once the economic center of Greater India (it spanned over a thousand years, ending with the Moslem invasions of what is now Indonesia), India’s powers that be, including some of socialism's staunchest advocates, concluded that the laudatory concept of government control of industry, as a means of having its economic benefits accrue to the people in general, rather than merely add to the wealth of the few, was proving to be counter-productive. 

Strict government regulations of most industries didn't have the desired effect. The economic benefits, and there were many, from a four-decade-long reliance on socialist solutions to raise the living standard of India's burgeoning population had reached a plateau, and, if anything, were poised for a decline. A notable exception was the pharmaceutical industry: the government's setting of low-margin-of-profit, retail prices on  their products, forced Indian manufacturers to modernize their plants as a means of cutting their production costs (while maintaining quality) if their companies were to remain profitable. The result is that Indians have up-to-date medication available at the cheapest prices -- and the industry has become competitive with its counterparts, the world over: in both  quality and cost of production.

While conceding the fact that greed is the motivating force behind the competition  required to make capitalism function most efficiently, and perhaps, even while being aware that the matter-of-fact acceptance of greed, even as a means to an end, is both spiritually and morally indefensible, India's movers and shakers have decided, in an attempt to solve her economic woes, to put their faith in a somewhat controlled but, nevertheless, relatively free-wheeling, free-enterprise economy This particular friend of India, sincerely hopes that she is not throwing out the baby with the bath water -- and, while risking the disdain shown towards those so rash, or ignorant as to mix their metaphors, I add -- even while granting that that baby, “India’s spirituality with its strong non-violent overtones”, is her Achilles heel.

*

It’s quite possible that India’s 1998, atomic-bomb testing will prove beneficial to all the peoples of all the nations of the Subcontinent, in that a militarily-strong India would prevent both India and her neighbors from again falling prey to the greed-motivated intrusions of those formidable members of the euphemistically-named New World Order. All citizens of the Subcontinent, regardless of nationalistic, religious, ethnic and racial differences, would be wise to form a “South Asian Confederation of Independent Nations”. Europe is doing it and North America is doing it, it seems folly for the citizens of the Indian subcontinent to buck the trend -- and, thereby, again allow themselves to fall prey to the domination of greedy folks from other nations.

*

	It's generally necessary to get three or four Xerox copies made of a drawing, varying the tone setting for each one, before I get a copy I’m satisfied with. Besides getting a copy of the sketch of Arjuna, I wanted copies of the drawings I did of two other youths who work at the hotel; and, I used Arjuna’s portrait study to get the setting that would be right for all three. Since those of Arjuna came out more or less okay, I, of course,  gave him all the extra copies.

	Arjuna was aware that I wanted to check out a stationery store, on the off-chance they’d carry drawing paper, so I followed him thinking that’s where we were going.  Perhaps Arjuna had mentioned he intended to take me to his home, but if he did, I didn’t understand him. However, as we continued to walk our bikes towards the outskirts of the town, he managed to let me know (despite my ignorance of Hindi, and his of English, we managed, more or less, to communicate with each other by eye contact, hand motions and facial expressions) that we were on our way to visit his family. I was more than pleased by the prospect – and let him know it, as best I could. He seemed relieved. 

	At the top of a slight incline in the road was a small sand-colored hill, and scattered around it were a  few large, sun-bleached, gray-white boulders. Intermingled with the boulders were three or four sturdy-looking, white-washed, adobe-type structures. And, since communal life in India tends to manifest itself in the way people congregate outdoors, it was no surprise  that we were greeted in front of one of the houses by various members of Arjuna's extended family; after being introduced to one and all, I was invited to enter.

	The house was a thick-walled, mud-bricked, clay-tiled-roof structure -- very similar to those seen in the rural section of the Peloponnesus -- and typical of the housing of all semi-tropical, temperate-zone, northern-hemisphere, ancient cultures. It was designed to be cool by day -- which it was, and warm at night -- it gets quite cold once the sun sets during the winter in this upland area. The first and only room I entered measured about ten by fifteen feet, and it was there that we all sat during my hour-or-so stay. The only other room I saw, and that was but a partial view, was what I took to be the kitchen or pantry. The floor, as did everything in the house, appeared to be immaculately clean, and was made of either very hard dirt or a home-made cement of a kind used by villagers throughout India. There was an electric outlet from which wires led to a fan, lights and a TV. There were no windows in the room, but the doorway was unobstructed and the air and sunlight flowed in freely -- there was no need for either the fan or lights to be turned on.

	The room was sparsely furnished; its main features were a TV set, a few chairs and a  bench. Arjuna's father, a thin, handsome and proud man in his fifties -- from whom Arjuna  got his features -- was seated to my far right, and a man in his thirties: a member of the  extended family who was fluent in English and acted somewhat as a translator, was seated between us. Sweet, spicy, Indian tea was served, along with a package of Indian-made Brittany cream-filled crackers; I think it was purchased especially for me -- but, although when first in India, I often bought them for myself, especially when traveling, I now actually prefer the simple Indian sweet biscuits readily available throughout India, at most tea shops. I tend to drink my tea when it’s a little tepid, whereas most Indians attempt to drink it while it's still scalding hot. While waiting for my tea to cool, we made small talk, which included their thanking me for the copies of the drawing I did of Arjuna -- at which I told them, quite honestly, that it was nothing.

	As so often the case in India, at least when I'm involved, even chit-chat ends up taking on some kind of a sociological or philosophical twist. What with people dropping by to take a look at me, and children from the neighborhood wandering in and seating themselves cross- legged in front of the black and white TV set (it was on during the entire time I was there: a Hindi movie was being transmitted from an Indian satellite), we had no lack of things to talk about. I was advised that the children, about eight to ten years of age, watching the TV, do not go to school. It seems their parents were laborers and saw no need for their children to get an education -- moreover, even if they had wanted to send them to school, they couldn’t have afforded the few rupees it cost for books and whatever.

*

A Year earlier I had stayed in Bhogul, an unpretentious suburb of New Delhi. In the morning, from the balcony of the small apartment I rented, I could see neatly-dressed children, all lugging bulging school bags, or with backs laden-down with huge knapsacks, as they, in a spirit of camaraderie, ambled off to the nearby cross street, where the bus stopped that would take them to their pay-to-go-to school. The children had obvious middle-class backgrounds. There appeared to be both Hindus and Moslems amongst them, but most of the boys wore the distinctive head wrap of a Sikh. 

Meanwhile,, especially in the South and East, Europe's proselytizing Christians, with their missionary zeal, offered free educations with a stress on the superiority of the West’s Judeo-Christian morality -- a morality that, during the twentieth century, alone, sanctioned wars causing the untimely deaths of some hundred million people. The missionary schools (this does not include those run by the Indian Ramakrishna Mission), like the parochial schools in the States, accept only the more educable students. And, it’s a notable minority of those students who have become the latest mutations of old-fashioned, rice Christians -- understandably falling under the spell of Western culture in the course of obtaining a free education, rather than a life- sustaining diet of rice.

The upshot is, that something like half the children in India -- those children from devout Hindu and Moslem families whose parents are so poor they can’t afford the incidental costs of a free government-sponsored education, or Christians who are not amongst the more educable of the recent converted “Heathens”, have little opportunity to obtain an education --  let alone prove their educability.

*

It was during an impromptu visit to my apartment in Bhogul, by a well-educated, well-to-do Sikh, that, as we sat talking on my balcony, a boy of about seven delivered my lunch, a tali plate. It bothered me to see the child working -- he had also delivered a pot of tea in the morning. I had great empathy for the child; I could see a son of my own -- ready for school: neat, clean and healthy -- dressed in a freshly- ironed, short-sleeved shirt and shorts -- the only differences being that this child went barefoot, and may never get an opportunity to go to school.

My Sikh visitor was embarrassed when I asked why the child was not in school. As a general rule, neither Hindus nor Moslems are as motivated for material success as are modern-day Sikhs. This causes many of those Sikhs who’ve migrated from the Punjab to other parts of India to speak ill of other Indians: often claiming they're unwilling to work -- which, if they looked with their eyes instead of their prejudice (a common human failing), they’d know that’s not true. For all the laudatory acts of charity by Sikhs, whereby they offer free food to the poor in their Gudwalas and at their festivals, there appears to be no concerted attempt to help the poor Hindu and Moslem children, living within their community, to get an education. And, I'm sure that educating those children would act as a far better protection against Hindu hostility (caused by the hubris so often displayed by Sikhs towards their mainly-vegetarian blood-relations), and cost considerably less, than the guns so many Sikhs now own for their protection. (However, it must be stated, that in no way is this meant to lessen the guilt of those Hindus who engaged in the horrific, murderous, vengeful attacks on Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards.)

*

When one realizes the way America's not-so-poor waste their opportunities for acquiring an education, while blaming the system (which is not entirely without fault) for their failures, it's difficult to feel sorry for them -- especially after seeing the way these bright-eyed children in India are being deprived of even the chance to go to school. Of course, in India, having an education offers no guarantee of getting a job; presently, many millions of intelligent, educated and eager to work young men and women are under- or unemployed.  No wonder so many Indians are willing to forsake the more genteel and less competitive way of life in India, for one in America -- despite our climate, racism and overly-competitive, hectic ways.

*

	After saying my good-byes to his family, Arjuna and I were soon pedaling our way back to Khajuraho.  However, we did stop at a stationery store before leaving Raja Naga. Stationery stores in India are wonderful places. They’re small by American standards. Nevertheless, stored in just about every nook and cranny is one or another of the items one normally finds in a well-stocked modern American stationery store -- plus a limited selection of art supplies. On various occasions, but primarily in the larger cities, I’ve seen: under a glass-topped counter a large selection of drawing pens and pencils, various types and colors of inks; a roll of canvas materialize from behind a shelf; a full selection of brushes displayed from a narrow drawer; a whole range of oil paints emerge from a box pulled from under the counter; a roll of watercolor paper hauled from a corner from which sheets were cut to order; and a pile of different-sized sketchbooks in a corner -- all stored in a tiny section of a considerably larger stationery store. In Raja Naga I was lucky to find some paper usable for drawing at its very small stationery store -- where I was also graciously served tea before departing with my purchases.

CHAPTER ELEVEN -- Part One 

Back to Nainsink Tagore and Astrid Hubbel -- and The Indian Psyche

	“Ya know, Astrid, from what I can see, Jains think of themselves as Indians who are doing their own thing -- which, I believe, is pretty much the way the rest of India’s indigenous population think of themselves. Moreover, I didn’t get the impression when attending a Jain wedding and reception: one that spared no expense in providing a feast for  thousands of people -- all invited to join in the festivities regardless of their religious affiliation -- that it was being done for any other reason than to have everyone join in in a ritualistic celebration of a marriage. And, in India, Hindus, in general, tend to think of Jains as well as Sikhs, Moslems, Christians and even Animists as fellow Indians who worship one or another of the avatars of the all-pervasive, ineffable Brahma -- and how they go about doing it is their own business. Nevertheless, despite the concept of a fundamentalist approach to Hinduism being preposterous -- it’s contrary to the very essence of Hinduism, which has no set dogma -- which, in turn, is the very reason why Hinduism remains the oldest living religion, there are Hindus who claim to speak for all Hindus. In no way can Hindus be compelled to adhere to a legalistic, dogma-based interpretation of what’s right and wrong -- which, of course, would entail the preposterous assumption that anyone can arbitrarily deny access to an omni-present, ineffable Brahma.  

	“India’s ancient moral and spiritual traditions resurfaced during the early part of the first millennium B. C. And, those aspects of proto-Hinduism were adopted by both Jainism and Buddhism. Neither of those movements were involved in caste considerations -- obviously introduced into India early in the second millennium B.C.; Buddhism, the least ritual-bound, tended to attract the most proselytes. And, for the first thousand years of its existence, Buddhism in India retained much of its pre-Aryan roots. It did, however, gradually lose its singular identity in India -- as a separate religion. However, as it merged with all the various ongoing aspects of India’s ancient past, with but slight modification, Buddhism’s moral values became those by which virtually all the indigenous peoples now residing in the Subcontinent live by.

	“A form of Buddhism less demanding than the personal Hinayana Buddhism of India was to spread out beyond the borders of the Subcontinent -- and, as it did, it was gradually transformed into Mahayana Buddhism -- with its more materialistic approach to nirvana. By the time it traveled through China, then to Japan and finally to the modern-day West, Buddhism was so watered down that instead of living the life of Buddha, a Buddhist could purchase the state of nirvana by doing good deeds and a turn at yoga -- in effect buying it. No doubt, true belief in Buddhism, that of living the life of Buddha, was too strong for non-Indians, as well as most Indians, to stomach. A parallel happenstance was to occur when the morality of Buddheo-Christianity became too burdensome for early- Renaissance Europeans to endure -- which had them turn to the Old Testament to rationalize their unwillingness to abide by the demands of the spiritual life, and instead went about satisfying their acquisitive yen -- no pun intended. 

	“Getting back to Jains, their religious rituals appear to have retained their direct tie-in to that of India's pre-Aryan past -- with much of the ethical aspect of Jainism paralleling that adopted from Buddhism by Hinduism. And, since Jains didn’t attract converts, either by royal decree, or by actively attempting to proselytize other Indians, their refraining from practicing the caste system didn’t intrude (as did Mohammedanism and Christianity) on the prerogatives of the high-caste Indo-Aryan Hindus. Jains, though quite naturally affected by the general caste-based tenor that permeates the culture of the entire Subcontinent, appear to have remained free of classifications by caste within the widespread Jain community”.

	After a pause, I added, “And, coupled with Buddhism’s turn-the-other-cheek philosophy, much of Jainism’s dedication to Ahimsa: the respect for all life, had been integrated into early Christian sensibility, though, by the time Christianity’s first millennium passed, respect for human life in the West degenerated to the point that, at best, it allowed for an ambivalent tolerance for all the creations of their One-and-Only God.

	“Had a respect for all human life not ceased to be a part of the acted-upon convictions of the faithful, Saint Francis of Assisi, with or without his questionable stigmata, would never have been singled out for sainthood for practicing Ahimsa -- the respect for all living creatures would have been as commonplace in Europe as it still is in much of India, and would hardly have been reason to single out any one particular Christian for sainthood.”
  
	“Your Atheism becomes apparent at times,” she said mockingly, before continuing. “I have seen photos of Jain temples and they do not appear to me to be significantly different from those of any other Indian religions. Yet you now tell me that they have maintained a unique identity. I am confused." 

	"Yeah," I said, "I can see the problem. You’re probably referring to the temples at Khajuraho and the huge, ornate, cave temples at Ellora. But, in a sense, that only proves my point. Those temples date back some one to two thousand years, yet the only way a layman can tell whether the person being worshipped is Buddha or the Mahavira is by the presence of a diamond shape on the sculpture of the Mahavira’s chest. To me, the commonality of the manner of worship for both the Buddhists and Jains indicates that there was a very definite continuum of the ancient Indus Valley culture, one that must have been in the process of reasserting itself, despite the political influence of the Sanskrit-speaking Indo-Aryan culture.

	“Moreover, since the caste system was introduced by the Aryans, and neither of those ancient indigenous Indian religions accept the concept of caste, despite both their formulators being of noble birth, it seems obvious to me that both men drew on the residual morality of India’s pre-Aryan Harappan culture which had been lying somewhat dormant for centuries before it remanifested itself in the teachings of those now-revered men, as they expounded on their moral convictions. 

	“The magnificent Hindu rock-cut temples were to become indistinguishable from the more or less contemporary ones dedicated to the Buddha and the Mahavira. Nevertheless, the fabulous, over-a-thousand-year-old Kailasa temple, though completed at least a thousand years after many of the earliest cave temples at Ellora and Ajanta, indicates Hinduism’s having peacefully attained ascendancy over Buddhism. Whether or not priestly competition added to it, the ascendancy of Hinduism caused Jains to go their own way. In doing so, Jains preserved much of the pre-Aryan social structure of the ancient Indus Valley civilization: a casteless one based on commerce and that had a respect for all living things. 

	“Since it was the Hindu ruler (a Kshatriya) who financed the building of the Kailasa temple, and its construction was undertaken by Brahman-born monks, it indicates that Hinduism incorporated the spirituality of early India -- by way of Buddhism and Jainism -- yet confirms that it, Hinduism, reasserted the Aryan concept of  caste in both spiritual and secular matters. All of which substantiates my belief that the underlying pre-Aryan, Indus Valley civilization is the underpinning of what has evolved into the contemporary Indo-Aryan-based culture -- one that continues to permeate the entire Subcontinent.”

	Here Astrid Hubbel broke in, “I remember Doctor Moti telling of the Kailasa temple, and I did read about it before coming to India. And, I am confused by what you say. What I did read tells me that the Hindu cave temples were not made until the time of the latest of Buddhist and Jain temples. And, since those temples do not appear to differ from one another, I think it must mean that the Hindu cave carvers were converts from, or influenced by, Buddhism or Jainism.

	“Yet, you say the Kailasa temple’s iconography is that of India’s pre-Aryan culture. It is this that is the source of my dilemma. How can the ancient Harappan civilization be the father to Jainism and Buddhism while also being his own son in the form of Brahmanic Hinduism?” 

	I think,” I said, “there’s been a timeless channeling of pre-Harappan, and even earlier indigenous Indian inputs into the India that existed at the time of the Subcontinent’s invasion by barbarian, Aryan hordes – which makes me question the degree of influence that the Aryan invasion actually had on contemporary India’s basic culture – one that has remained essentially spiritual despite the later introduction of a caste system and the inputs of a martial heritage. It’s generally acknowledged that the Harappan civilization went through a cataclysmic period of decline during a time more or less contemporary with the centuries of Aryan invasions -- lasting for some 500 years beginning shortly after 2000 B.C. Nevertheless, the essential spirituality of the Harappan culture, that was to reemerge first in the teachings of the Buddha and the Mahavira and then, half-a-millennium later, with those attributed to Jesus, was to make for the most powerful moral force the world has ever known. Though it has remained, for the most part, intact in the East, it peaked in Europe a thousand years ago, and has, ever since, been in the process of being replaced by a greed-rationalizing morality that claims their God’s support

	"Now, I just want to backtrack a little to give some idea as to the kind of culture that became pervasive in India from the time of the first invasions by the Aryans, until the advent of the Jain and Buddhist religions. In the great Indo-Aryan, Hindu epic of over a hundred thousand couplets, the Mahabharata, the only part of it that could come close to being considered well known is the Bhagavad-Gita. And the best known part of that segment rationalizes war. In it, Krishna, an avatar of the God Vishnu, the Preserver, tells Arjuna not to fret about going to war against his brothers. Why? Because -- he's merely the bowman following the Karma of the Kshatriya that he is: and, if his arrow finds his brother's heart, it would be due to the will of the Gods who controlled its flight. So, despite the fact that he’d be bending the bow, and releasing the arrow while aiming at a brother's heart -- Arjuna was told not to give it a thought, because where it lands is in the hands of the Gods. This was obviously a far cry from the respect for all life so stressed in Jain and Buddhist teachings.

	“Now, here's the kicker, in the far shorter and less philosophically-moralizing, Euro-Aryan, Greek epic, the Iliad, which was composed somewhat earlier than the Mahabharata, when Hector, the leader of the Trojans, is taking leave of Andromache and their child to do battle with the Greeks, he asks Zeus to make his child a brave warrior who will gladden the heart of his mother, when, as a man, he returns home from battle with the blood of his enemies on his hands. Hector then goes on to tell his wife, Andromache, not to worry about his own fate, because no man can kill him unless the Gods so will it.”

	Astrid Hubbel interrupted, “But, what of their literary value? Surely they have both contributed much to our cultural life -- throughout the world, not only in Greece and India.” 

	“I’m not questioning their value as literature, but I have the gut feeling, that if not for their giving a moral support to the basically-immoral, war-making activities required by the powers that be of a nation, to subjugate their own people and to acquire the property and wealth of alien folks, they’d never have been circulated in the first place. I doubt very much whether the economics of story telling in those days varied much from that of today. To earn his keep, then as now, the narrator had to appeal to those folks who had the wherewithal to pay for it. The worldwide knowledge of the existence of those great Indo-European epics had little to do with their undisputed literary worth -- and far more to do with the political tenor of the times.

	“Whether or not it was coincidental, the fact remains that the Greek epics were reintroduced into Europe by the Arabs at a time when Buddheo-Christianity was in decline. And, it would be giving coincidence entirely too much credit to deny that the Iliad appealed to the well-to-do, Empire-building Brits for its ability to justify war as a means of dominating foreign countries. At the same time, it helped to build Greek pride in an effort to bolster her people’s resolve to gain their independence from Turkey. This had the effect of weakening Turkish domination of the Balkans, while giving the Brits, as their protectors, a power base in Greece that enabled them to thwart any plans Russia might have had for acquiring an outlet to the Mediterranean. 

	“As to the Bhagavad-Gita, little was known about it besides that found in a few scholarly translations available in the West -- most of which seem to have been in German or Latin, which, though limited, would probably have had some sort of a trickle-down effect on Europe’s awareness of the more positive things about India. When one realizes the degree of censorship applied by the Brits on all incoming knowledge of the outside world thought detrimental to their totalitarian regime in India, and at the same time their ability to prevent the dissemination of all knowledge of India thought to present  her culture and people in a favorable light, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that  it wasn’t until Indian independence that academics in the West became fully aware of the literary value of the Bhagavad-Gita.

	“Nevertheless, whatever the purpose, both those epics have become part of our modern-day, universally- accepted cultural heritage. And, though they’re subjectively written, and although their popularity may be due to their support of war, they’re only calculated to rationalize wars that were essentially fought for material gain: greed, if you will -- and not the enslavement of a conquered people. Moreover, racism in those works plays no part in rationalizing the deeds done or the outcome of the turn of events.”

	“I think it becomes obvious that the rationalized morality for killing and for being killed -- along with the obligation of the warrior to feel no dishonor when killing, nor fear of being killed, that are found in both the Aryan, Indo-European-language epics, are concepts alien to both Jain and Buddhist teachings. As a result, it seems to me that it makes my assumption stand, that the morality expressed by Buddhists and Jains alike, has its source in the pre-Aryan, non-warlike Indian civilization. Along with the rooted-in-the- morality-of-the-Levant Old Testament, the morality expressed in both the Indo-European epics: the Iliad and the Bhagavad-Gita, despite their deliberate attempts to play both sides of the issue, sure as hell have nothing to do with Ahimsa. Buddhist teachings, much like those of early Christianity, allow for no manufacturing of self-serving clichés rationalizing some of the most heinous acts committed by man.  

	“There’s something else that can be ascertained by comparing those Indo-European epics with the Bible. The aspects of the Bible taken from the Sumerian and Egyptian cultures are relatively free of implications of racial or even specie superiority, e.g.: the concept of Adam and Eve with its beginnings of generic human beings; the flood, where the survival of all animal life, not only humans was of equal importance -- all men, as well as animals, being considered as one; the lack of any racial considerations regarding the incidents surrounding the birth and life of Moses. But this didn’t hold true in those writings based on Indo-European and later Semitic sources -- when legalistic wranglings with their God, along with racism and materialism began to take precedence

CHAPTER ELEVEN -- Part Two

	"Nance, I understand what you say about both the Indo-Aryans and the Greco-Aryans having produced literary epics in Indo-European languages. And I agree that both works, based on the little I know of them, do, to some degree, glorify war and the killing and dying that accompanies  it, but I do not think that is the intention of either work.  I believe it also says that life and death is determined by the will of the Gods -- and that war is wrong -- by showing the horrors of war, and the futility of trying to settle differences in that way. I also agree that they were not then totally civilized -- but if you are trying to make those earliest of Indo-European peoples into total barbarians, I must disagree." 

	"I never said that. Those mythological folk that the epics were about, were not the earliest of Indo-Europeans. The people relating both the Iliad and the Bhagavad-Gita had been, for numerous centuries, directly influenced by much older and considerably-more-advanced civilizations. My only reason for bringing up those epics was to give logic to my contention that both those Indo-European-speaking peoples had a common morality and, in India, that that Aryan morality had influenced and combined with that of the earlier Harappan civilization. It was the less-spiritual and more-materialistic Aryan influence on the ancient, indigenous culture of the Indus River civilization that gave birth to the religion of the Sanskrit-speaking Indo-Aryans -- and it was the materialistic aspects of their religion that both the Buddha and the Mahavira were reacting against.

	“The current saying that: what goes around comes around need not always apply to the retribution of a vengeful God. The major indigenous religion of India that reemerged some thousand years after the penetration of Buddhism throughout the entire Subcontinent was a Hinduism replenished by the Harappan-based morality of the teachings of  both the Buddha and the Mahavira.”

*

To the West of India, the millennia-long, intellectual and genetic crossbreeding of Greco-Aryan, Semitic, and Mediterranean peoples was to result in a Helenized world that fostered early Christianity. Despite, or possibly due to the Greek influence on the attitudes expressed in the Old Testament, Christians (then a religious designation, and not one indicative of ethnicity or race) rebelled against the materialism and lack of spirituality in the Old Testament. (Buddhism, a half-millennia earlier, had spread throughout the Subcontinent as a reaction against the then-pervasive materialism there -- a materialism supported by the rituals of a long-ensconced, ceremony-abiding priesthood.) The Greeks, having absorbed the morality and tenets of Manichaeism (with its Zoroastrian stress on good versus evil; its inputs from Buddhism; and its Gnosticism which stressed the acquisition of knowledge rather than having faith or doing good works as a means of attaining salvation) gave to Christianity its “turn-the-other-cheek” and “Golden Rule” morality, plus the nirvana-like release upon one’s death as one’s soul rises to heave; although, as an afterthought, in an appeal to the less worldly, they adopted the Egyptian concept of a physical resurrection whereby the flesh also rises.
 
It shouldn’t be necessary to mention it, but surprisingly enough it is; there are quite intelligent folks who are unaware that all current renditions of the Old Testament are based on the Greek version written around the second century B.C., which was said to be based on documents originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew -- although, much like the fabled tablets containing the Ten Commandments that were said to have been smashed by Moses before anyone could read them, one would have to accept their having existed as an act of faith. Apparently, even the seventy Helenized Rabbis who wrote it in Greek, hadn’t seen them -- no wonder it was considered such a miracle that independently, the seventy gentlemen came up with the identical Old Testament. (Whoever said that miracles were the exclusive domain of Catholicism.) Moreover, it wasn’t until something like 100 A.D., that the Hebrew version of the Old Testament was written: when it was translated from the Greek, with some updates.

*

	Here Astrid Hubbel responded, “I have no reason to doubt what you say about the attitudes towards war to be found in the Bhagavad-Gita. And, perhaps I was being overly sensitive when you claimed a similar rationale for wartime murder in the Iliad. I now see that the attack on Troy by the Greeks did show the kind of barbarity that caused me to defend Indo-European morality. The Greeks surely appear more barbaric than the Trojans -- who, perhaps, were not Indo-Europeans. But, whether or not Trojans were also Indo-Europeans, they did appear to me to be far more civilized than the ancient Greeks, and it is the Greeks whom we Germans, along with most other Europeans, have looked to as our cultural and intellectual forebears.”

	“Sure, I doubt anyone would deny the influence that ancient Greece had on nineteenth century Europeans. After all, the epic story of the Greek siege of Troy was rationalized by the claim that it was all being done to avenge Helen’s abduction -- it’s generally accepted that, if there actually was a siege of Troy, it would have been for materialistic reasons: outright conquest and pillage or at the very least for commercial advantages -- but, the deceitful ploy that was said to have been used to take advantage of the Trojan’s adoration of the horse, needed no rationalization, and was accepted as a perfectly fitting and proper means of enabling honorable warriors to win a battle. And, despite the admonition by Europeans to: beware of Greeks bearing gifts, aggression- minded Europeans, during and after their greed-motivated, romanticized “Age of Discovery”, were quick to adopt far more wily doings than the Greeks, as a means of acquiring and maintaining their colonies. Yet, to this day, Greeks are still maligned for their sneaky use of the wooden horse -- whereas, mind you, there’s no admonition to: beware of Brits -- bearing gifts, or otherwise.”

	Now, Astrid Hubbel broke in defensively: “You berate Europeans. But, what of the Japanese?  Deception in the form of sneak attacks was used by them as a means of conquest in Korea and also during WWI – when they sided with the Allies for the sole purpose of stealing Germany’s Pacific Island colonies. All of these things occurred many years before their attack on Pearl Harbor -- which is all you Americans ever think about -- unless it’s how much money you have.”

	“Hey, look,” I said, “as far as materialism is concerned, it’s America’s success in obtaining the goodies of the world that has everyone else resenting Americans -- while at the same time they go about greedily imitating the worst aspects of America’s acquisitiveness. And, if we bring Japanese duplicity into this, we’ll never get anywhere. Let’s face it, duplicity is not an exclusive tool of the West, and its use is probably as old as man -- it’s just that the God-fearing followers of the Judeo-Christian religions routinely and hypocritically go about justifying its use on moral grounds -- by claiming that the end justifies the means.”

	At this Astrid Hubbel merely said, “I’m sorry -- I do get very defensive. I do not know if I agree with all that you say, but please go on -- as if I did not interrupt.”

	I accepted her halfhearted approval, and then, backtracking a bit, went on: "Although individuals within a civilized society can act in a barbaric manner without causing that society to be considered barbaric, when the overwhelming majority of any society is supportive of, or even condones greed-motivated and hate-fed aggression against others, within or without their own community, then the entire society is, by definition, barbaric -- no matter what the moralizing excuses for that aggression. And that's why, even when only tacit support is given by the populace of a given political entity to the bestiality committed by its decision makers, they, whether or not they belong to a silent, dissenting  minority, are no better than barbarians.”
 
	Astrid Hubbel looked at me in amazement: "Is it possible that a greed-motivated, Judeo-Christian morality pervades the world today -- one that allows for the subjugation of the poor -- both in Europe and in countries such as India?  Am I also guilty of having accepted materialistic goals as the ultimate good?  Is my existence to be no longer than from the day I was conceived until the date of my interment?  Have I too rationalized the rapacious conquests by the West by claiming they were done in the name of God -- when our God was really gold? Is God dead, and was our God replaced by our need to own the latest electronic device?  Is it possible that spiritualism's dying gasps are only to be found in the East amongst those who have denounced materialism -- and who pay no heed to our Western God?  Is the world becoming so materialistic that even the mystical Indians will soon be unable to pass through the eye of the needle? I am, indeed, very, very confused!"

	"Wow! You've either been polite as hell, and let me think all this stuff was new to you, or else you’ve been doing an awful lot of reading and thinking about it both before and since we first began our discussion.” I paused before I went on -- but began to look at her in a new light.

	“Since I really don’t know if I can answer any of your questions, I’m going to consider them rhetorical -- even though we’ve been talking about them, in a sense, over the course of the past few weeks." I then added, "But, getting back to the Mahabharata’s and the Iliad’s perceptible Indo-European inputs, I'd just like to mention something that might relieve you of some of your anxiety -- then again, maybe it won't. It’s that, although there might very well be some factual basis for the main occurrences, there’s no more reason to believe that any of the specific details found in either of those Aryan works were based on actual happenings, any more than the overwhelming majority of events that are described in the Bible. The morality expressed in all three works is at most indicative of the attitudes that prevailed at the times and places when they were originally formulated -- and, then, when reinvented and finally compiled into their current adapted rendition.”

	Astrid smiled, and said, wistfully: “You have made no allowance for the hand of God in any of these works, and this would have bothered me before we began our talks. But now I accept your assumptions as having a validity. Please go on. I did not wish to interrupt your thoughts.”

	"Thanks, I guess. But what I’m driving at is that the warlike materialistic aspects of those Indo-European epics were absent from the morality of the pre-Indo-European, pre-Semitic Mediterranean culture. Since the disrespect for human life expressed in those works were sentiments alien to the concepts of Ahimsa adhered to by the followers of Buddhism and Jainism, to my mind, it gives ample proof that both those indigenous Indian religions grew out of the pre-Aryan morality: a morality that was incorporated to some degree into the earliest Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit writings. Moreover, that portion of it seemingly ignored or discarded, continued as part of an oral tradition that was based on the morality of a pre-Aryanized India, that of the ancient Harappan, and probably also of the pre-Semitic, Sumerian civilizations.”
 
	Shaking her head in disbelief, Astrid Hubbel asked, "Are you trying to tell me then, that this culture of peace and non-violence was lying dormant in India for a thousand years, fatalistically awaiting the time when it would be rediscovered in the sixth century B.C., by the Buddha, or the Jain's Mahavira?"

	"I don't like to answer a question with a question, but where the hell did you learn this stuff? -- No, don't tell me, you've been talking to your Dr. Dutta and the others at the hospital.  Right?"

	With the smile on her face of a child caught with her hand in the cookie jar, she nodded with a, "ja," and then added, “But I am only aping the way you spoke of the sudden early Renaissance burst of culture in North Europe.” 

	"Touché! And, in response to your disbelief, it does seem preposterous to think that a millennium could go by between the time the Harappans were overwhelmed by the Aryans, and when the morality of their culture re-surfaced. But, there’s no reason to believe that the traditions of the Indus River civilization were  destroyed by the Aryans. After all, their descendants, even if with a somewhat enlarged gene-pool, remain in India to this day. Moreover, Jainism claims to go way, way back, even before the time of the Harappans, and the latest Tirthankara, the Mahavira, Whom you just mentioned, was a contemporary of the Buddha, and is considered by Jains to be only the most recent in a series of India's twenty-four Tirthankaras -- most of whom are said to have had a longevity lasting a goodly portion of eternity's innumerable millennia." 

	Smiling, Astrid Hubbel chimed in,  "I am aware that Indian civilization is said to be as old as time, but sometimes I think that Indians go too far."

	"Pay no more attention to it, Astrid, than that the Bible says Methuselah lived nine hundred years."

	"Well, I imagine that if God can give nine hundred years of life to a man," she good humoredly added, "then She can just as well give a man, even if he was not a God, a life lasting nine thousand or even ninety thousand years."

	Chuckling, I then countered, "Whether you make God into a Him, Her or It, it won't matter much to an Atheist. But, no pun intended, I think you're getting into the spirit of our conversation. You now see the hocus-pocus that permeates every aspect of religion, aspects that all too many of its adherents believe to be factual. But we shouldn’t be surprised by this. After all, supposedly scientifically-arrived- at historical data, which includes that from carbon-dating, become part of the subjective accumulation of self-serving half-truths that are routinely used to enhance the biased interests of every possible faction: nationalistic, political, ethnic, sexual, racial, financial and what have you -- so why not for religion’s sake? So-called facts, which, of course, includes statistics, have been used with far more success in manipulating the truth than outright lies. 

	"That said, when talking about India, one can't help but bring up religion. And, it will surely help if we have an idea of where at least some of the inputs that make up the Indian ethos come from, and when they were made. It's hardly  required that we believe that those inputs were, in themselves, factual. I think we should only be concerned with what Indians believed, and what they accepted as historically true in support of those beliefs.

	“Moreover, since it’s as difficult for humankind to be scientifically objective when discussions of religion are involved as it is when the sex act is being analyzed, I strongly suggest, in line with what you kidded me about in the past, that we take our cue from the author of the Kama Sutra -- though not necessarily by resorting to means quite so drastic -- and try to maintain our objectivity by not getting too personally involved when discussing the subject at hand.”

	Astrid Hubbel, half smiling, nodded her head and added, “Yes, perhaps religion and sex are amongst the most controversial of subjects. Yet, our unqualified involvement in them is capable of giving us the most pleasurable moments in our lives -- but then too, they are the major source of the disillusionment that inevitably enters our lives as we mature.” 

	She seemed to fall into a reverie rooted deep in a past that I could never be part of. After a short pause, she came out of it, and then demurely asked me to continue.
 
	I had intended my aside, about maintaining our objectivity, to make the evening lighter -- but, despite its having the opposite effect: her melancholy thoughts of her more-youthful past -- I went along with her halfhearted request to go on.

	"There seems little room to doubt that the intellectual, spiritual and moral aspects of the Indus River civilization were flourishing until the advent of a cataclysmic event. Recent studies seem to indicate that that event could have been a major change in the flow of its life-giving rivers. Nevertheless, since the influx of the Aryan peoples into Western India, and the demise of the Harappan civilization were coeval events, whether or not the rivers’ changing course did occur, is academic. The fact remains, that that part of the Harappan culture not destroyed, was either absorbed genetically and culturally into what was to become known as the Indo-Aryan civilization, or was to spread, albeit, somewhat affected by Aryan influences, throughout the entire remaining southern and eastern segments of the Subcontinent. 

	“In this way, the people, the culture and vague aspects of the language of India's ancient past, that of the urbanized Harappan civilization, spread – evolving into what we now know as the Dravidian people and their culture. Although associated primarily in India’s south, the Bengali people of the eastern segment of the Subcontinent were also much influenced, both genetically and culturally, by the ancient Indus River culture. But, it was obviously to a lesser degree – as witness the fact that the Bengali language is a Sanskrit-based tongue, whereas Tamil and the other South Indian tongues are believed to have Harappan roots.”

	“I  do not understand, Nance, is not Sanskrit a completely different root language than Dravidian -- and would that not indicate a complete divergence of the Bengali- and Tamil-speaking cultures?”

	“I thought I made that point clear; I didn’t mean to imply that the Aryans invaders and the original Indus Valley peoples weren’t totally different cultures. It’s just that an obvious commonality exists between all the people throughout the entire Subcontinent. And, I believe that that commonality is derived from the people’s exposure to and acceptance of a morality based on that of the Harappan civilization -- as modified by its intercourse with that of the Aryan. Moreover, the cultural inputs that formed the basis for the Dravidian languages of ancient Indians also affected the development of Sanskrit-based Bengali -- and, probably, at least to some extent, all the other Sanskrit-based languages of India. After all, there must be some reason why Sanskrit, being the oldest of the Indo-European languages, is so uniquely Indian. The obvious conclusion is that the Harappan culture had an influence, in varying degrees, on the development of both Sanskrit and its offshoots -- and that’s in addition to its direct influence on the Dravidian language. The reciprocal influence of the culture and language of the Sanskrit-speaking Aryans on that of the ancient Harappan-Dravidians is but another contributing factor to the makeup of the uniquely Indian ethos -- one that I find permeates the entire Subcontinent.”
 
	“But, Nance, did not the presence of the British also have its effect on the Indian persona?” 

	“If you’re going to assume that India, for the century leading up to WWII would have stagnated while the rest of the world moved into the twentieth century, you’d be right in assuming the Brits had a major impact on India -- much as you would if you’re assuming that English is now the lingua franca of India. But the more I see of India, the more I realize that the English spoken by Indians is well on its way, much as has been the case of English in America, to becoming, if not a language in its own right, a unique branch of English. And, bear in mind, that at least twice as many Indians speak Hindi than English. Moreover, the number of South-Asians speaking Sanskrit-based languages, as a first language, would be on a par with the number of people, worldwide, speaking those rooted in Latin, Chinese or German, which includes English.”

	Here, Astrid Hubbel took exception, “I do not know if English will be supplanted -- in India or anywhere else. So many words from so many languages, including so many Indian and America terms, are now incorporated into standard English usage, that what is called king’s English, I think, may well remain the dominant language of the twenty-first century.” 

	“Well, that may prove right,” I said. “Nevertheless, in villages throughout the entire Subcontinent, where it’s rare to find many English-speakers, a Panchayet, a council of five, has governed for millennia -- establishing rules of conduct, functioning as tax collectors for the reigning powers that be, and acting as jury in settling disputes amongst their fellow villagers -- all before the introduction of English parliamentary procedures into India. This would indicate that democracy was a basic concept of all Indo-European speaking peoples -- at least to all those folks not blinded by a uniquely Euro-centric concept of the makings of modern-day civilization -- a concept crediting every aspect of our universal culture to a Bible-based or European source. And, keep in mind that India has a continuous social fabric going back some four millennia with a root source going back to a time at least four millennia earlier than that.”

	“Nance, I recall how in the past we agreed that there are no genetic differences that would account, directly, for the observable characteristics displayed by various ethnic groupings. But, now I think, perhaps you are saying otherwise.”

	“No, I don’t think I am. If one talks to Indians living in India, and with those living abroad, with few exceptions, there’s a perceptible difference between their attitudes -- yet, as a whole, they’re genetically no different. And, although my father was Indian born and bred, which does cause me to empathize with Indians, I can’t help but realize how very American I am when I‘m in India. And, bear in mind, contrary to what some ASP-types go about claiming,  there’s no way to determine, genetically, who is and who isn’t an American. That said, there are few Indians who’ve emigrated from India that I find I can relate to. Perhaps it’s because in so many ways they’re no different than any other immigrants who’ve given up a relatively-comfortable, yet modest, middle-class existence in their homeland for a material gain in America. And, so, they too, despite maintaining their outward appearance of being Indian, more often than not, have taken to the Judeo-Christian materialism of the West -- albeit, with varying degrees of determination.” 

*

Those Indians writing in the West, or for a Western readership, appear to have become so enamored of the English language that they’ve taken on, whole hog, its inherent, Euro-centric bias. It’s rare, indeed, to find anyone learning a foreign language, well enough to read and write it, who hasn’t been convinced, to some degree, that the people from the land whence the language originated are morally upright folks. Now, it’s perfectly understandable that English children learn to love the tales of the well-armed, racist and greed-motivated, murdering buccaneers who sailed out of Jolly-Olde England in support of the Crown. Nevertheless, when Indians read that same British literature, they’re automatically brainwashed into accepting the rationalizations for it written in support of England’s national interests. As a consequence, one needn’t leave India to hear well-read, educated Indians promoting a somewhat altered rendition of the racist and greed-motivated rationales of the British Raj. Those Indians had absorbed the attitudes expressed in so much of that English literature written over the past two centuries: attitudes resulting from the Brit writers who had, themselves, been indoctrinated with the Judeo-Christian rationale that fed their self-serving belief in their own racial superiority: a superiority that served to rationalize the West’s taking on the “white-man’s burden” -- and that inadvertently, when not with malice aforethought, denigrated Indians and their culture.

CHAPTER ELEVEN 

Part Three

	"Getting back to India’s past, over the course of a millennium, that ancient Indus River culture gradually reasserted itself among the Aryanized-Dravidian peoples who remained behind, but not before the effects of the Aryan presence, with its having caused the sowing of the seeds of a self-serving, caste system, amongst the Aryanized Dravidian culture of the Gangetic plain. The inherent unfairness in the system caused a general questioning of the status quo: Why are we what we are? What makes right and what makes wrong? Why are we born only to die? Why wealth for the few and poverty for the many? Why bliss for some and misery for others? Why love? Why hate? Why war? Why peace? And, what will tomorrow bring? It seems safe to assume that India was ready to accept the wisdom of the pre-Aryan, Indus River civilization: implicit in the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha -- The Enlightened. 

	“Early Buddhism defied the arbitrary tyranny then being imposed by virtue of the implementation of the caste system. The tenets of the then-current, Indo-Aryan priests had lost their ability to placate the people’s anxieties; the non-violent nature of Indians began to resurface; all of which contributed to the compelling need for those Indians reduced to a state of servitude, due to the hierarchical rigidity of Brahmanical Hinduism, to look elsewhere in an effort to give meaning to their lives. Buddhism was the answer. And, it remained the dominant religion in India for some thousand years -- and, even then, much of its basic morality was incorporated into a kind of neo-Brahmanical Hinduism.

	“Much as the pre-Christian-era, religious reformers -- worldwide, didn’t come from the oppressed classes; the Buddha and the Mahavira belonged to the Kshatriya caste, and began their lives as Hindu noblemen. Their high-born status allowed them to champion a morality that made no allowance for caste considerations; and there appears to be no evidence that they ever met the kind of hostility from India’s learned Brahmans that the Semitic Jesus and Mohammed were subjected to by the learned, and not so learned,  folk amongst their own people. The hostility was said to have been so great towards Jesus, that Gospel truth has Christ crucified due to the efforts of His countrymen -- which may or may not account for martyrdom’s being one of the main routes towards the achievement of Sainthood for Catholics, and that, apparently, still influences pseudo-Judeo-Christian religious reformers in the West -- who are currently called cult leaders. However, if either the Buddha or the Mahavira had martyr complexes, they satisfied them by willingly giving up their worldly goods -- and not by killing in their God’s name, willingly committing suicide or begrudgingly giving up their lives.

	“When Mahayana Buddhists in Vietnam engaged in acts of self-immolation, it was to publicize, for all the world to see, how the barbarities committed against them by Frenchified-Vietnamese Catholics, had driven them to choose such a horrible death -- rather than to continue to live under their rule -- and, as such, it had nothing to do with the spiritual aspect of religion.”

*

By denying their parishioners, in the name of their One-and-Only God, the right to commit suicide, on pain of spending eternity in Hell, the early Church fathers, as do all religious authorities, preserved their Church’s primary role as intermediary between the living and the dead. However, due to Christianity’s basic claim that Jesus died for our sins, one might ask, why didn’t He just commit suicide by throwing Himself in front the wheels of a chariot -- as those few Indians, who’ve been condemned, as fanatics for doing so, as a means of becoming as one with the Universal Spirit? There doesn’t seem to be any logical answer for this, other than that life is so precious that death must be left in the hands of God, for Whom, by the way, the ministers of the my-God-is- the-only-God religions just happen to be His sole representatives.

After having replaced the pope with their own hand-picked ruler, the Brits were able to rationalize their murderous doings that were committed in the name of national interests, as being sanctioned by their God. For, not only was England’s German King the Emperor of India, but he was also the Brits’ very-own vicar of God: an English pope who ruled over more people, including multi-millions of Catholics, than did the pope in Rome.

As a result, one shouldn’t be surprised by England’s attempts to rationalize the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh -- an action brazenly committed by Britain’s believers in a One-and-Only God in support of their national interests. That England’s actions defied a moralizing rationalization, gives iron-clad support to the vileness of their doings at Jallianwala Bagh. After all, the wanton massacre of those Indians couldn’t even be blamed on the belief that their ancestors (like those claimed by Slavic- and Germano-Jews, were responsible for their Savior’s death -- a death that must surely have been condoned, if not commanded by their One-and-Only God. Perhaps it’s wisest to just consider that the will of the Euro-Semitic, Monotheistic God manifests itself in strange ways -- ways incomprehensible to those who think too much. 

*

	Here, Astrid Hubbel broke in, adding, “Yes, in recent times Buddhism has become very popular in the West. And, I think that is because of international politics. During the 1960’s, as the war in Vietnam progressed, apolitical Buddhists were seen to be acting against the Catholic Vietnamese, who, despite their rulers’ being murderous despots, were being supported by the West as a bulwark against the spread of International Communism. Today, because Buddhists are being persecuted by communist China, many in the West have become outspoken supporters of the rights of Buddhists.

	“Also,” Astrid Hubbel continued, “I think, perhaps, during the Protestant Reformation, hypocrisy about religion prevailed in my Germany, and throughout North Europe. The anti-Catholic religious reformers were successful in their endeavors to free themselves from Papal rule because of Germanic Europe’s xenophobia directed against the Italians and their popes -- and not so much for their religious convictions or a desire on their part to be martyred.”

	She then paused, but since I made no comment, and by my silence indicated I’d like to hear more, which I did  -- she continued:

	“The royalty in Reformation Europe, ranging from emperors to petty princes, were not, as a rule, well-educated: most were illiterate -- only amongst the clergy could truly educated men be found. And, it was they, as religious reformers, who gained the support of one or another of the petty princes -- though not due to their religious convictions, but for the political and economic benefits accruing to  both priest and noble -- both of whom resented the power that the Catholic priests had taken upon themselves. And, the resultant heresies were to become formalized into one or another of the many Protestant religions.   

	“I think, perhaps some of those much earlier kings, rajas, pharaohs and emperors who ruled in ancient times were far better educated than the German nobles of pre- Reformation Europe. And maybe the knowledge acquired by those rulers of ancient times allowed them to stand up to their priests’ material demands: demands made under the guise of their being the ritual requirements of religion; instead, those rulers of old, looked for a moral and intellectual approach to the rationale for man’s existence. I think perhaps this was true for both the nobles, Buddha and Mahavira, when they challenged the caste-based doctrines of the then dominant Indo-Aryan religions -- which I believe are now, with much added from both Their teachings, called collectively Hinduism -- am I not right?" 

	I appreciated Astrid Hubbel’s taking an active part in the conversation, at least I knew I wasn’t talking to myself. Moreover, she made me realize that, if she had been on the defensive originally, that was now a thing of the past.

	"It sounds good to me,” I said. “It’s obvious that the Brahmans were very supportive of the caste system, which gave much importance to their priests, who, much like the popes and the Church’s priesthood in medieval Europe, considered themselves spiritually and probably socially above all others. Nevertheless, I’d have to assume that over the years the Aryan invaders, themselves, absorbed the non-hierarchical aspects of the pre-Indo-Aryan spirituality that continued to permeate the Subcontinent. Theirs, the religion of the ancients, required each individual to exercise his own judgment when attempting to gain a mind-clearing release from the never-ending drudgery of what is essentially a meaningless existence. The acceptance of the ability of all individuals to take personal responsibility for their own salvation has a built-in concept of equality -- and not only of all mankind, but of all living things.

	“That concept of equality, judging from what’s known of the makeup of the Indus River’s earliest civilization, allowed the Harappan culture to endure intact for over four thousand years from its pre-megalopolis years -- which had its beginnings at least as early as 6,000 B.C.  And, remarkably, after it was absorbed by the Aryan hordes, beginning in the middle of the second millennium B.C., it remained an inherent aspect of Indian morality. It was this tacit belief in an individual’s being responsible for his own doings that, in time, caused the Indo-Aryan priesthood to become somewhat superfluous. By the early centuries of the first millennium B.C., the values of the early Indus River cultures began to dominate Indian thought. It was during this period that the morality of the ancient Harappan civilization was to manifest itself in the teachings of the Buddha and the Mahavira. 

	"But, keep in mind that the priests weren't about to undo all their own authority unless compelled to. And, by the very nature of their moral Ahimsa philosophies, neither the Buddha nor the Mahavira would have attempted to do so -- whether or not they had the power.  However, when the great third century B.C., Indian Emperor, Ashoka, turned to Buddhism -- this, after his witnessing the effects of a particularly horrible and bloody battle that he had won -- he proclaimed Buddhism the religion of the land. And, since the concepts inherent in early Buddhism were already a part of the Indian ethos, and the fairness of its morality being so evident, it required no use of military support to have Buddhism accepted by Indians throughout his realm -- which included virtually the entire subcontinent of  India. It was then that the Indo-Aryan religions, though sidelined by Buddhism, were to be revitalized by an infusion of India’s ancient morality -- while, in their turn, imbuing Buddhism with a good-sized dollop of Indo-Aryan history cum mythology. 

	“In the West, it was but a matter of decades before the full effects of Buddhism were to augment the earlier influences that India’s ancient culture had previously had on Greek thought: e.g., Pythagoras’ philosophy based on the transmigration of the soul and the purification rites to get release from reincarnation: both basic tenets of India’s then- prevalent religions -- all of which predated, by centuries, Alexander’s much-touted attempt to reach India’s hinterlands. Nevertheless, though the direct effect of Alexander’s presence on India was nil, it did have the effect of adding to the West’s already formidable acquisitions of both the material and intellectual goodies of the East. One of the more significant acquisitions from India reaching Europe was the pacific and non-materialistic attributes of Buddhism  -- which were to become the mainstays of the turn-the-other- cheek theosophical input, by way of Greece, into early Christian ideology. Though those words rejecting the Mosaic demands for retribution are admiringly attributed to Jesus, and often cited by His followers -- the hypocrisy of His followers is made ever so evident: it’s been a millennium since it’s been considered an admirable trait in a God-fearing Christian.”

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Part Four

	I then backtracked a bit: "I should mention that the kind of racism that’s practiced in the West, which is rooted in the Old Testament, cannot be found in Indo-Aryan literature, oral or written, religious, lay or philosophical. As a result, Caucasian Aryans and Caucasian Dravidians, after a few millennia of cultural and genetic mixing, can only be described as being Indians. Even allowing for the fact that they never became a totally homogeneous peoples, the degree of pigmentation in one another’s skin is little more meaningful in India than the color of one another’s hair is in the West -- which hardly goes further than to allow for the claims that: gentlemen prefer blondes, and that: blondes have more fun.  And, bear in mind, that that attitude predominates in India today -- and has prevailed there at least a thousand years before the spread of Christianity throughout Europe.

	"India’s religious reformers: Buddha and Mahavira, went about reviving certain aspects of the ancient Harappan culture -- this, as a means of countering the effects of the Indo-Aryan, Brahman-controlled religions then permeating the entire Subcontinent. The amalgamation of the peoples of the by-then-subordinated Indus River civilization with that of the descendants of the nomadic Aryan hordes, was to accept, in time, the concept of a Universal Presence -- with its ahimsa-based morality. At the same time, they went about discarding a goodly portion of the rituals that were introduced by the far-more-warlike Aryans. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the philosophical and moral aspects of Buddhist and Jain spiritualism could hardly have been advanced, and then accepted, though somewhat limited at first, if they had only been reposing there comatose for a thousand years or more. Lacking any cataclysmic event to trigger its early acceptance, the presumed-dormant moral concepts of India’s ancient past must have always been actively present, perhaps somewhat subdued, for Buddha to have made them admissible subjects in the Brahman-dominated, philosophical discussions He engaged in that dealt with questions of spiritualism and moral principles.”

*

	I paused to gather my thoughts before continuing, "Astrid, you mentioned before, that you found it difficult to understand how I could claim that Jains, unlike India's Buddhists, had managed to maintain their own unique identity. And I realize just how crazy it sounds -- after all, to us outsiders, Jains look no different than other Indians, nor can we readily notice any appreciable difference in the manner of their worship than from that of many Hindus -- and many of their ancient temples, whether or not rock-hewn or constructed, are difficult, for the layman to know to Whom it’s dedicated.” 

*

Growing up in the States, and as a free-thinking outsider, never having been indoctrinated into the rites of any religion, I saw far more of a difference between the members of different extreme Protestant denominations, between Greek Catholics and Roman Catholics and between Hassidics and other Jews -- than I could see between citified Jains and Hindus -- or any other Indians for that matter. Furthermore, despite my having traveled extensively throughout India for over two years -- spread over a seven year period, when Indians are dressed in Western attire, I find it next to impossible to determine what religion they followed without knowing their names. Moreover, even when Indians dress or don’t dress in accordance to their religion, like: Jains strutting boldly in the altogether (I witnessed it but once); Moslem women wearing veils; and Sikh men with full beards and tightly wound turbans -- that difficult-to-define, Indian quality still manifests itself. And, it’s that quality that dominates the character of Indians throughout the entire Subcontinent. 

*

	Astrid Hubbel had been listening to me with such intent, that, even with her occasional interruptions, I was beginning to feel a little like a soliloquist. And, so, I paused to take a sip of my drink, and to give her a chance to put her two cents in.  She chose not to, and I continued:

	"In all probability, after the Aryan invasions, the Harappan-Dravidian peoples maintained much of their religion as a defense mechanism against the intrusions of the Aryan’s barbarian culture. An obvious example of a similar reaction, is the way the Irish stubbornly cling to their belief in what is essentially a pope-defying kind of Roman Catholicism, as a means of defying and resisting the rule of the Protestant Brits."

	Now, she interrupted me, "You confuse me sometimes when you make parallels between  European attitudes and those of India -- but, then, I think maybe it helps me to see that there is far more that is similar than that is different between the two cultures. Is that what you are trying to do?"
  
	"Maybe so, though I wasn’t consciously doing it, and so I doubt it was intentional. But, who knows? Nevertheless,” I said. "I don’t think it’s harmful to be aware that India, even in its present truncated form, is the size of Western Europe and is far more densely populated. Moreover, that they speak more languages than all of Europe put together, should give you an idea of the diversity of the ethnic backgrounds of the people who inhabit the Indian nation, and the Subcontinent itself.  That said, it should also make you aware of the difficulty in coming up with a nice pat answer to the question: What  makes Indians Indian? And, now, I'd like to get back to my attempt to figure out just what that something is that makes Indians tick.

	“Despite my Atheistic claims, I'm getting caught up in the spiritual aspects of India's culture. Right or wrong, at least from an intellectual point of view, I’m beginning to see the Buddha, as well as Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus, Mohammed and Confucius along with the Mahavira and the other twenty-three Tirthankaras as just avatars of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva: the Trimurti Who, as One, constitutes the ineffable Universal Spirit -- which has nothing, yet everything, to do with religion and its rituals.

	"In temples built well over a thousand years back, the Jain's Mahavira is represented as being nude, with a diamond-shaped insignia on His chest, and in adjacent temples, the Buddha, though usually represented as being draped, when both are bare chested, the presence or absence of the insignia appears, at least for me,  to be the only means of differentiating the Two. And, even if those similarities were due to stylistic trends at the time, the fact those religions were practiced side by side tells you something of the attitudes of the time. Moreover, besides any ritualistic differences, the Mahavira and the Buddha seemed to be worshipped for Their goodness, and for Their having rejected the need to acquire worldly goods -- not due to fear of or pity for Them, or for ultimate material gain.”

*

It should be mentioned, though, that Jains, themselves, have not renounced the acquisition of wealth. And, although that wealth is often spent on the building of temples, it’s also expended to enable an ostentatious display of opulence -- in the magnificent golden jewelry and luxurious silken saris that adorn their much respected and obviously well-fed wives.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Part Five

	After pausing for another sip of my tepid drink, I went on: “I see a similar type of low-key worship of the concept of a Universal Spirit running through a large spectrum of Indian society. It permeates, to a greater or lesser degree, all of India's peoples and the religions they profess -- no matter what form, if any, that they've given their God(s)."

	"But, Nance, what of the caste system itself, which maintains a totally undemocratic and arbitrary social structure. How can you possibly equate that with your all-pervasive Universal Spirit?"

	"Hey, look," I said, a little defensively, "I never intended to ignore the effects of the caste  system on the Indian peoples, whether or not Hindus. I thought that was a given. Directly or indirectly, all Indians are affected by the pressures exerted, and the attitudes expressed, as a result of the still, very-much-prevalent caste system -- which, I  think, may very well be, after their input to the Sanskrit language, the Aryan’s most noteworthy contribution to Indian culture -- but hardly one they should be proud of. ”

	Here, Astrid Hubbel interjected, "Is it that you say the worst aspect of Hinduism: the caste  system, is the German contribution?"

	It took me a few seconds to figure out what in the hell she was driving at before I could respond, "Hey, look, the influence of the Aryans went from East to West -- the Aryans were screwing up India, a thousand years before they ever reached Central, Eastern or Northern  Europe -- and, anyhow, I doubt that ethnically India’s Aryans were anything more than remotely related to those North Europeans claiming-to- be Aryans."

	"I am sorry," she said, "but each time I hear the word Aryan I think of Germany and our Nazis. I must try to remember that the marauding Aryan invaders of India were not Germans, even  though they too went about murdering the innocent men, women and children of an older  culture. And, do you know, Nance, the doctors at the hospital had to remind me that swastika is a Sanskrit word for the ancient Indian symbol of well-being. And to think, because of the vileness done under its banner by Nazis, there are people who are trying to make Hindus and Jains, the most non-violent of people, feel guilty for displaying their symbol of benevolence -- one they tell me that was in use so long ago, that it was for millennia before there ever was such a thing as a concept of a German -- or of a Jew." 

"Ya know Astrid, what you're saying reminds me of an article I came across written by an American tourist. It appeared in the travel section of New York’s much-touted for its integrity, newspaper. The writer, who made a point of mentioning that he was a Jew -- whether by definition of Adolf Hitler, Israeli propagandists, due to his religious conviction or his ethnicity he didn’t say -- also chose to go out of his way to attempt to show how insensitive, if not outright anti-Semitic, Indians were. Apparently, that writer was so caught up in his Euro-centric, Judeo-Christian view of the world that he either chose to ignore, or was totally ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of Indians don't know or even care anything more about Jews than Americans do about Parsis. Nevertheless, the tourist-author used, as his example of Indian anti-Semitism, the fact that when purchasing souvenirs of his trip to India, one of the articles offered to him bore the symbol of the ancient Indian symbol -- the swastika. It’s a little as if Christians were made to feel guilty by Americans with Central African origins for displaying a cross -- because Klansmen used the cross as a racist symbol when murdering them."

	"But Nance, how does the anti-Indian attitude in New York’s media affect what we are talking about. Which I thought was: what makes Indians Indian, and what makes them different from Europeans?"

	"I’ll get to that, but, first, I'd like to remind you, Astrid, that in the West, Christians and Jews have a symbiotic relationship -- not a particularly healthy one either, but nevertheless one of interdependence. Currently, anti- Semitism has become essential to the smooth functioning of the West's overly competitive society. Without it, neither the unsuccessful, yet overly-ambitious Christian, nor his Jewish counterpart, could accept his failure to achieve any of the unrealistic goals, that, for any number of reasons, might have been foisted on him. This arrangement has proven so successful in the West, that the Japanese, with the willing  assistance of the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, have adapted a similar one to serve their particular purposes -- and in doing so, they gave it the name Japan-bashing."

	"Ah! I see,” Astrid Hubbel interjected. “And, since you believe that anti-Semitism is a Judeo-Christian, symbiotic-type arrangement, and since it is a not an issue in India, it should not be introduced there. I am right. Yes? And, I do understand that you introduce it as an example of the materialistic, Judeo-Christian characteristics of Western culture, to contrast it to the makeup of Indian culture. Because I too think that this malignant virus of  Western culture has not yet affected the basic makeup of Indian morality, I would like you to tell me more about what you believe really affects Indian thinking.”

	"Fair enough," I said. "Amongst the most important inputs to the makeup of Indians is  their fatalistic acceptance of the concept and consequences of caste, which you brought up before. What I think is interesting, despite caste being such a major factor in Indian society, is that there’s the willingness of Indians to accept the super-egalitarian belief that all people are instilled with the very-same, all-pervasive Universal Spirit. It's this belief, that everyone is interconnected by this ineffable universal presence, now, here on earth, that makes Indians, as a whole, the caste system notwithstanding, so accepting of the ways of their fellow man -- as well as the nature of all living things. And this is what I believe to be the essential part of the Indian psyche."

	"I now see what you are doing," she said. "You introduced all this talk about anti-Semitism to compare the lack of spirituality in the present, essentially ethnicity-based, Judeo-Christian religions, with the all-pervasive spirituality that exists in the religions indigenous to India."
	"That sounds so contrived.  But, I said from scratch that my intent was to contrast the two cultures. So, along those lines, I believe that, in India, most modern-day Indians, of whatever expressed faith, still believe in the concept of an omnipresent, ethereal and intangible Universal Life Force, a belief peculiar to the Subcontinent. Since there’s nothing to be found in the religious concepts of any of India’s invaders, starting about four thousand years ago to the Aryans, and on up until the money-motivated, occupation of parts of India by the employees of absentee European overlords, I feel secure in assuming that the concept of Brahma was derived from India's earliest, pre-historic civilized inhabitants."

	"Nance, what I believe you are saying, then, is that these two things, the Aryan caste system in combination with a pre-historic Indian morality, make for both a kinship and a similar outlook on life amongst all the peoples inhabiting the Indian subcontinent. And, that may be what made them so vulnerable to the unmitigated-by-moral-values, totally- materialistic, inroads by the West."

	"I couldn’t have put it better, but it’s an oversimplification." I then added, “It's no accident that the major European and Asian industrial powers had, in the years before their ascendancy, adopted religious beliefs that lacked, despite the admonition love thy neighbor, a compassion for all humanity and for all their God's creatures. Both the Western adherents to the legalistic concepts found in the teachings of the Judeo-Christian Old Testament and Asia's Far Eastern adherents to a Mahayana Buddhism, with its concept that nirvana can be purchased by good deeds rather than by living the life of Buddha, for the most part, discarded the totally spiritual aspects of their religions. As a result, it's highly improbable that either the Buddha or Jesus, both of Whom were directly and indirectly influenced by ancient India’s morality, would recognize Their teachings in the materialism-rationalizing religions now practiced by the vast majority of those folks following any one of the various Buddhist and Judeo-Christian religions."

	"Yes, yes," Astrid Hubbel said a little despairingly. "We in the West talk of a loving God, but we need and worship a God Who strikes fear in us to make us treat one another humanely. Though I would think that the horrors committed by the Nazis would have led to a rebirth of Christian virtue in the West, it now appears that we Germans were guilty of administering the final blow to the last remnants of Western spirituality -- which has been replaced by a materialistic, ethnicity-based Christianity. You have said that the followers of the Judeo-Christian religions play lawyer with the laws of the Egyptian, Moses, and his God, and I now agree. They do so because it is now impossible for us to believe in the Buddhistic spirituality that had been such an essential part of early Christianity."

	"I’m beginning to feel a little guilty. Here I am a dedicated Atheist convincing you of the value of a belief in a moral God. But, you see, truly-civilized people have no need of laws or, for that matter, of a God -- let alone One to be feared. And, during Christianity’s early existence, its followers needed no laws -- they believed. The God of the early Buddhist-influenced Judeo-Christians was a God to be loved -- and, as a rule, one doesn’t fear the object of one’s love.

	“Laws were originally made to coerce barbarians to treat each other in a civilized manner -- which, no doubt was why the Ten Commandments were formulated. Both the West and the Near East inherited the belief in a God Whose laws were said to be channeled through the fictional, Egyptian prophet, Moses. For laws writ in stone, there seems to be some confounding confusion amongst their adherents as to the wording and order, no doubt the result of the stone tablets on which His words were said to have been inscribed, being smashed to smithereens by its recorder and sole auditor. Suffice it to say that all believers in the Book claim to adhere to the belief in His Commandments; and that, for the most part, they pertain, directly and indirectly to the rights of property, that of their God's, as well as of their own. 

	“Notwithstanding His admonishment: Thou shalt not kill, that Commandment was made meaningless by His intermediaries’ having made so many exceptions to it, almost always to allow for the armed appropriations of property and wealth, all of which routinely secured the blessings of His earthbound agents  even as they went about killing off untold millions of folk whom He had made in His image. That colonies were acquired and maintained by deliberately starving, infecting with deadly diseases, and murdering the earlier inhabitants, while enslaving additional hundreds of millions who survived their greed-motivated forays into their: Love-thy-neighbor's lands, miraculously, didn’t cause them to be deprived of their One-and-Only God’s blessings. 

	"And, what's really interesting, is that Hinduism, on the loftiest level, has no God, and is essentially Atheistic. Yet, Hinduism is not only more spiritual but is also far more moral  than those religions with their Judeo-Christian God hanging around in Heaven with whom they play lawyer.” 

EPILOGUE

The Panchatantra is the oldest collection of fables extant, and is the original source of the animal fables later popularized by Aesop and La Fontaine. Their origins in India date back to at least the middle of the second millennium B.C. -- however, it was not until 200 B.C., that they were written down in India in a Sanskrit-related language, and many variations of those tales now exist there. 

Having been afflicted as a youth with numerous attacks of bronchitis and, since that was during the Great Depression -- a pre-antibiotic, pre-TV era of middle-class poverty, I was often bed bound with nothing to do. It was then, but only on rare occasions,  and as a special treat, that I was told  one or another morality tale from the Panchatantra.

Had the planners and plotters of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh been more interested in absorbing the wisdom passed down by India’s wise men, instead of attempting to destroy their accomplishments and enslave the Subcontinent’s modern-day inheritors of that culture, they would have refrained from the error of the Raja who befriended a monkey, which they committed by entrusting the carrying out of their nefarious project to the likes of the mentally-unbalanced General Dyer. Moreover, in retrospect, it’s impossible to believe that any but deranged men could have been party, in any manner or means, to such a diabolic scheme -- one that entailed the potential mass murder of untold unarmed civilians -- all as a means of maintaining England’s stranglehold over India and her economy.

The Panchatantra

Better To Have an Intelligent Foe Than a Stupid Friend

Once upon a time there lived a wealthy raja who had a magnificent castle situated in the midst of a boundless expanse of lush greenery. As was his wont, he would stroll through this garden with its vast assortment of tame and friendly animals roaming freely throughout the grounds. Songbirds sang and peacocks strutted about, proudly displaying their glorious plumage, only to be overshadowed by the luxuriant colors bursting forth from a limitless array of flowers in full bloom.

One day, in the course of his peregrinations, he came across a handsome monkey. He was quite tall and stood erect. The monkey appeared bright, and seemed to understand every word the raja uttered. The raja, taking a liking for him, allowed the monkey to accompany him wherever he went.

Eventually, he decided to show his faith in the monkey by entrusting him to act as his bodyguard. He thereupon outfitted the monkey in the most luxurious manner: he was clothed in the finest of silks; his turban was encrusted with jewels; his cummerbund was woven of strands of silver, and he carried a sword with a hilt of solid gold. The monkey loved the raja for having befriended him and for having given him such an imposing outfit. The monkey followed the raja wherever he went -- always trying to find ways to show his gratitude for the kindness bestowed upon him by his lord and master. 

As was the raja’s wont, when out for his afternoon stroll, he would rest and take a nap in his garden under its great, widespread banyan tree; and the monkey would then dutifully stand guard over the raja. As luck would have it, one day, as the Raja was sleeping, a bee alit on the raja’s neck. And, lo and behold, the monkey unsheathed his sword and sliced the bee in two. So, while the monkey’s quick action allowed the raja to escape the annoyance of the bee’s presence and the possibility of his being stung, the raja was beheaded.

*

The tale of the Potential Enemy

Four merchants dealing in precious gems were traveling in the foothills of the Himalayas when they were accosted by a well-groomed gentleman who requested they allow him to accompany them; he claimed to be on a pilgrimage to the source of the Ganges, and thought it would be safer for him if he were to accompany them through the bandit-infested section of the road that lie just ahead. The merchants were not keen on having him along; they, with good cause, feared he might be a brigand. Nevertheless, being seasoned travelers, they believed, should their fears prove founded, by keeping an eye on him they could thwart any attempt he might make to steal their jewels. . 

That evening the merchants sat around discussing the means of protecting their possessions. They took into consideration that the stranger might turn out to be a thief, as well as the fact that the following day’s journey would take them through that portion of the foothills known to harbor bandits. Accordingly, they decided to swallow the gems. However, unbeknownst to the merchants, the stranger, whom they had thought was fast asleep, had, with eyes closed and snoring loudly, listened to their plans. 

The next day, as they wended their way through the most dangerous section of the road, they were accosted by a large band of robbers. The bandits had a mynah bird who was known to always speak the truth, and it told the leader that the merchants possessed jewels. Finding nothing of special value after they completed a thorough search of the merchants’ belongings, the bandits prepared to leave, and allow the merchants to continue their journey. However, when the mynah bird repeated his claim, the bandits did a far more thorough search, stripping them in the process. And again they found nothing, but the bird persisted in telling them of the merchants’ having jewels in their possession. This time the bandits decided they must kill the merchants and cut them open, for the bird had always spoken the truth, and therefore, the merchants must have swallowed the jewels.

The stranger, who may or may not have been a thief, but who had claimed to be a pilgrim, realized that in event the bandits found jewels in the stomachs of any one of the merchants, which he knew they would, then they would, assuming he too had swallowed his jewels, most assuredly also kill him.  

Thereupon he pondered the situation; obviously both the merchants and he would die once jewels were found in one of their stomachs. What to do? The merchants had been very kind to him, and since he realized he would die in any event he decided to ask the bandits to kill him first. The bandits did as he requested, and finding nothing let the merchants go. But still the all-knowing mynah bird persisted -- and so, for the bird’s ability to know and speak the truth, the bandits, believing it had caused them to kill a man for no apparent reason, slew the innocent-of-any- wrong-doing mynah bird. 

And so the moral voiced in the Panchatantra was: better to have an intelligent [potential or not] foe, than a foolish friend. However, one might add another moral, one which the ancient authors of the Panchatantra had chosen to ignore, and that’s that by telling the truth as honestly as one believes it to be -- is a dangerous and thankless endeavor. 

FINIS

ADDENDA

Censorship:  Sentencing of Indians in British East Africa -- May to June 1915
abstracted from: Home Poll Deposit June 5, 1916

Bishendas R Sharma -- Mombasa -- Imprisonment with hard labor for 14 years
	Charges:: Having in his possession publications containing seditious articles.

Ibrahim -- Kampala -- Two years rigorous imprisonment -- Charges: Sending letter ... 	calculated to promote ... bad feelings against government. Spreading ... alarmists 	reports calculated to cause despondency amongst H.M.’s Indian subjects... 

Bahashankar Karsenji Bhatt -- Mombasa -- seven years rigorous imprisonment -- Charge: 	having in his possession publications containing seditious articles likely to promote 	disaffection or bad feelings.

Khimji Hira -- Mombasa -- 6 months rigorous imprisonment -- Charge: same as above.

Savale ... -- Mombasa -- to suffer death by hanging ... -- Charge: circulating or having in 	his possession seditious publications.

Uma Shankar Ghellabhai -- Mombasa -- 1 Year rigorius imprisonment -- Charge: having 	in his possession a compilation or publications containing seditious articles or