Lord Narasimha – A treasure trove of martial concepts

May 16, 2025 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, Corporate culture, hinduism, India, India CurrentAffairs, Indian Culture, Indian History, Martial Arts, religion, spirituality, training, travel, Work cultureLeave a comment

Narasimha Jayanthi was on the 11^th of May this year (2025). Lord Narasimha was the 4^th of the Dashāvatāra (dasha – 10, avatāra – incarnation). Lord Narasimha is a representation of incredible martial prowess. It is this prowess that I delve into in this article, to identify how his abilities are still practiced in real world martial arts, which in turn almost always have real life applications beyond the dojo.

A depiction of Lord Narasimha from the 6th century CE, Badami, Karnataka, India

Lord Narasimha came to be, to specifically counter one Asura, Hiranyakashipu. Hiranyakashipu had a vara (boon) from Lord Brahma which made him impossible to kill and thus functionally immortal. Hiranyakashipu’s boon conferred the following protections on him.

He could not be killed by a human or a beast
He could not be killed during the day or during the night
He could not be killed indoors or outdoors

I am now going to extrapolate a bit. I presume that Hiranyakashipu could not be killed by any weapon wielded by or controlled by a human. Otherwise, arrows would have been able to kill him in an age before gunpowder, an age when there existed “celestial weapons”, or astras of various kinds which could wreak unimaginable damage. Further, we will have to overlook the notion that humans are also beasts, just a different species. I have no idea if the boon took into consideration some specific definition for “human”.

I also presume that he was invulnerable to diseases that were cause by any biological vector, for they would constitute beasts. Considering the protection from the first point, the subsequent 2 points seem like an add-on package in case someone found a loophole in the first one. And as was the case, that is exactly what happened.

Beyond the boon itself, Hiranyakashipu was an incredible warrior, on par with the Devas. He wanted to be on par with Lord Vishnu before going out and conquering the world! This was the motivation for his gaining the boons. Further, he forced people in the lands he conquered to worship him instead of Vishnu. When I say worship, I mean in offerings at pooja, yajna and homa that are performed. There is a lot more nuance to every aspect of this story, which I cannot go into in this article*. I strongly recommend that everyone read the story in detail. Not only is it incredibly entertaining, but it is also full of conundrums and ways of overcoming the same. The connections to various happenings around the world is simply fantastic.

A common depiction of Lord Narasimha and his slaying of Hiranyakashipu in modern times. Image credit – “Prahlad”, published by Amar Chitra Katha

In the end, Vishnu incarnates as Lord Narasimha to destroy Hiranyakashipu. He bursts forth from a large pillar and fights Hiranyakashipu, eventually slaying him. There is a great fight between Hiranyakashipu and Narasimha, at the end of which Hiranyakashipu is disembowelled on the threshold. The end occurs by circumventing each aspect of the boon protecting Hiranyakashipu. These are as mentioned below.

Narasimha was neither man nor animal, but both. Hence Hiranyakashipu’s boon did not protect him from Narasimha. Nara means “man” and Simha means “lion”, literally “Man-Lion”.
Narasimha fought and killed Hiranyakashipu at twilight, which is neither day not night.
Narasimha killed Hiranyakashipu on the threshold, which is neither inside nor outside. I do not know if the threshold was that of his throne room or that of his palace.

From all the iconography I have seen of Lord Narasimha, he used no weapons other than his claws while fighting the mighty Hiranyakashipu. The same were used to disembowel and kill the Asura king. This same pattern is seen even in modern days comics depicting the story of the Narasimha avatāra. At the same time, Hiranyakashipu is depicted as using a sword or mace (gada), sometimes a sword along with a shield. I must add, I guess that the claws of Lord Narasimha were exempt from being classified as a weapon as Narasimha was neither man nor beast.

Lord Narasimha fighting Hiranyakashipu who wields a mace and a sword. Image credit – “Dasha Avatar”, published by Amar Chitra Katha

I will now extrapolate again. Based on the way the fight between Lord Narasimha and Hiranyakashipu is depicted, I think of this as a fight between a great warrior who was wielding weapons and another warrior, who was fighting unarmed. Of course, the fact that Lord Narasimha is a God evens out the odds of going up unarmed against an armed warrior. And the fact that a God had to fight at all and needed weapons (!) shows the martial prowess of Hiranyakashipu.

Now that the details of the fight are clear, let me look at the aspects of the same which, while fantastic, can highlight aspects of real-world martial arts and conflict management.

I will start with the simplest and most obvious one. The use of claws. In the Bujinkan system of martials, among the historical weapons we learn of, there are two interesting ones, which are worn on the fingertips. One is called the “Nekote” and another is the “Kanite”. Nekote means “cat claws” and Kanite means “crab claws”. Visually, to me at least, the two seem very similar.

Both the Kanite and the Nekote are pointed metal tips worn on the fingertips, much like thimbles. The points on these can be used to cause damage to the opponent with a shallow stab or rakes across the body. An image is seen below of the Kanite. These are reminiscent of the claws used by Lord Narasimha to kill Hiranyakashipu.

Kanite (crab claws/finger). Image credit – “Unarmed Fighting Techniques of the Samurai”, by Sensei Hatsumi Masaaki.

Even without the metal attachments, practitioners learn to use the tips of the fingers as weapons. There is a way of striking called “shako ken”. The fingers are used as claws to rake an opponent. Obviously, this is not meant for use against armour or any protected surfaces. It can be used to hook and pull the apparel of opponents. This strike is very similar to using the weapon called the “shuko”. The “shuko” in turn is very similar to a historical Indian weapon called the “bagh nakh”. I had written in greater detail about the bagh nakh and the shuko in a previous post, where I had discussed the martial prowess of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. A link to that article is seen below⁺.

Another way of striking with the fingertips is with the “Go Shitan Ken”. “Shitan Ken” is to strike with the fingers. “Go” refers to the number 5. So, “Go Shitan Ken” means “five finger strike”, in other words, to strike with the fingertips. This strike involves stabbing at the face or any other part of the opponent with the fingertips. It is not necessarily a strike or stab; it could be a push as well. To increase the force of impact of this strike, the five fingertips could be held together (like while eating). An image of each variant of Go Shitan Ken is seen below.

Two ways of using the fingers to strike (shitan ken). The fingers can be kept apart or held together for the strike.

Considering we are discussing claws here, there is a category of weapons one is taught about in the Bujinkan, called “Shizen Ken”. This refers to “natural weapons”. This in turn refers to weapons one is born with. Shizen Ken includes nails, teeth and even spit, that can be used to cause pain or discomfort to opponents with pinches, rakes, bites and just old-fashioned disgust**. 😛 The claws used by Narasimha would be called a “Shizen Ken”. But if a God that is neither man nor animal uses claws, would that then be a “natural” weapon? I am not sure. 😊

A closeup of Lord Narasimha’s claws. Image on the left is from Pattadakal, Karnataka. Image on the right is from Badami, Karnataka. The depictions are from the 6th and 7th centuries CE respectively.

Form around 2015 to 2020, Hatsumi Sensei, the Soke (inheritor/grandmaster) of the Bujinkan, focused a lot on the concept of “Muto Dori”. We learnt from our teachers, mentors and seniors that this was a very important concept, that included not just physical aspects but also ones relating to the attitude and a spirit of calmness, self-control and of course, breathing. “Muto Dori” in its simplistic form can be translated as “capturing without a weapon”. It means that an unarmed individual can take on and perhaps defeat an opponent wielding weapons, and not just survive.

Needless to say, it is extremely difficult and needs a lot training to achieve this successfully even in the dojo, let alone a real fight. The chances of survival and success diminish considerably if there is more than one opponent with weapons. But the training of this concept is very beneficial in terms of learning one’s weaknesses, achieving a modicum of self-control and in fine tuning one’s extant abilities. Hence, the practice of this concept lasts a lifetime, if not just during one’s time as a budoka.

If we think back to the fight between Lord Narasimha and Hiranyakashipu, Narasimha was demonstrating Muto Dori all through. Hiranyakashipu was a warrior of great prowess and wielded weapons against him. Despite this, Narasimha successfully disarmed and defeated him. Narasimha would have had one goal all through the fight. Hiranyakashipu had to be either manoeuvred towards the threshold, or he had to be moved to the threshold. This means Muto Dori with an objective! Anyone who has ever gone up against an opponent with a weapon while being unarmed would realize how mind boggling an achievement this is!

I am not going into details of how muto dori is practiced because it has to be experienced. No volume of words or even videos will transmit what it entails. So, suffice it to say that as a martial artist, Lord Narasimha’s abilities, for his demonstration of Muto Dori, should be the epitome one can aspire towards.

The above 2 images, the one on the right is a close up of the one on the left, are my favourites. This is a depiction of Narasimha actually fighting Hiranyakashipu in a doorway, with the threshold below them. This image actually shows a fight! Narasimha has locked both arms of Hiranyakashipu, rendering his ability use the sword and shield useless! And he is tackling the legs of the Asura king with his own! This is such a wonderful snapshot of fight in progress! This absolutely is a depiction of MUTO DORI! The image is from Pattadakal, Karnataka, from the 7th century CE.

Now I will look at some martial concepts that relate to conflict management as a whole, which also become apparent from the story of the Narasimha avatāra.

We have all been taught that to make any argument or a counter to any proposal or point raised against oneself or a team, we need to have all the necessary data. Making a point or a counter to one, without necessary and relevant information is almost foolhardy. This is something all of us are taught and practice regularly at work and in various aspects of life.

This same concept is stated in the Bujinkan, mellifluously I must add, as “Tsuki and Suki”. This is something I have heard mentioned a few times during training. Tsuki is a punch or a stab, a thrust in essence. Suki is a hole, more like an opening in armour or a gap in the same. It is a point when a thrust can be applied to cause harm to the opponent. So, one needs to “tsuki” a “suki”. One should attack an opening.

To attack an opening, one first needs to find an opening. To find an opening, one needs to know the opponent and how she or he is moving. Knowing the opponent includes the armour, weapons and objectives of the same. All of this adds up to “having all the necessary information”***. Simply put, having information is a precursor to “identifying the suki to tsuki”. The tsuki itself is the equivalent of counter a point in an argument. In a fight, an attack is a point raised, which is “countered” by a tsuki, which is a counter argument, and all of this is facilitated by information.

This flow of events in the various avatāras of Lord Vishnu is as follows. A great Asura acquires a vara (boon) from Lord Brahma. This boon ensures the invincibility of the Asura as he or she cannot be killed, though he or she is not immortal. This invincibility causes havoc in the world and the Devas, who are the guardians of the world, to lose power and go into hiding. The Devas and people of the world after failing to protect themselves despite all efforts, beseech Lord Vishnu for succour. Lord Vishnu incarnates in an avatāra to end the terror of the Asura and restore balance.

In the flow of events mentioned above, for any avatāra, I suggest that information is key! Lord Vishnu, when he appears as an avatāra, tailors the specific incarnation to circumvent all aspects of the boon the Asura possesses. In other words, the Asura creates the avatāra. Every aspect of the boon is understood, the loopholes are identified and exploited by the avatāra. This is the same as “tsuki to suki”. An opening is identified in the armour provided by the boon and a tsuki is applied to this suki. The avatāra is a tsuki and the loophole in the boon is the suki!

Hiranyakashipu realizes that the chink (suki) in his boon has been identified and is being used to attack (tsuki) him. Image credit – “Prahlad”, published by Amar Chitra Katha.

All this does make one wonder, when the boon is granted, what is the confidentiality around it? Does the Asura announce to the world that he has acquired a set of powers due to the boon? Or is this gradually identified as people lose fights against the Asura? Does Brahma reveal details of the boon he has granted to the Asura, to the Devas who then report it to Lord Vishnu to device a counter? Or does Lord Brahma communicate the details to Lord Vishnu directly? Or does Brahma, who granted the boon, already know the loopholes which he reports to Lord Vishnu? If the answer to these is a “No”, does the duration of an avatāra depend on how long it takes to identify the loopholes? Or is there time taken to identify the “suki” in a boon before an avatāra incarnates? I do not have answers to any of these. Perhaps these are stupid thoughts. We are talking of Gods after all, and time does not have the same meaning in such circumstances, and I could be rambling. 😛

But these questions do lead to an appreciation of the Asuras and how they craft the boon they settle upon. I will explore this through a few examples. Many Asuras asked Brahma to grant them immortality. Lord Brahma could not grant that boon as all that was created had to end. So, the Asuras asked for boons that made them near immortal and definitely invincible, at least for long durations.

The Asura Tāraka asked that he be invincible and killed only by a son of Lord Shiva. This was a really smart move as Lord Shiva was a yogi and in deep meditation and unlikely to ever have children. Also, he was in deep mourning after the loss of Devi Sati. Tārakāsura was eventually killed by Lord Kartikeya, the son Lord Shiva and Devi Pārvati (a reincarnation of Sati).
The Asura Mahisha asked that he be unkillable by any male, as he was certain that no woman could best him. Devi Durga ended up killing him.
Rāvana asked that he be unkillable by most creations of Brahma. But he did not include humans in the list of beings he would not be killed by, as he assumed that humans would never be capable of defeating him. Lord Vishnu incarnated on Earth as Lord Rama, a human, to defeat Rāvana. What is interesting is that Rāvana was defeated by the Vānara king Vāli (Bāli) and the human king Kartaveerya Arjuna, but neither of them killed him.
Mahishi, the wife of Mashishāsura asked that she be vulnerable only to a son of Lords Vishnu and Shiva, both male Gods! Eventually, Lord Ayyappa killed Mahishi. Lord Ayyappa was the son of Devi Mohini (the female form of Lord Vishnu) and Lord Shiva.

There are more examples, but the ones mentioned above adequately illustrate the points I am going to make. Asuras were incredible, despite going against Dharma and attempting to upend the natural order of the universe, which would result is the suffering of vast numbers of beings. In all the examples above, the Asuras clearly had a great deal of intelligence. Their awareness of how the world existed at a given time, informed how they crafted their requests for boons.

The consequence of all these boons was that the Devas routinely lost power and the ability to perform their duties as the guardians of the 8 directions and natural phenomena (natural order). The Asuras lorded over the Earth during the time when an avatāra was yet to arrive to reestablish the natural order. Beyond the ability for great information gathering, the Asuras had great presence of mind in wording the request for a boon. The boon is no different from an inviolable contract in modern day parlance. So, their awareness of the strength of language was incontestable. All these observations together indicate that the Asuras were warriors of both physical and intellectual prowess.

Beyond all the above points, the Asuras were rewarded for another aspect. The path to achieving a boon from Lord Brahma was a torturous one. A very long time had to be spent in meditating on Brahma, in unimaginable conditions with all earthly needs overcome. This perseverance deemed one worthy of a boon. Hence, the effort ensured that the boon was inviolable and necessitated the presence of a God on earth to overcome.

The meditation of Hiranyakashipu was brutal on his body. It resulted in him almost dying and plants and anthills growing over him. Image credit – “Prahad”, published by Amar Chitra Katha.

In my opinion all of this seems like what in modern day parlance is termed “Lawfare”. It could also be called “the process is the punishment”. “Lawfare” refers to “warfare through laws”, where the actions of specific peoples are either limited or given free rein through laws of a land. “Process is punishment” is when a person is highly unlikely to be convicted of any wrongdoing under given laws, but needs to work through the due process to get oneself acquitted nevertheless. A lot of resources and time is lost in this process, which has a massive opportunity cost. This cost is the punishment, not the actual one that the law might prescribe, as a conviction is almost certainly not on the cards.

These concepts were used by the Asuras and the avatāras both, with success on both sides. The process of proving oneself as being worthy of a boon ensured that most creatures, including Asuras, Devas, humans, Vānaras and other entities, would NEVER prove themselves eligible. The process was simply too hard to complete and the punishment too much to bear!

I called the boon an inviolable contract earlier. This was despite it bending natural rules and leading to the natural order being threatened. So, it was like a law that no one could violate. The Devas, despite having consumed Amrita, were incapable of overcoming the powers bestowed by the Vara. Even Lords Vishnu and Shiva, despite being the ultimate power in the Universe, were not allowed violate the restrictions of the boon, even if they could. This is why Lord Vishnu, as preserver of the natural order, had to incarnate with specific abilities to nullify the abilities bestowed by a boon. This is undoubtedly “lawfare”, where a law is created by a boon to benefit specific individuals or groups of individuals. Eventually, the law is NOT violated and yet the beneficiary of it is destroyed by identifying the loopholes in the law!

Mashishi asking for a boon, and thus indulging in “Lawfare”. Image credit – “Ayyappa”, published by Amar Chitra Katha.

If one considers the contemporary Indian context, the abrogation of Article 370, the amendment to the Waqf Act and not repealing the laws that curtail the financial freedom of temples are considered “lawfare” by people of different political leanings. There is one interesting aspect about laws in relation to this post which I have added in the notes, simply because it tangential and redundant to the idea already explained. I do recommend that people read it⁺⁺.

That brings me to the end of this article. The Narasimha avatāra should, beyond the traditional significance and symbolism, open our eyes to knowledge that is not commonly known. This avatāra sheds light on the traditional martial arts and modern conflict management. And if one is not a practitioner of the martial arts, the story of the avatāra can open one to the idea that it is not a fantasy of old, the aspects holding it together are very real. Similarly, the story should hopefully reveal that conflict management is not magic and has no “silver bullet”. Intelligence, effort, time and perseverance are always required.

Notes:

* The last sukta (hymn) of the Rig Veda, as far as I know is called the Aikamatya sukta. Aikamatya roughly translates to “common opinion”. It could also mean, according to the little that I have read, “unity”. But this is not unity through homogenization. It is more like accepting all opinions and coming together. It is something like the modern Indian refrain, “Unity in Diversity”.

This sukta invites everyone to come together around the sacred fire and also states that all the Gods (essentially Gods of everyone) will be given offerings through the fire. I have heard two wonderful interpretations of this sukta. One by Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal, who is the Principal Economic Advisor to the Govt. of India and also a historian and author. Another is by Mr. Abhijit Iyer Mitra, who is a strategic affairs analyst, a Senior Fellow at the IPCS. Both are very well known in Indian media (both traditional media and social media).

Abhijit Iyer Mitra says that this sukta I am referring to is akin to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30 years war in Europe. The treaty of Westphalia allowed citizens to follow any form of Christianity that they chose. It also ensured that the state or ruler cannot mandate the religion to be followed by its citizens. It separated religion and state. It also made all forms of Christianity equal as one could not persecute the other. This is pretty much what the Aikamatya sukta states, that all Gods will be accepted and prayed to and people will come together. The sukta of course, is a few thousand years older than the treaty.

Sanjeev Sanyal expands on this idea by showing what happens if this “agreement” made through the sukta is violated. He uses the stories of King Daksha and Hiranyakashipu (referred to in this article) to explain the same. King Daksha conducted a yajna where all Gods were invited to receive offerings, except Lord Shiva. Daksha’s daughter Devi Sati was married to Lord Shiva and Daksha was against the union. In opposition to her father’s decision, Sati disrupted the yajna by immolating herself in the sacred fire. This angered Lord Shiva and King Daksha was slain.

Hiranyakashipu forced people to abandon their worship of Lord Vishnu. He further demanded that people worship him in Vishnu’s stead. This is the same as King Daksha’s actions. Both Daksha and Hiranyakashipu violated the agreement of the sukta that all Gods would be worshipped. This violation resulted in their being punished. It is like there being a consequence for violating the treaty that mandates freedom of worship and equal respect to all Gods. This is the notion that Sanjeev Sanyal has put forth. I am not aware if others have also suggested the same.

⁺ https://mundanebudo.com/2025/02/19/chattrapati-shivaji-maharaj-the-bagh-nakh-and-the-shuko/

** In Hindu culture there are “Navarasas”. Nava is nine and Rasas are emotions. One of these is “beebhatsa”. This is “disgust”. It is one of the nine emotions that can be evoked in an audience by any performance. The manner in which Hiranyakashipu is killed, by disembowelment, evokes a sense of disgust, or beebhatsa in the person experiencing the story. This same emotion is evoked by the manner in which Bhima kills Duhshāsana, in the Kurukshetra War in the Mahabharata.

*** In a martial arts context, “knowing the opponent” and “gathering information about the opponent” happens in the flow of the fight. It is not necessarily an activity that happens in a separate time from the fight. One needs to identify aspects of the opponent as the fight is happening. This seems esoteric, but anyone who has done any sparring knows that this happens all the time during training.

One needs to know oneself – one’s own abilities, weaknesses and objectives. And also, all these details about the opponent. In Hindu culture, knowing oneself is called “Swayambodha” and knowing the opponent or enemy is called “Shatrubodha”. I had written an article about these 2 concepts in a previous article, the link to which is seen below.

Connect, Control – Part 1; “Connect, Control = Shatrubodha in flow”

⁺⁺ The guru of the Asuras, Maharishi Shukrācharya created the “Sanjeevini Vidya” by meditating on Lord Shiva. The Sanjeevini Vidya allowed him to bring back to life Asuras who were slain in battle. And they came back as they were before death, not like zombies from modern day pop culture. This was an effective counter to the Amrita that the Devas had in their possession. Amrita conferred immortality on the Devas, (for the duration of a Manvantara, if I am not wrong).

I presume that Hiranyakashipu and other Asuras who asked Brahma for the boon of immortality did so before the Sanjeevini Vidya was created. If not, there would be no need for such a boon. (And if it was later, would the boon hold if they were brought back after death? I have no idea). Anyway, the Asuras used Brahma’s boons to counter the Devas who had Amrita.

Eventually of course, the Devas gained the ability of Sanjeevini Vidya through subterfuge and a honey trap operation. Why they needed it though, I have no idea, as they already had access to Amrita. Was it to find a counter to the Vidya? Again, I have no idea. In my opinion, this conflict between the Devas and Asuras ended when Bali Chakravarthy was confirmed as the next Indra after the Vāmana avatāra. That’s another treaty by itself, something I have written about in other articles of mine, the links to which I am sharing below. All of these events can be considered technological warfare and “lawfare”.

https://mundanebudo.com/2023/11/24/dashavatara-budo-part-1-issho-khemi/

https://mundanebudo.com/2023/12/07/dashavatara-budo-part-2-katsujiken-satsujiken/

“Fortress India” and the essence of “Totoku Hysohi no Kamae”

April 29, 2025April 29, 2025 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, India CurrentAffairs, Martial Arts, trainingLeave a comment

The murder of Hindu tourists in Kashmir earlier this week has severely affected all of us Indians. We are all coping with it in our own ways. Since I have a domain and blog, I am using them to deal with the sadness, anger and other feelings. Perhaps some of the ideas shared here might resonate with others, though that is neither necessary nor the objective of this post.

The most important thing that any practitioner of the martial arts learns is protection of the self. One can choose to use the word “defence” instead of “protection”. This is true whether one is practicing an art form that involves weapons or an unarmed fighting style. When I refer to weapons, I mean both weapons of offence and defence. Examples of weapons of defence include body armour and shields.

The emphasis on protection or defence is revealed by a very important aspect. I will use the Bujinkan system of martial arts to explain this because that is the art form I am familiar with. We are taught that even weapons of offence are first and foremost, SHIELDS. Whether one is using a sword or a spear or a staff, all weapons of offence, we are reminded that these weapons are to be used a SHIELDS before their ability to cause harm to an opponent is utilized.

When one is using a staff, or bo, the basics taught include ukemi with the staff. Ukemi refers to receiving an attack, in other words, how to protect oneself with a bo in response to an attack. This same is true while using a spear. One learns how to receive an attack and hopefully redirect it away from oneself. While using a sword, one learns how to use the strong part of the blade and the tsuba, or the disc guard on a katana to stop an attack and the middle part of a blade to control or redirect an attack – the principle is similar to how a staff or spear is expected to be used.

I must add, I am referring to traditional martial arts here, specifically to the use of shastra*, as we call weapons that are not discharged, in India. This means that the attacks I am referring to could come from swords, axes, staffs, spears and other polearms. To protect oneself, and use one’s own offensive weapons like swords or spears as shields, all one has to do is put the weapons between oneself and the weapon(s) wielded by the opponent(s).

The importance of using even weapons of offence as protection is demonstrated by the concept having a posture named after it! There is a kamae called “Totoku Hyoshi no Kamae” in the Bujinkan. A kamae can mean “posture” or “attitude” (posture of the mind/spirit). “Totoku Hyoshi no Kamae” can be translated as “hiding behind the sword”. The reference to the sword is because we learnt this kamae while training the sword. But this kamae could refer to any weapon, when it could be called “hiding behind the weapon”. Simply put, this means using the weapon as a shield, by putting it between the wielder and the opponent (or opponent’s attacking weapon).

One of the senior most sensei of the Bujinkan system and soke of the Shinden Fudo Ryu is Nagato Sensei. I distinctly remember him saying, one should “Leave no opening” while facing an opponent. His statement was made with respect to how one should move in response to an attack by an opponent. He meant that when one responds, he or she should ensure that there is no opening left for the opponent to exploit. Until this is achieved, there is little sense in attempting a counter attack. Of course, this is incredibly hard to achieve and requires years of incessant training.

Another learning from Sensei’s statement is that one should keep moving in response to an attack until there are no openings left for an opponent to attack after the initial one. It need not mean that one moves or responds to the very first attack in a manner that denies any further openings. That could be a happy outcome, but not to be expected, much less depended on.

This brings us to the use of armour. One can “use any weapon as a shield” and move to “leave no opening”. The two together mean that one should move in response to an attack while using one’s own weapon as a shield. This movement will ensure that the shield is in the right place to protect its wielder. Like I said earlier, this is difficult to achieve without a lot of training and practice. Lack of training can be mitigated with the use of armour.

In any fight the conditions are always unpredictable and many a time, unknowable. In such a case, body armour is important. When the individual cannot move as required or utilize a weapon as protection, the armour takes the attack and protects its wearer. Further, armour also increases the opportunities to use a weapon of offence as it was intended, to harm the opponent.

While an armour protects the one wearing it, training is also needed to maximize the protection afforded by armour. No armour is without its openings and chinks. The openings are usually at the joints, the back of the leg and the arm pits. These openings are necessary to enable movement in armour. These openings will be targeted by opponents and practice is needed to keep these attacks at bay.

The above image shows openings in Plate Armour. Image credit – Wikipedia.

Historically, armour and weapons have evolved in response to each other. I will take the example of western armour to elucidate this. In the early Middle Ages chain-mail was worn over gambesons as armour. Later coats of plates were worn over the mail and gambeson combination. Eventually, a full plate harness came about. The full plate armour meant that the person wearing it was pretty much impervious to any weapon on the medieval battlefield. But this armour had openings as well, in the places I referred to earlier. To better protect the arm pits, chain mail was used under the plate. The elbow and knee joints eventually had articulated plates to enable movement while affording protection. The back of the legs were always vulnerable, but eventually plates were added there as well.

But weapons evolved to challenge armour. The estoc evolved from the regular sword, as a stiffer pointer version of the same. This allowed half-swording as men-at-arms and knights grappled to stab through the joints of plate armour. Daggers with reinforced points appeared to enable the same. And poleaxes evolved to combine hammers, axes and spears. The poleaxe could bludgeon opponents in armour to cause blunt force trauma and concussion like injuries. The spear point of this weapon could stab into joints and eye slits in the helmets that accompanied plate armour.

The head of a Poleaxe

When all the previous points are considered together, the following points should be clear.

Protection or defence is of paramount importance.
Every armour has its openings that can be exploited.
One needs to train to move to protect the openings.
Even weapons of offence are first and foremost a shield for protection.
A counter attack can only come when protection is achieved and there are no openings left for exploitation.

With the above points in mind, let me look at the situation we Indians and the Indian Government are in, post the terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Kashmir. Before I start, I must mention that I am not an expert in geopolitics or geo-strategy. I am not a defence expert or an ex-soldier. Nor am greatly aware of how international relations and diplomats work. I am just a layman, with experience in martial arts, the knowledge of which drives some of my thinking. I am as sad and angry as most of my fellow Indians and its diaspora. This post, specifically what comes next, could be considered my rant, or a means of venting; either way, it is me trying to make sense of what is going on and what could come next. When I say what comes next, I do not mean a response by India to the terrorism it has been subjected to, I mean how we Indians share opinions and react to what the administration does, or has done.

There are many people who are wondering why there was no security in the Baisaran valley in Pahalgam where 26 Hindu tourists were murdered by terrorists. That is a fair question and the government has admitted there was a lapse. Over the last 6 years tourist numbers in Kashmir were continuously on the rise and violence was on a steep decline. Hence it was assumed that normalcy was pretty much back and tourists would not be targeted as that affects the local economy. One aspect of normalcy is that overt security presence is minimized. All of this seems to have been a temporary truth and hopefully normalcy will indeed return in the near future, perhaps with overt security presence. Either way, the lack of security leads to a point that has been raised even when violence was on the wane in Kashmir and in the naxal belt. I have heard this point referred to by some as “Fortress India”.

I have heard the term “Fortress India” mean two things. First is to ensure that India’s territorial integrity is inviolable. The second is to ensure that the life of every Indian is protected within the country. The second is usually in reference to protection from terrorist violence. In my opinion, this concept of Fortress India is the same as “Totoku Hyoshi no Kamae”. It means that protection is paramount. “Fortress India” refers to the country as a whole, while “Totoku Hyoshi no Kamae” refers more to the protection of an individual. Protection of the nation includes protection of its critical assets and infrastructure apart from the people and includes protection from cyber warfare and any 5^th generation warfare attempts.

Once protection or defence of a nation is paramount, weapons invariably come into the picture. And like mentioned earlier, every weapon is first and foremost a shield. To demonstrate this, the first example would be the nuclear weapons possessed by some 10 countries in the world. The nuclear option has always been a deterrent, in other words a shield. Countries possess nuclear weapons to prevent other countries from causing damage beyond a “threshold” (however they define it). No one would ever dare to use one, at least as of now.

This concept of “protection” extends in a slightly different manner to modern day “stand-off” weapons. These include missiles launched from various platforms, but mostly aircraft. These can be launched from a distance far enough away to prevent the aircraft from being targeted by the air defence platforms of enemy nations. So, the range of the missile, or glide bomb, is the defence to the platform, while still being able to deploy the offensive (destructive) capability of the missile. This is the same as moving to a position to safely parry an attack from the opponent and carrying out the counter when “there is no opening” exposed to exploitation. In the case of the aircraft, the distance from the anti-aircraft weaponry is the “safe position” when there “is no opening” to attack for the air defence systems.

A shield for the nation, easy for visual representation, but very hard in reality.

The “protection” aspect extends to any air assault being able to have an electronic warfare suite, to jam the radar of incoming attack missiles. Then there is the ability to conduct network centric warfare, where an AWACS can guide a missile fired by a fighter aircraft. Or the aircraft that is using its radar can guide a missile fired by another aircraft which is part of the same mission package. All of this requires that vastly complex technologies work together precisely. And this working together or networking, requires a great deal of training. In other words, in a strike package, some aircraft are protecting the other aircraft which are carrying out the attack. So, this is the basic concept of traditional martial arts at a personal level scaled up to massive technological deployments at the scale of national armies.

And that brings me to the concept of resources, time and money. For a modern day martial arts practitioner, there is a huge cost to keeping up with the practice, even as just a hobby. The training equipment is not cheap, and time has to be set aside for the practice, both of which are hard even if one is passionate. And seeing improvements in one’s martial abilities takes time, years even, and for recognizable changes to manifest in personal and professional lives takes longer still. This same is true for the protection of nations. Vast resources are needed, and the time taken to evolve and improve technologies runs into decades. The cost to society due to defence related expenditure can be large. So, not all nations can afford technological superiority. This includes cyber warfare and war for the minds and morale of national populations.

Lastly, technological progress, just like personal ones, will see failure, and learning from the same is needed. Losses will be faced, and overcome. Who can state that nothing has changed in India’s defence architecture since the 2019 Balakot strike and the consequences of Pakistan’s Operation Swift Retort? I would say no one can. And if someone said it, they would be wrong. Longer range missiles have been inducted, better EW suites are available, software defined radios have been introduced to overcome jamming, and more improvements are on the way.

Grey zone warfare has perhaps been used (unknown gunmen) as well. Have there been improvements in intelligence and cyber warfare capabilities? I have no idea. And improvements are happening at an impressive pace in the development of laser weapons and scramjet engines. Both of these bring us closer to an Indian version of the Israeli “Iron dome” missile defence. Just so we do not forget, there is already a ballistic missile defence shield based on the Prithvi missile. This has been deployed for a few years now. So, development is happening incrementally and continuously.

But this is not to say that there is no scope for improvement and there are certain projects that are more cause for disappointment among the general public than the rest (think Kaveri engine and the infrastructure needed for its testing). And speaking of disappointment, we come to the war being waged against the fabric of Indian society.

We are a polarized country, just like the rest of the democratic world. Homogenous non-democracies will always attempt to exploit fissures in our societal fabric, like the fault lines of caste, religion and militant leftist ideologies. This is no different than finding an opening in armour. A united national populace is armour for a nation, and the splintering of the same if the creation of an opening to attack.

This begs the question, are we protected against “narrative warfare”. It seems we are, at least for now. And are we using it successfully against adversaries? I do not know. Perhaps we are and I do not know, or maybe we are not very successful at it, yet.

This leads to the question, are we citizens responsible for protecting our own selves and hopefully each other in this narrative assault? Perhaps we are. And if yes, how successful have we been? Considering how polarized and tribal we are in current times with social media access, perhaps we are successful in not being defeated by narrative, but not successful is ensuring the opponents of the nation realize that the attack will always fail, for certain. It seems that foreign adversaries still see opportunities for success here. There is sufficient friction in the country to enable these attacks.

There is an old Bedouin saying, which goes, “I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbours, all of us against the foreigner.” I suppose in the Indian context, considering the size of our population, we can expand it to something like this.

“Me against by brother or sister. My sibling and I against the family. My family and I against the village or city. My city and I against the country. My country and I against the enemy nation.”

The spirit of this saying is that no matter our differences, we unite against a threat to the nation, be it foreign or domestic. We perhaps need to train how to protect each other in the narrative wars to come.

With that I conclude this post. This article is more of a coping mechanism for me, venting if you will, as I confessed earlier. So, I do not have a clear conclusion. Just a bunch of thoughts and connections I have strung together.

Notes:

* Shastra (weapons that are not discharged), not Shaastra or Shāstra (fields of knowledge/study)

Why the Prince can’t be PM, yet

June 6, 2024May 31, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, India CurrentAffairs, Indian History, Martial Arts, training2 Comments

In a previous article of mine where I was extolling the relevance of the festivals of Aayudha Pooja and Vijayadashami*, I had described the concept of “Shinken Gata” in the Bujinkan system of martial arts. The Shinken Gata is also a test students of the Bujinkan go through in some dojos. Shinken Gata can be roughly translated as “The Form (Kata) where the Spirit (Shin) in the Weapon (Ken)”. The test involves facing multiple opponents who attack at the same time from different directions, while attempting to perform specific forms.

In my experience, some of the learnings from this test for a student are,

Fatigue sets in really fast
Multiple opponents cause disorientation
Techniques and forms fail routinely and cannot be relied upon
Fear sets in when there are multiple opponents, even in a safe simulation
The objective of the test was never to check the form. It was to show that the spirit (“Shin”) is the true weapon. One keeps going until there is no life left.
Failure will occur. One strives despite this awareness. It is sometimes possible to prepare to avoid failure, not always.

This test is in some ways similar to the “Kobayashi Maru” test in the Star Trek franchise. This test will always result in the individual being tested failing. Its objective is to test character and also to teach that one has to do one’s best despite the knowledge of impending and certain failure.

The Shinken Gata in the dojo where I train is usually administered before a student starts training weapons. In the past, there used to be many of dropouts post the test, but this has reduced in recent years. Individuals did not always drop out because the test was too hard or because they failed. Many a time people left AFTER they passed. I am not certain why, but one reason I have come to expect is that the passing of this test is very satisfying, euphoric even; hence the person who has passed is satisfied with what has been achieved and no longer has a drive to train further.

Those that pass the test and continue training have renewed vigour and train harder for a while. But the learnings from the test remain for a very long time. Those that do not experience the Shinken Gata test always want to. It is like not having tested oneself. Add to this the feeling that one has never experienced a real fight (fortunately) and has not even endured it in simulation, and one always feels deficient.

The simulated reality of the Shinken Gata makes one better prepared for a real conflict, even ones not physical, with an acceptance of reality and its unexpected nature. This experience in most cases helps one endure and survive, if not thrive. Shinken Gata even as a simulation shows what might be needed in the face of death, while facing overwhelming odds. One does everything one can, until the very last instant (the proverbial throwing of the kitchen sink or burning the boats). Hopefully this drive will enable survival and perhaps victory or achievement of an objective.

In my opinion it is something similar to this feeling of Shinken Gata that is part of the moulding of individuals who successfully become leaders. What they do with the leadership once it is achieved is a different matter altogether. This idea is the focus of this article. At the time of writing this article, we are still in the course of the 2024 Indian election to the Lok Sabha; there is still one last phase of voting to go. Hence, me being as political as any other Indian, am sharing some thoughts on why the Lord of the Congress cannot be the PM, at least not yet.

Consider the following well-known rulers/leaders/administrators from various points in Indian history and their struggle to attain the throne/leadership.

Left to Right – Ashoka, Chandragupta 2nd Vikramaditya, Harshavardhana. Credits for all 3 images – Wikipedia

Ashoka Maurya had to fight and kill his brothers to achieve the throne of Maghada in the third century BCE.
Chandragupta 2^nd Vikramaditya had to dethrone his brother Ramagupta to achieve kingship of the Gupta Empire in the 4^th century CE.
Harshavardhana’s brother Rajyavardhana was the Pushyabhuti king. He was killed treacherously. Harsha had to fight King Shashanka of the Gauda kingdom to protect his family and kingdom in this uncertain time. His limited success in the war protected his kingdom and he took the throne of Thanesar in the early 7^th century CE.
Pulakeshi 2^nd had to fight against his uncle Mangalesha who was the regent and had usurped the throne. This victory in the internecine conflict resulted in his taking the throne of the Chalukya kingdom in the early 7^th century CE.
Raja Raja Chola had to fight off enemies from within the Chola Empire and also fight external enemies before becoming the king in the late 10^th century CE.

Left to Right – Pulakeshi 2nd as depicted in a statue in Badami, Karnataka, Raja Raja Chola depicted in a bronze sculpture. Credits for both images – Wikipedia

Rana Sanga had to survive his elder brother’s enmity to become the king of Mewar early in the 16th century CE.
Rana Pratap had to survive attacks from the Mughals and also intrigue by his brother before claiming the throne of Mewar in the latter half of the 16^th century.

Left to Right – Rana Sanga, Rana Pratap. Credits for both images – Wikipedia

Akbar had to fight and win the 2^nd battle of Panipat against the forces of Hemu to win the throne of Delhi, during the middle of the 16^th century CE.
Aurangzeb killed his brothers and jailed his father on his way to becoming the Mughal emperor during the middle of the 17^th century CE.
Peshwa Madhav Rao had to overcome his uncle Raghunath Rao before taking over as Peshwa of the Maratha Confederacy and restoring its glory after their defeat in the third battle of Panipat. This was in the latter half of the 18^th century CE.

Left to Right – Akbar as depicted in the Amar Chitra Katha publication “Birbal The Wise”, Peshwa Madhav Rao as depicted in a statue in Maharashtra. Credit for the image on the right – Wikipedia

In the 20^th century PM Indira Gandhi had to split the Congress party on the way to becoming the powerful leader that she came to be.
Lastly, in the current century, consider PM Narendra Modi. When he was the new CM of Gujarat in 2002, the tragedy of Godhra and the following riots occurred. After this incident, he had to survive opponents within the party, endure international ignominy and be acquitted by the enquiries and judicial processes that followed over the years. He then had to overcome challenges from within the BJP before becoming the PM candidate before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

In all of the above cases, the individual who became ruler or leader had to face serious, almost existential threats to their selves or at least to their leadership ambitions. The leaders either faced very serious external threats or, in most cases, had to fight internecine conflicts before becoming the ruler or leader. I opine that this struggle early in their careers, is akin to the Shinken Gata, but with vastly greater consequences. It is likely this relentless fight to achieve the top post that stood them in good stead later, as they achieved success in keeping the top post against all challenges and also added more fame to their time as the ruler/leader.

This is not to say that those who do not survive a civil war or severe external threats will not become rulers or leaders and be successful thereafter. The examples of Bindusara, Samudragupta and Rajendra Chola demonstrate this. These rulers inherited kingdoms which were not on the brink of war and did not fight family on the way to the throne. Yet they are remembered as successful monarchs, even great ones, in the case of the latter two.

I am suggesting that when one fights hard to achieve the top post, and especially when one fights a civil war to achieve the same, even if it is not bloody and only full of intrigue, the chances of becoming a great leader is higher. Even if one is not yet fighting for the top post of PM or monarch, but has had to fight to achieve the highest post or any objective one aspired to, the struggle and endurance is likely to stand that individual in good stead should she or he aim higher, maybe for the top post.

Conversely, if the highest post one has held is handed to that individual on a platter, and that person aims higher, for the post of PM in today’s context, the lack of struggle to achieve the previous highest position could come as a handicap. The experience of a fight or conflict of any kind would lend itself to the strife that needs to be endured to win an election against a powerful opponent. And any fight to be PM would indeed involve powerful (skillful, wily, ruthless, choose your adjective) opponents.

Apply this to the principal challenger for the post of PM in the current elections, Rahul Gandhi. He has not had to fight against his own party members to become the leader of the Congress party. But he has been fighting for the post of PM for ten years now. Of course, it can always be said that he is not keep on the post of the PM, but if one chooses to believe that, that is their choice.

Rahul Gandhi is facing current PM Narendra Modi, who is as incredible an opponent as there can be. Rahul Gandhi was going up against a seasoned political and electoral warrior forged over the course of many past conflicts without any such history on his side. If Rahul Gandhi had had to fight hard to become Congress President, would that experience have changed his fortunes against Narendra Modi? I suspect that would indeed have been the case. This lack of past conflicts did him in, in both 2014 and 2019.

But things have changed in the last year. Since 2023, Rahul Gandhi is a much different political warrior compared to the one he was in both 2014 and 2019. The fight and defeats of the last two elections have been experience after all. Add to this the urgency or desperation to win or at least not lose as badly as the last two times have made him a stronger competitor. He is more fiery, applying greater effort and using all means that he can perhaps consider. In my limited observation, this includes building a coalition of limited strength and using the skill sets and resources of individuals and organizations outside India.

The drawback to these efforts will likely turnout to be the late start. The improved efforts will not result in the leader of the Congress becoming PM in 2024. The experience gained has not translated into successful application of the same to overcome the current PM. Hence, the Prince cannot be the PM. But, the struggles of the 2024 elections will translate into ability, if the effort is sustained. And hence, the Prince is not the PM, yet. His struggles could have put him on the long road to eventual success. But that, the future will tell, perhaps in 2029.

Disclaimer – I am not a historian, nor a specialist in the social sciences, and I could wrong about all the above points.

Notes:

* https://mundanebudo.com/2023/10/23/aayudha-pooja-vijayadashami-the-most-important-festivals-for-the-martial-arts/

The Illusion of a Majority

May 25, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, hinduism, India CurrentAffairs, Indian Culture, Indian History, Martial Arts, trainingLeave a comment

“Naruto” is an awesome manga and anime series. Similarly, “Mortal Kombat” is an awesome video game franchise which has spawned series and movies. One of the most enduring memories of both Naruto and Mortal Kombat is the use of the “Kunai”. The kunai as used by characters in Naruto is not unlike a knife, a throwing knife in many instances. The kunai in the hands of the Mortal Kombat character Scorpion is more like a rope dart, with a chain replacing the rope and the kunai being the dart. In both cases, the kunai is used as a ranged weapon, which is thrown at opponents.

The above image is of a harmless replica kunai. The shape seen is iconic, from several manga, anime and video games.

The kunai is learnt as part of the Bujinkan system of martial arts. Naruto and similar characters inspire individuals to train the martial arts. Of course, no one believes the fantastical elements and abilities of the characters in these fictional worlds. But when new students realize that the kunai is indeed a real weapon that they will get to train as practitioners of the Bujinkan, there is an unmistakable glimmer of joy in their eyes!

But the kunai as trained in the Bujinkan is not a ranged weapon, it is instead a close quarter short distance weapon. As I understand it from my teacher and mentors, the forms of the kunai we currently train were adopted from those of the jutte many years ago by Sensei Masaaki Hatsumi. Further, the kunai, is a glorified little shovel, which could be used in one’s garden!

Can the kunai be thrown? Sure it can, but in as much as any weapon can be thrown. The shovel, which is the kunai, is not designed to be thrown at opponents. But as we see with training, it definitely can double up as a small weapon when in a tight spot.

The image above shows a possible representation of a real kunai. Even a bricklayers trowel could be a kunai substitute, in my opinion.

The training version of the kunai we use in the dojo looks very much like a fish. It could be made of wood and be padded to enable safe training. So, the pop culture version of the kunai, while it could exist, is not the super-weapon it is made out to be in manga and anime. That version is imaginary, an illusion.

The above image shows a training version of the kunai. It is quite different from the pop culture version of the same. Note the fish like appearance. I have heard a mentor of mine say that the word kunai, could mean a fish or death! But the more common meaning I have heard for the word kunai is “no suffering” or “hardship being nil”*.

That said, the illusion is the reality when the word “kunai” in mentioned to most people. The first image that comes to mind is the one from pop culture, not the trowel or the gardening implement! So much so, that the kunai could be associated with stories for young adults or even kids and hence training the kunai would lead to the martial art form itself being considered with scepticism! For it is fictional and not be taken seriously! This potential for illusions to overshadow reality and warp the way we as individuals and large social groups perceive ideas and process information drives the ideas expressed further in this article.

All of us are citizens of one country. Some have citizenship of more than one country, but no one is a “citizen of the plant Earth”. This is despite all of us knowing that the borders are artificial and we are all inhabitants of the plant, specifically one of its many ecosystems at any given point in time in our lives.

The one thing that reminds us most glaringly these days about how borders of nations are artificial is climate change. Consider El Nino; the warming of the Pacific Ocean throws the weather out of whack in different ways in several countries. Similarly, even though the carbon footprint of specific parts of the world is much larger than the rest, the effects of the same are endured by all countries of the world. A simpler way of looking at this would be wild life.

All of us have always known that animals do not respect national borders. This is sometimes remarked on wistfully when we humans have to put in the effort to secure passports and visas. These days, multiple countries work together to create wild life corridors to enhance conservation efforts and preserve genetic diversity in endangered species. The tiger or elephant corridors that are under consideration between Nepal, India and Bhutan could be examples of this.

So, it is clear that all of us are citizens of Earth. But one area where this knowledge always takes a back seat is politics, specifically that which makes the need for passports and visas paramount – identity politics.

Hindus are a majority in modern day India. They are supposed to comprise about 80% of the total population. But look at the world as a whole and Hindus are a distant third as numbers of practitioners of major religions go. Hindus are still a massive majority compared to Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Jews and several other religions in the world. But they are only about a half of the total practitioners of Christianity and Islam.

Even more glaring is the spread of the practitioners of the two major faiths. Practitioners of the Hindu faith are concentrated predominantly in India, with very small numbers in all other countries they live in. In comparison, practitioners of Christianity and Islam inhabit a far larger number of countries, which occupy a much larger area of the planet compared to India.

Now consider the phrase that is used fairly often. “Hindus have a minority complex”. I recently learned that this phrase is a variation of a statement made by a Sri Lankan scholar, Stanley Tambiah, who said of South Asian communities, that they are majorities with a minority complex³. This phrase is used to remind Hindus that they are a massive majority in India and should not have any worries about their culture being under threat, within India. It sometimes is used to suggest that Hindus need not “work to maintain their culture against threats from other religious minorities”. Is this statement correct? Or fair? Perhaps, or could it be an illusion?

I opine that there is a flaw in this concept of “minority complex” that is felt by Hindus. The flaw that I suggest in the above concept is that people who repeat it all the time (in my opinion) assume that Hindus always confine their identity to be in relation to the CURRENTLY EXTANT boundaries of the Republic of India.

As discussed above, all individuals in this day and age are global citizens. Considering the inextricably linked supply chains, financial systems and continuously fluid political relationships, what happens in one part of the world invariably affects every other. What is also true is that what happens in some parts of the world affects the rest more visibly and with greater impact than those in other parts of the world.

This is evidenced by how oil prices rise and affect all our lives every time there is potential military escalation in West Asia. Also, we all remember how wheat supplies to several countries were affected due to the war between Russia & Ukraine. This war also affected the supply of essential military hardware to India like the remaining units of the S-400 air defence systems. A conflict that potentially created a business opportunity for India is the one between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia has procured a lot of military hardware from India and this has improved India’s prospects of acquiring a greater share of military exports in the world. At the same time Indian tourists visiting Azerbaijan has also increased².

Beyond all this, all of us distinctly remember the pandemic that not only affected every aspect of our lives, but also caused supply shortages of chips in many industries, due to the crippling effect of the pandemic on supply chains. Also, the current war in Gaza has the potential to cause friendships between people to breakdown in parts of the world that have no stake in the conflict at all. If one individual posts a lot in support of Gaza and her or his friend cannot agree with the sentiment, the rift that this disagreement causes can cause harm to their relationship. This despite both individuals living faraway, in India or the USA. Considering the USA, the manner in which the protests on many university campuses is affecting the life of several individuals is another example of how we are Global Citizens, despite being citizens of one or a few more countries.

With the rise of the internet and the age of information overload, a very large number of people in this integrated world have access to news and opinions from all over the world. With this information access, it is very easy to realize, which parts of the world wield the ability to affect the other parts more strongly and not be as affected in return. This makes these specific parts of the world more powerful than some others. Also, these parts or regions of the world can easily be associated with specific countries or nations. And nations can always be associated with a majority or in most cases a dominant religion.

The key facets that affect this power of some nations are military might, cultural might, economic might and numerical (population size) might. There could be more, but these are top of the mind for me, as of now. Military, economic and technological might are mostly related to each other. Let us consider each of these.

The two nations that are unequivocally more powerful than India militarily are the USA and China. The USA is culturally a Judeo-Christian nation even though it is technically a secular country. China is actively anti-religion and also anti-culture unless it is its own (this “culture” includes the middle kingdom belief). Many other western nations and Israel though smaller in terms of the size of their military forces are far superior when it comes to the technological prowess of the military forces. These nations include Russia, France and the UK. One could include Israel in the western ambit. Of these nations, all are Christian by culture while Israel is Jewish. This is despite the fact that most of them have secular constitutions. Also, the ability of minority religions and cultures to affect the majority in these nations was very small and is only now beginning to change.

Culturally, the only nation that could be argued to be more powerful than India would be the USA. Many other nations in the Middle East, Western Europe and China and Japan could be equal to India’s cultural power, but are not necessarily superior. Here again, most of the nations that are either India’s equals or superior are all either Christian or Islamic by either religion or culture.

We could look at “culture” in different ways as well. While Indian culture is original and vast in its variety, its audience is primarily the people who already live in India or form a part of its diaspora. While Indian art and culture is appreciated in different parts of the world, and this number is increasing in the last few decades, this is not influencing the culture in other parts of the world in a significant manner, as far as I know.

However, the culture of many other countries influences the life of Indians and those of many other parts of the world as well. Considering the past of Islam and Christianity in India, it is easy to see that these religions are a strong part of the cultural export of the countries that espouse these. Both religions practice proselytization and hence, the religion itself is a cultural export. Similarly, the Marxist ideology that controls Indian academia is a western export and has influenced everything in India from Government policy to cinema.

Compare this with Indian cinema, music, spirituality, religious literature and architecture. How many societies around the world are affected by the same? As far as I know, the influence of these is very small, even if the appreciation for the same might be fairly large. Bollywood simply does not compare with religion in its ability to influence lifestyle and culture. So, while India might be equal to many other countries in cultural quality and output, it would be less influential anywhere outside the Subcontinent.

When it comes to economic might, specifically when per capita GDP is considered, several nations in the Americas, Europe, West Asia, East Asia and South East Asia are all a lot more powerful when compared with India. Most of these are again, Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Judeo-Christian by culture or religion. Consider the videos below. It is from the YouTube channel of the media outlet “The Print”. The Editor-in-Chief of The Print, Shekhar Gupta explains how Qatar, which is really tiny and has a small population exudes an influence on the world which is way above its weight. This is simply because of its economic might.

In terms of technological might the situation is similar to that of economic might, but there are fewer nations that are superior to India. In this case again, the nations that are ahead of India are mainly Christian, Jewish or Judeo-Christian.

Consider the following article from the Eurasian Time website, the link to which is see below. The article considers three rankings. One is a global ranking by US News and Media. The second is an Asian ranking by the Lowy Institute of Australia, and the last is a global military ranking of countries by Global Firepower. The links to all three rankings are seen in the notes below⁺. I would suggest that everyone have a look at the original data available there.

US Ranking ‘Kicks Out’ India Out Of World’s Most Powerful Countries; South Korea Scores Over Japan

The US News and Media ranking ranks India 12^th in the world, below the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea and of course China as countries in Asia go. Consider how much smaller in area and population compared to India the UAE and Saudi Arabia are, and yet are considered more powerful. I have to add one caveat here. In the past I have suggested that global rankings and reposts of this kind could be weapons that act over time and not distance. This is based on the motivations behind the organizations and sponsors of these rankings. A link to the article where I mention this is seen in the notes below¹. That said, these reports do show how we are considered by a certain kind of external gaze. These rankings would also allow us to see what others possess in terms of resources which translate into power, and hence cannot be ignored altogether.

We now come to the size of population. It is easy to think, India has a superiority in this aspect. But when one looks at the size of the practitioners of specific religions we see a different picture. One can say that the Hindus outnumber all other religions in India as they are somewhere between 75 to 80% of the populace. But herein lie several problems.

Hinduism unlike Christianity or Islam is not a monolith. It is more an umbrella term which could be easily replaced by “Dharmic” or “Indic” religions. Hinduism is a set of all those cultural and religious practices in the Indian Subcontinent where interaction with the divine is not about fear or obedience or adherence to a book, but a transactional faith based belief system, where most individuals have specific personal relationships with their divinities. Hinduism consists of all the smaller tribal, community based practice systems. Thus, despite being large as an umbrella organization, each of the groupings that make up this super set are pretty small.

Consider the remarks made a few months ago by the heir apparent of the DMK, where he compared “Sanātana Dharma” with a host of diseases and said that it should be exterminated just like those diseases. His party further explained the statement saying they only refer to the “Brahmanical” aspects when they refer to “Sanātana Dharma”. So, they classify Sanātana Dharma as Brahmanism and suggest that Hinduism is not the same or maybe they mean, it is a small subset of Hinduism which needs to be destroyed.

For several Hindus, Hinduism and Sanātana Dharma are synonymous. In this vein, another statement in late 2022 had caused consternation. Tamil filmmaker Vetrimaaran had suggested that the great Chola king Raja Raja was not a Hindu. Raja Raja Chola was responsible for the construction of the Brihadeshwara temple in Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu. It is a place of great importance for Hindus. Raja Raja was an ardent of Lord Shiva as far as I know. There are people in the political and movie industry circles in Tamil Nadu who suggest that the people of Tamil Nadu are not Hindus but are Shaivaites or Vaishnavites. Both Shiva and Vishnu are at the heart of the Hindu faith.

So, from the little that I understand, all of this seems to suggest that there is an attempt to split Hinduism as it exists today into multiple faiths. In Karnataka, there is an attempt from time to time to call the people of the Lingayat community separate from Hinduism. When I was younger, Lingayats were an integral part of Hinduism, to the best of my knowledge.

There is also the idea of the caste census these days, considering it is election season. The idea is not wrong, if it is purely to further progressive affirmative action. But the suspicion of this proposed exercise is that it is another attempt to split Hinduism and cause its component communities to be at odds with one another. One hears often in Indian media that the idea has been to split Hindus along caste and community lines while uniting the non-Hindus, to further vote bank politics.

This is contrast to some who consider all the practitioners of the faiths that had their origin in India, including Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism as Hindus⁴. But there are many who choose to disagree with this, which seems to be in keeping with the attempt to split Hinduism into smaller components. And then there are the anti-religion groups like the Marxists, who will prefer the end of any religions as part of their ideology (religion? 😛 ).

Let us now get back to the total populations of each of the big 3 religions that are prevalent in or inform the cultures of each of the nations we considered earlier. Even when Hinduism is considered as a whole, the total number of practitioners of this religion is far smaller in number as compared with the practitioners of either Islam or Christianity. This holds true even if one considers just Sunni Islam or Roman Catholic Christianity. There is in Islam the concept of an “Ummah” or “Ummat”, which means all Muslims constitute a single state and existing national boundaries are irrelevant. Granted, the number of Muslims who believe in this might be small. But it is not small enough for anyone who chooses to worry about them to ignore this aspect altogether. Thus, even if superficially Hindus seem to have sufficient numerical might and this might be true to a certain extent within India, they are just another minority at a global level.

What should be obvious is that the spread of Islam and Christianity in the world is so large that their density in specific countries might be low when compared with that of Hindus (as a monolith, not its components) in India. But the actual population is considerably larger. And the area available for these populations to develop is larger still! Simply because there are more countries they inhabit, unlike Hindus, who can only depend on the area available in modern India for any development. This availability of area for development, in my opinion, is like the ability to scale up industrial capacity. It is a great boon that can be used as necessary.

Of the three religions that inform the culture of the nations that are superior to India as seen above, Judaism is not a proselytizing religion and consequently no religion or culture in India feels threatened by the Jews or their culture.

Christianity and Islam on the other hand are proselytizing religions. They actively believe in converting people of other religions and cultures into their own. They seem to have no qualms either today or in the past about the extinction of all beliefs and traditions of the religions they want folk to convert out of. This activity might not be as mainstream in India as the previous few centuries, but it has not stopped either. Even in cases where practitioners of these two faiths and general populace of the nations whose culture is informed by the same, do not actively support proselytization in other nations, they do not actively denounce this activity either. No Christian or Islamic organization or people of majority Christian and Islamic nations, as far as I know, actively call for a proactive ban on the conversion of peoples into either of these religions.

Consider the video below. The speaker here is looking at Indians as potential converts into Christianity and India as fertile ground to “spread the word” as he sees fit. He exhorts people to put in greater effort to achieve the same. He further adds that one should study and understand Indians to be able to convert them. He does not seem to have any malicious intent. It appears that he genuinely believes that he is doing the “right thing”. But when one looks at it from the eyes of a Hindu, who is the target of his attempts, in my opinion, there is no option but to feel fear, apprehension. He is nothing but a threat, for what he is advocating, is not needed, and what he thinks about all this in not relevant, if it is indeed a free world his country of origin believes in.

We saw earlier how we are all global citizens and how India is inferior to many other nations on the economic and technological fronts. Add to this the fact that we are not superior in cultural power terms compared to many other nations. As we also saw, most of the nations more powerful than India are either Christian or Islamic. Now further observe that Hindus are not really even possessing of numerical might on a global level. This indeed makes one realize that as expression of power or even confidence in holding power goes, Hindus are fairly low on the ladder and are justified in being aware of this imbalance, even if they are not actively afraid.

Further, the numerical superiority that exists within India itself, when even remotely threatened only adds to the concern which might push one towards being more afraid. This is especially true when one remembers that there is absolutely no evidence of either Christianity or Islam, in the last thousand years, of carrying out any activity to preserve the culture of even converted populations. What is left over is that which did not threaten the new religion into which the peoples converted or proved useful in the conversion in the first place!

Now consider the fact that there is an active movement within Hinduism itself to split it into its component parts which are not in harmony with one another. And then there are the anti-religion movements. Past-Hindus, actively denounce Hindu practices, suggest that Hindus should not denounce either the denouncers of their religion or the practices of other religions, nor denounce active conversion out of Hinduism or even suggest why someone should not convert! These folk also never state the positives of Hinduism, while they wax eloquent about its supposed problems.

This above group can draw on technological, economic and cultural might from not only within the country, but also from nations that are superior to India, which creates a genuine power imbalance against Hindus.

Considering all the above aspects, Hindus feel outnumbered not in India (yet!), but within the Global ecosystem where we all live today. This will continue until Islam and Christianity give proactive and well enforced declarations that they will never convert anyone to their religions, at least within the existing political boundary of India. This declaration will have to be in perpetuity and not time bound. Additionally they should allow an audit of the practice of this declaration by Hindus. Lastly, they cannot oppose any attempts to reconvert Christians and Muslims within India into any other Dharmic faith. In short, Islam and Christianity cannot have objections to reducing their own number in the civilizational Hindu homeland of India**. When all of this comes to pass, the “Majority” of Hindus will be become real from the current notional. After this perhaps, the “Minority complex” can be ridiculed and the Illusion of a Hindu Majority will have been shattered.

Since this is a long and wordy article, let me reinforce in conclusion. Hindus live in a country that is not overly powerful in the world. The size of their population is not an advantage as is expected and even this is not unchallenged, and faces threats. The geographical spread of Hindus is very limited as well. So, any factor of comfort that arises based on superficial conventional wisdom might not be relevant. The minority complex is relevant, considering this is with relevance to the whole world, not just India. The “majority” is just an illusion and the majority would do well to not have the “illusions” of a majority!

Notes:

* https://www.tanoshiijapanese.com/dictionary/entry_details.cfm?entry_id=97220

³ Watch between the 17 and 18 minute mark.

² https://www.onmanorama.com/travel/outside-kerala/2024/03/19/azerbaijan-europe-asia-tourism-e-visa-caspian-sea.html

² https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/from-bhutan-to-baku-indian-tourists-look-everywhere-for-their-travel-plans-in-summer-2024-12712173.html

² https://www.timesnownews.com/travel/amid-schengen-visa-delays-indian-tourists-flock-to-these-new-holiday-hotspots-article-110247148

⁺https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/power

⁺https://power.lowyinstitute.org/

⁺https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

¹ https://mundanebudo.com/2023/10/15/missile-long-range-weapon-narrative-long-time-weapon/

⁴ I have heard it said that there is a definition from either the Supreme Court or in the Constitution, where there is supposed to be a definition of Hindus as the people of India who are not Christians, Muslims and Parsis. I personally am not sure where this definition is from and have not been able to find it. So, I am mentioning this point in the notes. If anyone know where this definition is from, kindly help me by sharing the source of the same.

**Every sentence in this paragraph is fantastical to say the least. How any of this can be done and the part about the audit specifically – I have no idea this is feasible in reality without causing problems, even if the words make it seem plausible (like faster than light propulsion).

“Real” Issues

April 25, 2024April 26, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, hinduism, India CurrentAffairs, Indian Culture, Indian History, Martial Arts, training1 Comment

Let me start by sharing 3 anecdotes. The first is something I heard from a colleague of mine. This colleague is also someone I consider a good friend and I respect his opinions and observations. The anecdote goes thus.

My friend is a Manager and leads a team 60 to 70 strong. Many of his team interact and report directly to clients. One such member of his team put in her papers. While discussing the reasons for her resignation, she said that the pressure of work was too much and the client she was working with had too many demands in too short a duration. She simply could not keep up and the client could not understand the same. The client was not Indian, she was from a European nation.

My friend made a suggestion to the lady who had put in her papers. He suggested that she start saying “NO” to any work she could not do at a given time. She was also told to give exact timelines about when she could take up anything new and tell the client how long the existing work would take. This included the delays due to personal responsibilities. She could do this without any worry as she was on the notice period and had 90 days to experiment with this new way of working. Additionally, my friend, the manager, would protect her from any blow-back. In simple terms, he told his teammate to stop saying “YES” to everything the client asked for; specifically on the timelines she expected.

The client had no problem at all with the lady saying “NO” many a time and accepted the timelines she was provided based on realistic expectations. The lady took back her resignation and continued working for the team. At the risk of sounding racist, here is an additional detail. The client was White.

This is a common problem when Indians work with Europeans (and likely other cultures as well). Indians, especially the ones that work in salaried jobs are raised to be averse, if not afraid, to say “No”. One is raised at home, at school, at work and society in general to be ashamed to say “No”. Saying “No” when one is asked “Do you know this/how to do this?” or “Can you do this (or within a given time)”? is anathema. One assumes that it is a shame to not know something and there will be adverse consequences career-wise if one cannot do everything, even if this means always being overworked.

So, when the ability to say “NO” is realized and experienced, it is a wondrous experience, even cathartic! In reality, saying “No” is not a big deal and most people, including clients have no problem being told “No”. It is just a start to new direction in a conversation. But for many Indians, letting go of old conditioning and changing the mind-set to be able to say “No” is a very big deal. And it is a matter of pride to have made the mind-set switch that makes “No” a commonplace answer. This is especially true when the person to whom “No” is said is a foreigner, and even more so, if the foreigner is White.

Now consider the next anecdote. A close friend of mine and a fellow black belt in the Bujinkan system has been running his own company (“start-up”) for about 10 years now. A fellow martial artist from France was in India training with us, some 7 years ago. This Frenchman decided to intern with my friend’s company.

One day a visitor made his way to their office for the first time. This visitor had not met anyone in my friend’s office earlier. On that day both my friend and the Frenchman were at the office, apart from other regular staff. I need to add here, the Frenchman, is White. The first person the visitor decided to approach for queries and instructions was the Frenchman.

It is by default assumed that one who is White is the boss. If not, the White is at least someone who knows better, if not best, in any given situation. This again comes as no surprise to many of us. Being a country with a history of colonization, even though most of us are born long after the British left, this behaviour is obvious and expected.

This though is changing, as evidenced in the first anecdote, with greater interaction with people from around the world and due to greater travel by Indians. The change again is in the mind-set. This change has made many Indians surer of themselves and assertive with respect to their ideas, opinions and experiences.

Now for the third anecdote. Back when I started training the Bujinkan two decades ago, we had a rule while training with women. We could not hit women or hurt them. We trained to take their balance with no force and with effective movement. This rule was used, as far as I know, in a few other countries in Europe, but most other dojos from outside India did not have this rule and I recall some women practitioners from abroad being surprised by this rule we practiced.

The rule was completely valid in the Indian context. The number of women practicing the martial arts was small in India back then (so was that of men, but this was more pronounced in the case of women). The number of both men and women practicing the martial arts has increased in the last 2 decades, proportionally. Back then, even the women who did train were a lot more concerned about physical pain and felt vulnerable. So, to create a safe environment, only once a women attained a black belt could she choose to ask men to hit, but with lower power if necessary. Women could gradually increase the intensity and speed of the attacks they encountered during training.

This notion of all women being vulnerable in the dojo has changed. The female practitioners who have started at our dojo more recently seem to not feel vulnerable, or at least feel a lot less so than years ago. The young women who have joined us recently are not worried about physical pain and train just like the men. One of them even said that she expects to feel pain and overcome it with time! This is a marked change. It is not that they are not worried anymore, they are a lot more comfortable communicating how they would like to train. They are also far more certain of their own abilities and the reasons for their training in the dojo.

While this is true of young women, we have a fellow budoka who is in her fifties and started training a couple of years ago. Even she seems a lot more comfortable with pain, to the extent of coming back to class after recovering from a fractured leg. So, the self-confidence and self-awareness of practitioners, specifically women, has changed and is becoming similar to those of women from other parts of the world.

All the 3 anecdotes above, in my opinion, demonstrate the same thing. Indians and therefore India is a much-changed nation over the course of the last decade and a half, thanks to much greater interaction with the rest of the world, increasing income levels and to a large extent, the internet revealing new (and old) ideas that were not widespread earlier.

Indians are now a lot more confident and assertive. This awareness of the newfound confidence and assertiveness and the fact that they can be that way and earn respect across the world is a vitally important aspect in the lives of many Indians. Perhaps this was always true about Indians and the respect they earned across the world, but the number of Indians who are aware of this is vastly greater of late, thanks to various media platforms. This change is lovingly acknowledged at all levels of social interaction – at work, in the family, among friends and any other that one can think of.

Granted, all of this is anecdotal experience, and the sample size is small. The concurrence about these opinions of mine is also from the set of people I interact with regularly at work, in the family and in the dojo, and the set of friends I interact with often. This is not a large number and could be the experience and opinion set of a bubble or an echo chamber. But considering that this is being spoken of at a national level on various fora, I opine that it is a larger trend. I would be glad to be proved wrong.

With this introduction, I would say that one major “REAL ISSUE” for many Indians was the need to have self-confidence and develop the traits in life that lead to the same. The ability to be assertive, to say “NO” and to in general be confident of oneself and one’s background and identity is a HUGE positive and fulfillment of a desire for Indians. And if a government is seen to either facilitate or help improve the development of the mind-set needed for self-confidence, then that government will be seen to have done a great deal for the people, or at least to the section of society that feels an improvement in its mind-set. If this section is large enough, it is likely to sway the result of elections.

Confidence is a part of one’s identity. Self-Confidence, despite a background that is not a driver of confidence is an even greater and cherished part of one’s identity. And this mingles with the other aspects of what defines an identity, which could include religion, heritage, traditions, community affiliations, family background, employment, hobbies, life experience, education, wealth, prosperity, skill sets (including physical abilities) and any other one can think of.

Any aspect of identity that gets enhanced due to government actions, due to any of the various affiliations of an individual, will boost the chances of that individual voting for the government. This leads us to yet another aspect we see in India, considering that it is election season.

We hear a phrase a lot these days on the “News” on Television, in all the English news channels in India. This phrase is, “to distract from the real issues”. This phrase is used by many from the opposition political parties and also from people inclined to be aligned with that is referred to as the “leftists”. These individuals use this phrase mainly when they refer to the various temple-mosque or conversion related issues that are high in the mind space of Indians. Consider the reactions to the inauguration of the temple at Ayodhya or the telecast to “The Kerala Story” on Doordarshan to get an idea of the same.

A modified photo of a news story on TV on April 17, 2024. This day was Rama Navami, a major festival, in 2024. On this day, there was a lot of talk about the “Surya Tilak” on the vigraha/murthy (statue in a simplified sense) of Lord Ram Lalla in the new temple at Ayodhya. As expected, when this was a major new item, the statement that highlighting this event was a “diversion” from “real” issues was making rounds as well.

They claim that the current central government is not improving the quality of life of Indians and to distract from this fact they resort to polarizing Hindus from followers of the Abrahamic faiths by making them want a restoration of old temples as against a “better quality of life”.

Now, this makes one ask, what is a “real issue”? In my opinion, a real issue is anything that a voter thinks the government should do for her or him if they are to expect her or him to vote for them (either as a repeat vote or for the first time). That said, one needs to know what any voter wants. When a large enough number of voters want something, that becomes an important issue for the government or a government wannabe to address to the satisfaction of the maximum number of voters wanting the same.

A large number of voters want better employment opportunities, better health care, education that can help aspiration fructification. There are also still many in our country who would want easier access to cooking fuel, shelter, clean water, good roads and healthy meals. Thus, these are “real issues”, no doubt there. Now consider the issue of access to and potential reclamation of temples, or at least the Gyanvapi mosque and Shahi Idgah in Kashi and Mathura respectively. Are these “real issues” or not? Let’s attempt a break down.

There is definitely a large section of the population in our country which has access to good quality food, water, shelter, roads, healthcare, education and employment opportunities. This is not to say that they do not aspire for cheaper healthcare or better roads, better education and better paying employment opportunities. They certainly do, but they are not deprived of any of these at the current moment. Of course, inflation is a problem for this set of citizens as well and they do wish for it to be controlled. But they also know that they are better off compared to crores of others. They also realize that inflation in its current form is a global problem the government can only do so much about. They also realize that the government is trying and doing things for the better, albeit slower than what can be desired and not to the expected levels. This same holds true for the problem of youth underemployment. But in my personal opinion, every government in our country has improved upon its predecessors and hence we are definitely progressing.

This progress has improved the lives of crores over time, while crores more are yet to be beneficiaries at the same level as the rest. Those that have been beneficiaries of reasonably good governance over the last several decades know that, and with that knowledge their definition of “issues” have also changed.

If one has a country to live in where one’s life and livelihood are not under threat of extinction and one can lead a life without active government support, then one of the things citizens might wish for is pride in their own country and in themselves. Pride in one’s country is not uniformly defined. For several communities that that have existed for millennia longer that the modern nation of India, pride in the nation extends to its civilizational history and not just to the republic and its supposed values.

So, these people might feel that they have what is needed for a good life and now aspire for civilizational pride by having a temple where it is known that an external aggressor built a place of prayer to humiliate those that revered the temple. Does this then not become a “real issue”? If snob value can be an attribute of a brand, why can yearning for pride in civilizational history not be one? Is this need to have pride in one’s culture/civilization not an extension of one wanting to be self-confident and assertive? I would opine that it is.

Are psychological or emotive desires not real issues? If yes, then this Gyanvapi issue is a real issue and there is no distraction at play. The distraction might be to underplay the emotive desires of an electorate. A clever government would obviously identify an emotive need that other governments chose to not identify and tap into it as a means to achieve adulation from citizenry, and hence electoral success.

Now, if this is a real issue as suggested above, what does that say about those saying this is “distraction from real issues”? Are they not saying that until everyone in our country has the same standard of living, those that have a good standard of living currently should put all their aspirations on hold until those whose lives are not as good as their own match what they currently have? Is this anything more than clumsy ideology considering that an “issue” might have to be on hold for years? They are saying, “your desire is not a real issue because there are other issues that we consider as real issues, and you should listen to us”. They are also saying that many people need to consider as real issues, only those that are issues of others and those less unfortunate, irrespective of what they consider as real issues for themselves.

In summary, they are saying they know better, and many people do not. Also, this line of thinking means that many people should not want what they do because others have less. So, should they be happy with what they have for indeterminate times? And be at risk of being shamed, as what they want do not constitute “real issues”? It certainly seems so. This leads me to the last part of the aspects I wanted to share.

There were two interviews recently on the YouTube channel “Mojo Story”, run by the well-known journalist Barkha Dutt. One was with journalist Neerja Chowdhary in early January 2024 and another was with yet another journalist, Vir Sanghvi in late February 2024. I am sharing links to both below.

The two interviews show diverging views about the current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. Vir Sanghvi agrees that one major plus point attributed to PM Modi is that he has improved India’s stature on the global stage. This extends to Indians being seen with greater respect abroad and Indians at home feeling more confident due to the same. But Mr. Sanghvi also ridicules this idea saying nothing much has changed abroad, meaning Indians were respected earlier as well and that the stature of India while it has improved has not changed greatly. He is an experienced journalist, and his observations could be right. But this does not take away from the fact that the mind-set among many Indians has changed and they might just be seeing the respect more clearly and hankering for more, and pondering actions to get the same.

Ms. Chowdhary expands on the idea of the change in the mind-set of many Indians. In the interview she shares her experience and states that specifically Hindus are seeing a resurgence in cultural pride. This is seen as an extension of confidence and greater aspirations. There is also no diffidence or guilt about being Hindu and the purported weaknesses with their religion among those who identify as Hindu. Ms. Chowdhary shares how she has seen the number of devout visitors in Kashi increasing manifold and at the same time being younger, indicating a hunger to connect with the ancient culture of the land.

She goes on to say that the phenomenon of PM Modi is not yet understood well in India. She also states that she is not sure if the consistent popularity and approval of PM Modi is a consequence of a changing India or if the change in India is a consequence of the NDA Government led by PM Modi. The change in India she refers to, as I understand it, is related to the aspirations and change in mind-set that we discussed earlier, apart from just increasing disposable incomes and awareness of one’s standing in the world.

I personally think that election of PM Modi is a reflection of the changing mind-set in India and not the other way around. The increasing number of people sharing the mind-set in a short duration of a decade might be partly attributable to the Government, but not its initial rise to power and continuing popularity. I believe that there is a large enough section of the electorate in India whose basic physical needs are met and now the psychological/emotive needs of cultural affinity and pride in one’s civilization, history and identity is what is desired. The culture and narrative debates in India on all media platforms likely fuels this desire to greater urgency than in the past.

The points in the above few paragraphs, in my understanding, explain why the need to retell Indian history and highlight the positives of the same are now very REAL issues. They are not just “distractions” as some sections of the media and others would like everyone to agree.

I am currently reading a book titled “Sword and Soul” by Hindol Sengupta**, the link to which is seen below. The book is about the history of and potential near future of Political Hinduism. I am only a third of the way through the book. The author walks the journey of political Hinduism from roughly the time of the Company Raj, through the time Ananda Math was written through Veer Savarkar, the Revolutionary movement and the interaction of all of these with the INC of old. Based on what I am reading, it seems that the yearning for civilizational pride that is seen and spoken of today is pretty much the same as that expressed over the last 125 years. It also seems that this yearning was suppressed post-independence for some five decades and then it came back with renewed vigour, with improving circumstances of a considerable section of Indian citizens. This further lends credence to the fact that any issue related to identity, pride in the same and the mind-set change of a people will likely always be a REAL ISSUE, until it is fully satisfied.

In a previous article, I had shared some thoughts on the various opinions of western content creators on YouTube, regarding the practice and effectiveness of different martial art forms. The link to the article is seen in the notes below*. One common theme among a section of martial artists is that one should focus on training ONLY fighting styles that prepare one for self defence in a modern context (they are mainly referring to western scenarios, but are not limited to the same). Some of them are disparaging with regard to traditional martial arts which focus on fighting as it existed in the past.

These opinions are absolutely correct. But, there is another side to this line of thinking. Their opinions assume that everyone who trains the martial arts, does so ONLY to learn self defence. In other words, their opinions regarding the reason for training is ONLY physical. This again is a valid assumption for a large section of practitioners of the martial arts. To be fair some of the content creators I am referring to only have a problem with martial artists who claim to be teaching self defence without actually testing the same in a tough simulation.

There could however be several other reasons for people to train the martial arts. In the article I wrote I came up with some 16 reasons, some of which had nothing to do with physicality of any sort. Some of these involved reasons of recreation, meditative attributes of the martial arts, self-development and the like. These are reasons that are PSYCHOLOGICAL and not really physical, despite have a physical component to the training.

This divergence in opinion for the reasons of training the martial arts is exactly like the Leftists suggesting that any “real issue” has to do with the physical needs of citizens alone, and anything that has to do with matters of cultural confidence or civilizational pride is a distraction from the real issues they define. Could this partly be due to the lesser focus in India on matters of mental health? Or is there a lack of focus on mental health due to psychological needs not being considered real? I do not have an answer; perhaps someone who knows can shed some light on this.

I feel that it is precisely because the current government of India has a focus on both the physical and psychological needs of the electorate that they continue to enjoy a high rate of approval. The physical needs of the citizens are addressed in the form of the free rations, better toilets, access to cooking gas, electricity and drinking water and the digital platforms for ease of doing business for small traders. The psychological/emotional needs are addressed in the actions on the temple building, CAA and other activities that emphasize civilizational pride and a decolonization of the Indian mind.

We live in a time when debates do not result in any change of position or opinion. In such an environment, I suppose the “real” in what one considers is a real issue is purely personal. It depends on the political leaning and convictions of every individual, and that in turn depends on the social circles one chooses and the narratives those emphasize. Perhaps the only real issue was that we considered that there was a shared reality which everyone could agree on. There are likely as many “REAL ISSUES” as there are people. Perhaps this need for a “real” and personal reality is what led to there being 300 versions (supposedly) of the Ramayana, each of which are likely undergoing personalization with every reading and retelling.

Notes:

** https://www.amazon.in/Soul-Sword-History-Political-Hinduism-ebook/dp/B0CJRKDZYM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3BFE4YOMX9U5K&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ThIbasUc6bjV43OeZKU63gpE4ikp8r7zfkVTUvnHiW-C6gojdwKZOiHxeBloN1ah2uEPNHlj6u8dS4OMJ9FmhS52X_-JI3rou5A-4-3k_HGx7xVUEBbf5NRE16ci23YBxYEwXhNlR0xljt2CCEbFBoouO-37LIFRmFJZ3jssbi-dtTC-UjwSB2SIKGl12uJtyW3JiuDJVkAFNI-s8gvhlK_qUuA_L0XlQrzmFoV04Z4.hzg9y3wwXIjhMw3AMUnnTOeXGFJD8EFowDv27sqdK88&dib_tag=se&keywords=sword+and+soul&qid=1712822288&sprefix=sword+and+soul%2Caps%2C3106&sr=8-1

* https://mundanebudo.com/2024/03/14/effort-luck-effectiveness-morality-some-thoughts-also-why-do-you-train/

The Book vs The Library

April 11, 2024April 10, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, hinduism, India CurrentAffairs, Indian Culture, Indian History, Martial ArtsLeave a comment

In the Bujinkan system of martial arts, we are reminded constantly of how adapting is the key to survival. This is not different from what we all hear in our daily lives and at work, “Change is the only constant”. Practitioners who have trained for many years are reminded every now and then that we need to be able to unlearn techniques. Techniques are vital in the early part of one’s martial training journey. But over time, the concept behind the technique is more important the technique itself. If the concept is not explicit, it needs to be realized with training, be it with peers or seniors or different teachers.

But martial arts manuals, scrolls and books contain techniques. They do contain concepts, but these are not easy to practice without what in the Bujinkan is called “kuden”. “Kuden” is knowledge that is transmitted orally, and is not present in literature or manuals. It is a part of experiential learning. This fact leads to another statement that we hear fairly often, “The book will not fight for you”. Variants of this statement are “Do not fall in love with the book/technique” and “Sticking to a technique in a real fight will get you killed”.

So, it is drilled into a practitioner of the Bujinkan that with experience it is very important to not become someone who “collects techniques”. One needs to learn to respond to the attack or situation as it presents itself. One cannot depend on techniques. This is not a new concept and all of us face changes regularly in life and unexpected challenges every now and then. But we deal with these as a matter of course. We might be irritated, angry or sad and experience other negative emotions at the moment of the challenge. But we deal with it and move on, maybe even laugh over it in hindsight and if we are lucky, gain something positive from the experience.

Adherence to dogma from just one book might be detrimental to any person. Exposure to multiple opinions and sources of knowledge and ideas is vital. Art work by Vishnu Mohan

We are currently in the high noon of elections in India. The general elections of 2024 for the Lok Sabha are starting in a few days. Like everyone else in the grand democracy that is India, I have political opinions and also have a blog. 🙂 Add to this my love for and experience, such as it is, in the Bujinkan, and my political opinions are coloured by concepts and learnings from the martial arts.

I started this article with a reference to books and the knowledge in them. I also mentioned how they cannot be an exact guide to life, even if what they contain is vitally important. Multiple books might help us lead a better life, but no one of them can be THE BOOK to live life by. This is common sense, even if some or A BOOK has a far greater influence on our lives than others. Of course, these days we can replace the “book” in the previous few statements with the media that one consumes most.

The rest of this article is my opinion about a few things that are heard every now and then in Indian media as part of the current political discourse.

We hear a lot these days about how the Constitution of India is supreme, when it comes to informing our social interactions on a day-to-day basis. This assertion is made on various media platforms. It is assumed that it is common sense to realize this. It is supposed to be “known” that the Constitution is what defines the current Republic of India.

The reference to the constitution being supreme is mainly mentioned in reference to the way the Government conducts itself. But considering that the Government is elected by the people, would this not extend to the electorate? Perhaps it does not, but it could, as elucidated below.

The electorate might appreciate a specific aspect of the government or a political party and hence vote for the same. At the same time, if the Government or a party senses a specific aspect as the pulse of the electorate that votes for it, will they focus on it to increase their chances of winning an election? It would seem likely. If the “aspect” that is likely to bring a party or a government to power is in contradiction to an existing Constitution, what happens then? Would the government or party not want to deviate from the existing principles of the constitution to achieve victory? If yes, would that mean that the electorate is what was responsible for an eventual change to the constitution? If this is true, would the argument that government should adhere to the constitution not extend to the electorate? As they are responsible for the creation of the government. Since the electorate is the people, does not the expectation of adherence to the constitution then not extend to the people of the country as well? It is hard to have a clear answer, but the answer does seem to be a yes. The people are expected to adhere to the constitution.

In this way of thinking of the relationship between the Constitution and the Country (more than just the republic, including the geography and the life forms within it), the people of the Republic of India are supposed to be a People of the Book. Of course, the Book here is the Constitution of India. One can’t help but feel that the Constitution thus makes Indians exclusively like the followers of Abrahamic religions, who are the people generally referred to when one thinks of “People of the Book”. The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims all follow one “Book” respectively.

But the Indian people have always followed several different traditions even when it comes to governance, administration and law and order. There have been multiple treatises in the past that attest to how government and interaction of people “should be”. A few these could be Vidura Neeti, Krishna Neeti, Shukra Neeta, Brihaspati Neeti, Chanakya Neeti, the practices of the medieval South Indian kingdoms, the practices of the various Sultanates in India etc.

But none of these were binding on the administrators during different periods of history. They could and in some cases did know of many of these various traditions. They used these in the ways they though best, based on the situation and context of the same. This is not unlike one using a library or the internet to refer to all possible sources of knowledge to come up with a new feasible solution, in a given space and time. There is no need to adhere to a “Single Tradition” even if some facets of the same are useful. This then makes Indians if anything, a “People of the Library”. This is not something I have come up with; I heard Dr. David Frawley use it once and it seems apt.

The memory of past governance traditions is alive, even if in an imperfect manner (the notion of a Dharma Rajya, for example). Also, these governance traditions of the past are part of the cultural identity for many Indians, for they are a part of the socio-religious knowledge and texts that are a part of one’s upbringing and heritage.

The contents from a library will serve to help oneself over the course of a lifetime. 🙂 Artwork by Vishnu Mohan

Now consider the article in the link seen below. It came out a little after the Prāna Pratishta of the Rama temple at Ayodhya. It speaks of how the Government is supposed to adhere to “Constitutionalism”. The article only addresses the Government and not the citizens.

https://scroll.in/article/1062519/in-its-74th-year-indias-constitution-has-been-emptied-of-its-soul

But if, as I was pondering earlier, the Government is the people, does the need to adhere to “Constitutionalism” extend to the people as well? The article literally adds an “ism” to the Constitution. Considering how the culture of Hindus also has an “ism” at the end, “Hinduism”, one can’t but help feel like the article is really close to telling people that there is a primary religion we owe allegiance to, the religion of the Constitution. This again feels like an attempt to make Indians a “People of the Book”, the Book being the Constitution of the Republic of India. I reiterate, this is my feeling, not something I am certain of, but it does seem plausible.

Next, consider the following article. It specifically speaks of how “culture” and maybe even “customs” should not have a place in law, with respect to marriages.

https://thewire.in/law/marriage-equality-narasimha-supreme-court-cji-chandrachud

I am not aware if the author is of the inclination that this should be the case in general or only with respect to marriages and similar social relationships/contracts. But if it is in general, again, there is an argument against cultural precedents in governance. This again would extend to a cultural memory of other traditions of governance being a no-no as well.

Considering the opinions expressed in the above two articles, is it not akin to telling people that no matter what, their belief systems, culture and traditions are going to be second to the Constitution? If the past traditions of governance are linked to their religions and cultural identity, what then? Will this subordination not be exacerbated if the memory of past governance traditions is alive? I am not certain I have clear answers to these. I only have opinions, and those are not static. Based on my limited experience, this is also true for many other people.

India has a hoary tradition of ideas and texts related to governance having commentaries (Bhāshya) written about them. These commentaries can have criticisms and preferences as well. There could even be suggestions of what in a given text should be followed and what should not. This is not unlike an amendment to a doctrine when the same is needed (whatever the root cause for the same might be).

Considering this tradition of criticism and change to traditions of governance, what if the electorate prefers a change to the Constitution or addition of newer (or older) traditions of governance into the same? Would this be a threat to the constitution or a violation of “constitutionalism”? I would opine that neither is true.

After all, the idea of the constitution NOT being THE BOOK is well known. Otherwise, there would not be 106 amendments to the document. It is an organic, living document that is changed as the nation evolves. There might be a lag in the change and the speed of response, but that it should be changed is not disputed.

Indians thus, do not believe that this latest tradition is perfect, but needs constant correction, just like past traditions of governance. Some of these might be informed by other traditions, not even necessarily from the geography of present or past India. The Library, will be referred to no matter what. The numerous and consistent amendments to the tradition of the Constitution itself is a testament to this. “The Library” here refers of course, to the other traditions of Governance that are in the memory of the citizens. These are the various Smritis and the “Nitis” that I referred to earlier and the overarching concept of a “Dharma Rājya”.

Granted, the Constitution of India is very long and fills in several books, but it certainly is a single tradition of governance, administration and law and order. Assuming that Indians will by default adhere to this latest tradition, specifically when memory and knowledge (and baggage) of other similar traditions from the past persists, is a bit rich.

So, when people make assertions that suggest India will cease to exist if the Constitution (or the institutions it defines) stops being sacrosanct are both right and wrong. They are wrong because India has always been India and never static, but always in flux, which seems to be its natural state. They are wrong because the Constitution will be yet another tradition in the Library to refer to, never to be excised from our collective existence. They are wrong simply because Indians are not a “People of the Book”, and the Constitution does not define the geography or the life that thrives within it. They are right because they only refer to the “Republic of India” and not “India” when they make this assertion. This prerequisite has to be stated and again and again, and never wrongly assumed to be common sense. They are right because India was never meant to be stuck to a given tradition for too long. India is always dynamic and in flow and that is what defines it, the absorption of traditions and the expansion of “The Library”.

Deception, Debates, Martial Arts & Courtly challenges – Tilakāshta Mahisha Bandhana

February 18, 2024February 18, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, hinduism, India CurrentAffairs, Indian Culture, Indian History, Martial Arts, Sports, training3 Comments

Exactly a month ago, we celebrated the festival of Makara Sankranti. This is when the Sun transits into Capricorn. This is celebrated every year in January and doubles up as a harvest festival in India. This festival is known by different names in different parts of the country, Pongal, Magh Bihu, Lohri and Sankranti being a few. One important aspect of Sankranti is the use of sesame seeds. Sesame seeds along with jaggery, dry coconut (kobri), groundnut (peanut) and few other optional ingredients are shared as a mixture. This is a mixture specific to this festival alone. The mixture, in Kannada, is called “Yellu Bella”, sometimes spelled “Ellu Bella”. “Ellu” or “Yellu” is the sesame seeds and the “Bella” is the jaggery. Sesame in Hindi is called “Til”. The word “Til” is used in a famous story relating to Tenali Rama and that is the inspiration for this article. The inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya took up the spot I was supposed to post this article on and hence this comes a month later. 🙂

Anyone who practices any martial art in modern times would have used various social media platforms to watch practitioners of either the same or other martial art styles express their version/vision of the same. This leads to learning and the formation of opinions regarding the practitioners or the martial art style being demonstrated, irrespective of whether it is solo practice/performance or a sparring/training session or a competition.

The formation of opinions obviously leads to discussions and debates about the strengths/advantages and weaknesses/disadvantages of the different various systems of martial arts or aspects of the same. This inevitably leads to discussing the history, traditions and development of individual fighting arts. This is a stepping stone to talking about modern interpretations of the martial arts and the requirements there in. This means that practitioners discuss what martial arts offer in modern day living – “self-defence”, fitness, sports, spiritual development, personal growth etc.

All of this leads to opinions on “what works” and that means identifying specific situations and modern cultural contexts in which they are relevant. This entire process quite a few times leads to, “Which is the best martial art?”, “Which is the best martial art for me?” and of course, “Why this is not good enough or why this no longer works”. The focus on the first of these questions seems to be diminishing of late, and thankfully so.

One can call the discussions and debates about the various martial arts arguments, for they could become acrimonious at times. This aspect extends to both armed and unarmed (and armoured and unarmoured) martial arts. The great advantage of these discussions is that the martial arts are becoming more popular. Finer aspects of several of these art forms are brought to the fore in the discussions and the audience for these is made aware of the same. So, hopefully, more art forms and traditions will flourish thanks to the debates.

With the phenomenon that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) has become, thanks to the various franchises like UFC, ONE, Cage Fighter, Bellator and the rest, the debate over “best martial art” and “what really works” is common place on social media platforms. This discussion extends, specifically while discussing historical/traditional martial arts, to which sword type or any other weapon is better in a given time frame and situation. Discussions also extend to armour, but to a lesser extent. The most common talking point is with respect to the use of any martial art in self-defence.

Videos are the medium best suited to demonstrating and discussing martial arts and hence they are most prevalent on YouTube. Instagram, as I see it, is more suited for demonstrations. Some YouTube channels that I know of, that not only share martial art related information but also discuss martial art effectiveness (the questions mentioned above) are Martial Arts Journey with Rokas, Hard2Hurt, English Martial Arts, Karate TV, Inside Fighting, Jesse Enkamp and of course, the podcast (and its snippets) by Joe Rogan, to mention just a few.

Some channels that focus on armed martial arts are Scholagaldiatoria, Shadiversity, Skallagrim, Sanatan Shastra Vidya, Musha Shugyo, Weaponism and Let’s Ask Shogo/Seki Sensei. There are several others that I have watched from time to time and are very good as well. There are channels that focus on historical Japanese, Filipino, Indian, Chinese, Korean, Iranian (HIMA), African (HAMA) and European (HEMA) martial arts. There are also several channels that focus on modern day practices that include or focus exclusively on firearms. Discussions here include the effectiveness, modern day practicality and various other aspects. Consequently disagreements abound on quite a few of these channels.

I do not use the word “disagreements” in a negative sense here. Whether or not one agrees with the opinions and knowledge shared on these channels, they definitely further awareness about and interest regarding the martial arts and this is a great thing. But of course, disagreements lead to debate and discussions. This is the point of focus of this article.

Debates over the martial arts are nothing new. At least the need to identify if the style one practices is effective or if one is a good martial artist is not new. It has always existed. This is where the “Dojo Challenge” comes from. This is where the duels of Miyamoto Musashi come from. It is also, in the Indian context where the concept of a “court wrestler”* comes from. These “court wrestlers” were responsible for taking on challenges by wrestlers or fighters from within and without the country, in the latter case to protect the king or kingdom’s honour and show that the society in question can produce great fighters.

The concept of debates in India extends beyond the martial arts to settling differences related to philosophy, religion and perhaps many other aspects as well. From here on I will swivel between martial arts and other aspects while discussing the use of debates and discussion in the Indian context.

India over the millennia has a hoary tradition of having debates over various aspects of life. These are heard to this day as stories and many of them are well and truly historical, even if the finer points might not be totally accurate. These debates have, on occasion, led to massive socio-cultural and political changes in the landscape of Indian history. This love for debate, discussion and argument persists to this day in the modern Indian republic. Just have a look at the various forms to media to get an inkling of this^&.

Seen below are some examples of some of these well-known debates/discussions from Indian history that I am aware of.

The Rishika Gārgi is supposed to have been instrumental in determining that the Rishi Yajnyavalkya was a great intellectual who could not be defeated in a debate based on her questioning of the latter, in the court of Janaka in Mithila. A link to the video describing the same is seen below. Watch between the 2 and 4 minute mark.

The discussion between the Indo-Greek king Menander I (Milinda) and the Buddhist monk Nāgasena is recorded in the ancient book “Milindapanha”. The king is supposed to have become a patron of Buddhism post this discussion.
The individual Ugra Tāpas lost a debate with a Buddhist Bhikshu and became a Bhikshu himself, with the name “Nava Bhikshu”. This person, is supposed to have later impressed the emperor Kanishka to become an ardent supporter of Buddhism with his expositions on the same. He earned the name Ashva Ghosha after this as his way with words was supposed to be able to mesmerize even horses. Seen below is a link to a video about governance during the Kushan era. Parts of this episode deal with the story of Ashva Ghosha.

Shankarācharya’s debate with Mandana Mishra where the latter’s wife was the judge is very well known. The debate as I recall was about the merits of the Karma mārga and the Jnana mārga. Shankarāchārya won the debate and Mandana Mishra became the disciple of the former. He even became his successor with the name Sureshwarāchārya at the Sringeri Mattha.
The debates of Rāmānujāchārya at the court of King Vishnuvardhana of the Hoysala dynasty is supposed to have convinced the king himself and several of the citizenry to convert from the practice of Jainism to that of Vaishnavism.

This practice of debates continued over the centuries. This is seen from the stories we hear as kids, specifically those of Tenāli Ramakrishna, Birbal and Gopal Bhand (of Krishna Nagar). One such story which I describe briefly is the inspiration behind this article. It appears that the courts of kingdoms had scholars, wrestlers, artists and other luminaries who added to the prestige of the court, king and kingdom. Scholars, wrestlers and artists apparently travelled around various courts to display their abilities, maybe challenge “court specialists” in their respective areas and earn awards or commissions for their achievements. Perhaps this was a way of living for at least a few.

The story goes that a scholar once came to the court of the king Krishnadevarāya of the Vijayanagara kingdom in the early 16^th century. He set out a challenge for the scholars at court to debate with him over any scripture and win. He was extremely capable and everyone at court was sure they could not get the better of this individual. At this juncture, the Pandit Ramakrishna from Tenāli (in modern day Andhra Pradesh) took up the challenge and succeeded in defeating the traveling scholar. Tenāli Rama or Raman of Tenāli, as he is also called quite often is sometimes referred to as the “jester” of the court, but this seems a wrong description. From the little that I know, “Vidushaka” seems the right word.

Ramakrishna came to court on the day of the debate with a large bundle of manuscripts and told the challenger that he would like to begin with a discussion of the scripture called “Tilakāshta Mahisha Bandhana”. He added that this was scripture was a simple one and known to even the cowherds of Vijayanagara. There was in reality no such scripture and this was a ruse to trick the scholar from abroad. It worked and the scholar, having not heard of the scripture, thought he was outmatched, accepted defeat and left.

Image credit – “Raman, The Matchless Wit” published by Amar Chitra Katha in “Tales of Humour”

Thus, the “prestige” of the court was saved and Ramakrishna rewarded, following which the reality of “Tilakāshta Mahisha Bandhana” was revealed. Til is the word used to refer to sesame seeds. Tilakāshta refers to the stalk of the sesame plant. Mahisha means buffalo. Bandhana is a rope or “to tie”. Ramakrishna had tied together stalks of the sesame plant with rope used to tie buffaloes in place. Multiple such bundles were placed in a bag and the scholar mistook these to be manuscripts of scriptures. So, “Tilakāshta Mahisha Bandhana” was nothing but stalks of the sesame plant tied into bundles using rope used to secure buffaloes! TENALI RAMAKRISHNA USED DECEPTION TO WIN A DEBATE!

Image credit – “Raman, The Matchless Wit” published by Amar Chitra Katha in “Tales of Humour”

Debates are not restricted to areas where ideas are shared with words, in either the spoken or written format (debates can occur through articles and op-eds). They can occur in spheres where ideas are shared with physical actions. This includes debates over music, dance or of course, the martial arts. A debate about any of these would include both conversations and actual demonstrations of music or dance or the fighting arts.

In the case of the martial arts, demonstrations can transition into an actual duel or confrontation to drive home a point. This aspect of the martial arts lends itself into the tradition of the dojo challenge** or musha shugyo*** (only a part of it). These are situations where a practitioner of a specific martial art form challenges practitioners of the same style or a different one to identify who is a superior martial artist or which is a better art form. This is exactly like a debate where one side of a notion tries to prove its validity over the other.

I will share a few examples about debates in music or dance with examples from pop culture. These situations were written into fiction only because they are well known aspects of Indian culture and hence serve sufficiently as examples to illustrate the debate.

There is sequence in the old Hindi movie “Āmrapāli” (1966) where one dancer has to prove that the performance of another is flawed. She has to do this by performing the correction version. This is a case of a debate over which is the correct dance form. A link to this sequence from the movie is seen below.

There is a Tamil movie “Vanjikottai Vāliban” (1958), which is supposedly based on “The Count of Monte Cristo”. Here two dancers are in contest to determine who is superior. Again, this is nothing other than a duel. The link to this sequence from the movie is seen below. This movie was remade in Hindi and called “Raj Tilak”.

There is another Tamil movie called “Tillana Mohanambal” (1968) where there is a sequence related to a debate/challenge around music. Here, an expert with the Nādaswaram has to demonstrate his ability to perform Western music with an Indian instrument, to establish that his art form is not limited in any way. A link to this sequence is from the movie is seen below (watch specifically beyond the 2:30 mark).

The above three cases are not different from the duels of Miyamoto Musashi. Musashi fought 61 duels and survived (won) all of them. The duels were against martial artists who practiced weapons and styles other than his own. His own style with two swords developed from these experiences. Considering that the life of Musashi and that of his opponent(s) was at stake in quite a few of these duels, he definitely employed aspects other that just physical martial skill in these. This is no different from Tenāli Rama using deception in his debate with “Tilakāshta Mahisha Bandhana”.

Consider Musashi’s most famous duel against Sasaki Kojiro. Kojiro was famed for his use of a very long blade (perhaps a nodachi or odachi?). To counter the reach of his opponent’s weapon Musashi is said to have used a very long bokken (a sword made of wood). He apparently carved this bokken out of a boat oar. He is also supposed to have come very late to the duel, long after the agreed time. This is supposed to have made Kojiro tired and irritated, and perhaps prone to errors due to the same. So, Musashi got the better of his opponent by changing the weapon he used and the timing of the duel to gain an advantage. This is akin to Tenāli Rama bringing a bag full of fake manuscripts.

A statue depicting the duel between Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro in Japan. Image credit – Wikpedia

In another earlier instance Musashi is supposed to have taken on several practitioners of the Yoshioka school of sword fighting. I am not sure if the following tale is historical, but is surely made popular by the Manga based on Musashi’s life. The Yoshioka came in large numbers to kill Musashi in a situation where the fight was supposed to be a duel. So, they chose to deceive him. But, Musashi had arrived much earlier at the agreed location. He attacked without any warning and from hiding before the Yoshioka had any inkling that he was already there. Musashi ended up surviving/winning this fight as well. In this case both sides used deception. Musashi by being early and using stealth and the Yoshioka as mentioned earlier. So, deception is a known feature even in a “martial debate”; perhaps it is something that is to be expected.

Whether or not deception is used in a “martial debate”, it is a healthy aspect that has led to development of the martial arts over centuries. Consider the different styles of Boxing (English and Mexican for example), Wrestling (Greco Roman and Freestyle), BJJ, Jujutsu, Kalari Payatt (Northern & Southern), Karate and the various animal related forms of Wushu (Kung Fu). Also consider the very many styles of sword, spear and other weapon schools that exist in the various parts of the world. Some of these came about as differences of opinion and differing points of view occurred in a given style, even if these were not really a “debate” in a conventional sense. Of course, different schools have merged under a single master as well when some martial lineages did not have an heir to carry it forward.

To extend the dojo challenge to a modern day context, consider the examples where masters in traditional Chinese fighting styles were challenged and defeated by a practitioner of MMA, Xu Xiaodong^&&. Xu Xiaodong also supposedly faced flak from the authorities for demeaning the traditions of China. Beyond this, consider the innumerable discussions that happen online about the pros and cons of western and eastern swords, armour and the like. Of course, these started out in a stark adversarial manner but has over the years evolved to a useful exchange of information, knowledge and experience.

The most glaring examples are of how many western content creators (who also have martial arts experience) were deeply involved in debunking the superiority of the katana over western swords. But over the years, similarities with the art forms has also been recognized and a healthy space for experience sharing has emerged. What was once only a debate has transcended to be genuine discussion.

In a non-martial context, debates and discussion have led to great development. This is very well known; consider the 1927 Solvay Conference^# as an example, where Quantum Physics as field of study took shape. But the use of deception is debates has been a constant as well. Consider any of the debates in any media platform. All of them use data selectively to further specific points of view and based on personal interpretations. This gets exacerbated since these days we have fake news and more recently, deep fakes. Fake news can be deliberately edited videos to suit a purpose or morphed images and of course, blatant lies with words. These can be used to create a deception or used unwittingly by a debating side, where the deception is perpetuated by dint of being deceived!

The use of deception is not new in the martial arts. Nor are debates about which martial art or martial artist is better. And deception is par for the course in debates that have nothing to with the martial arts either, as we saw earlier. When this is the case, can the use of deception to settle debates about the martial arts be wrong? Unlikely. Especially when these debates lead to actual physical contests, sometimes life and death duels.

There is one aspect about using deception that needs to be considered. This is “luck”. I will explore this in my next post.

Notes:

* I am not an expert on court traditions in different parts of India in the past and do not claim to know for certain of how these positions worked or even if they existed for certain in the various kingdoms that have come and gone in different parts of this ancient land. I am aware of some stories and am going the same.

**Dojo challenge – A situation where a martial artist challenges practitioners in a dojo to a fight to determine if their art form or skill set is as good as or better than her or his own.

***Musha shygyo – Martial journey, or journey of a martial artist (mainly physical over a geography, but could be spiritual or intellectual) which leads to growth and development of the individual’s martial abilities (and also personal development in general).

^&& Seen below are links to 2 videos which share the story of Xu Xiaodong and his story

^# Seen below is a link to a video which briefly explains the 1927 Solvay Conference and its relation to Quantum Physics

^& The practice of debating is thriving in modern India too. It has expanded into television media, social media and print media apart from those that take place in the offices and homes of every citizen. These debates have even incorporated platforms beyond India as a tool to gain an advantage over their “opponents”. I am adding this point in the notes as it is not directly relevant to the article. Consider the opposition to the current central Government in India. There are several critics of the government who either reside or publish mostly in platforms outside India! A few names that come to mind doing this are Suraj Yengde, Kapil Komireddi and Rana Ayyub. On the other side, people who are sometimes critical and quite often supportive of the government are Kushal Mehra, Shambhav Sharma and Sree Iyer. All of them use YouTube effectively, which in reality is not an Indian platform. The conference “Dismantling Global Hindutva” has to take the cake though, for using foreign soil to reach an Indian audience 🙂 . I am not sure this is deception, but certainly seems like a flanking move or some new BVR missile equivalent, in the intellectual sense of course.

Constant Adaptation, Dynamic Equilibrium – Martial Arts & Modern Democratic Information Flows

February 1, 2024March 4, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, hinduism, India CurrentAffairs, Indian Culture, Indian History, Martial Arts, trainingLeave a comment

In the Bujinkan system, the differences that exist in points of view, perceptions, paths of learning, methods of teaching and every other conceivable difference is to be accepted. Differences that occur over time are also be expected. Consistency is not something one assumes. Every situation is dealt with as a fresh one with no expectations or motives. This was the premise of the article I posted four weeks ago. A link to this post is seen in the notes below*.

Once we can accept that we need to deal with every situation and cannot wish for a favourable one, a lot becomes simple in the mind. We can accept that consistency is not to be expected of humans. Everyone responds to a situation in a given time and space. If we encounter a favourable situation, consider it luck, be happy and move on. Do not try to replicate or analyze it, in hopes of achieving the same again.

One aspect that the above understanding leads to, in my opinion, based on training, is that we become more like our uke (attacker/opponent) and the vice versa also holds true. If one is training with an aggressive uke (opponent), who does not see the threat to such actions and is unable to realize the points of vulnerability he or she is exposing oneself to, based on the move performed by the tori (defender), a change might be required to end the conflict. It might be necessary to expose the vulnerability/opening/suki by actually striking, locking or any other act that induces at least a little pain. This hopefully, will reveal the fault of the attack and mitigate the same. Of course, this might be an iterative process with a gradual or sudden increase in the pain imposed by the tori. This could be considered as the tori becoming aggressive and more like the uke, in comparison the earlier attitude of the same person. Similarly, once the uke experiences the pain and vulnerability, the attacks might reduce in speed, power and in general the person might become wary and less aggressive. This means that the uke has become a little more circumspect and “peace-loving” 🙂 , like the tori was to start with. So, the two fighters have become more like one another, absorbing each other’s attitude.

This is something that might happen in every exchange, over many months, years or over a lifetime, when people share the same space and time together, as practitioners, friends, family, colleagues and any other relationship one can consider. I have over the years experienced this. My fellow budoka (practitioners of budo), senpai (seniors) and kohai (juniors), have changed and become more like one another.

Individuals who started out wanting to be the best, being aggressive, have over time mellowed considerably and come to rely on movement and sensitivity over speed, power and aggression. They have also lost the need to be the best. Similarly, those that started out being timid and afraid to strike or cause any pain, have absorbed some of the aggressive nature of their peers. They have lost the need to hold back all the time, they use aggression when necessary, with no reservations, but not with impunity. So, a nice equilibrium is reached with years of training.

This is even seen with how people react to practitioners of other martial arts or to those who do not practice the martial arts. Some start out trying to convince others with a zeal of why the art they are practicing is awesome. They are trying hard to be good ambassadors, or marketers at least. Others start out hiding their practice altogether and if not that, do not share much information. This also changes over time. Everyone somehow settles down to a reasonable middle ground, knowing when and whom to discuss the martial arts with and when to not worry about what others think of the same.

I personally use the analogy of a pendulum to describe the change. The more a person was aggressive, the more he or she will become sensitive and averse to physical force, before being able to do either (or both) as required. The same is true of individuals who are averse to physical contact. They start out being timid, then become used to using more physical strength than needed, before achieving the equilibrium where he or she can avoid physical contact or use excessive strength, as called for by the situation.

Now, if we expand the lack of consistency and the change in people due to circumstances and life experiences, some more aspects of our lives hopefully become clear. All of us inherently know change occurs and will likely have used the adage “change is the only constant”. But all of us are also, at least miffed or annoyed to a greater extent, by change, especially in people and the world around us. The effort to adapt to changes is not always pleasant or predictable.

If we live in democracies, all of us humans are political, irrespective of how often and with how many people we discuss our opinions, preferences, ideas and inclinations. And all of these are influenced to varying degrees by all the information we are exposed to. Now consider the data we are all swimming through every day – social media, digital media, televised media, print media, and opinions of people we know and don’t know. It is also very likely that all the information is presented to further a motive, again irrespective of how benign or indifferent to influence, the creator or distributor of that information thinks it is. The lack of a motive is perhaps a motive by itself. Another word for the motive of the presentation of information in today’s world is “Narrative”. This means we are all swimming in strong currents of narratives every day, all day, day after day. These narratives, just like water currents mingle and develop lives of their own, which need not be under anyone’s control. In my understanding this is what defines a “zeitgeist” (overarching theme/mood) of a time frame, a decade or so.

We all live through multiple decades and through varying zeitgeist and narrative sets. This is also a change related to people. After all, narratives and the zeitgeist are driven by people. But, adapting to a new zeitgeist is much harder despite knowing that change is a constant. I opine that this is because a zeitgeist is always trying to build a cult, if not a religion. How often do we hear people fondly remember the way things were or being glad that those times are done? I suspect that if you live in a democracy, it is fairly often.

Is adaptation wrong? Never. It might be wrong to certain people and great to the rest. Both groups adapt in their own ways. But like the hysteresis curve** what we achieve with the adaptation is not what used to be achieved or an improvement of what is, it is always a bit of both added to the current situation, which is a different chimera altogether. This “chimera” will require adaption all over again, until the next and the next and the cycle goes on.

Hysteresis curve, Image credit – Encyclopedia Britannica

This concept of adaptation and becoming more like the other, holds for countries/nations, societies/civilizations and people as well. This is what I personally understand as one of either integration/assimilation or confrontation through adaptation. We see this all through history and in current affairs.

A primary driver that drives adaptation is technology. The use of the internet and all the platforms it has spawned is perhaps the latest tool that is being used to drive narratives. Narratives that are weapons used as potential equalizers whenever there is a considerable disparity in any other conventional weapon, either physical or psychological.

Left – Troops of the Madras Infantry (EIC soldiers), Right – Troops of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s Fauj-i-khas. Both are modeled on Europeans armies.

Image credits – both images are from the book “Return of a King” by William Dalrymple

Based on my limited knowledge of history, this is something that has happened time and time again. In the 18^th century, the East India Company (EIC) used mobile artillery and European military tactics to gain a great advantage over many Indian armies. This was overcome in a couple of decades by the local leaders hiring French military advisors to train their armies in the latest tactics and technologies. This led to the Fauj-i-khas and its guns, of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the troops of the Holkar and Shinde factions of the Marathas and Tipu Sultan’s army. All of these troops held off the EIC successfully for decades.

Portrait of Mahadji Shinde (Scindia) by James Wales, Source – Wikipedia

The EIC gained an upper hand with better financial management and the exploitation local rivalries. This was overturned not with better management practices by the Indians. After almost a century of learning from the British, the Indian army turned against the colonial masters and forced their exit. This effort was on two fronts. One which incessantly tried to turn the army against its own masters and the other led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (INC), which turned civilians against the British and broke the moral superiority the British gave themselves.

So, first, the Indian armies became more like the EIC and other European armies. Later, Indians learned to turn the learning from the British against themselves, which is what the British had used in the first place, popularly called “Divide and Rule”.

Around the dawn of the Common Era, India was invaded by the Greeks, Shakas, Kushans and Pahalavas, and a few centuries later by the Hunas. All of them eventually assimilated into the existing native culture, religion and became locals; some even propagated Indian culture as it existed at the time to Central and East Asia, Persia, all the way to Greece. In other words, the invaders became one with the populace they attacked.

In the second millennium of the Common Era, this changed, when Islamic and Christian invaders tried to make the locals assimilate into their culture. Islamic armies that invaded had superior cavalry due to their origins in Central Asia. Indian forces over time became superior cavalry troops themselves and added guerrilla tactics to eventually break Islamic domination. This is seen in the armies of the Rajputs and the Marathas. Christian forces represented by the EIC and the British were defeated as mentioned earlier. So, the trend holds, one becomes more like the enemy to survive and overcome the same.

Left – Statue of Maharana Pratap, Image credit – The image is from the book “Maharanas” by Dr. Omendra Ratnu

Right – Statue of Peshwa Baji Rao I in front of the Shaniwar Wada in Pune, Image credit – Wikipedia

Fast forward to the Indian Republic and this pattern continues. The example now truly moves into the realm of narratives. Indian social sciences were taken over in the late 60s and through the 70s by a Leftist strain of thought. This led to the Hindu religion facing a lot of negative coverage the world over due to the narrative set in educational institutions, media and pop culture. This sway was broken with the coming of the internet. People who are not academic historians, from all walks of life, reset the narrative with new research and by digging up the works of historians of the past who were side-lined by the Leftist way of thought.

A Marketing Professor of mine from MBA used to say that one should never leave any subject to just the experts. He used to suggest that HR should never be left to HR professionals, Finance to Finance experts, Engineering to Engineers and so on. While studying Engineering, we had a subject called “Engineering System Design” (ESD). ESD said that while trying to solve an engineering problem one should always have an expert from a different domain. For example have a biologist while trying to solve an engineering problem.

It is this approach that has changed the narrative about the Hindu religion and Indian history over the last 15 odd years. People took narrative building ideas from Social Science professionals, added their own experience from other walks of life and used the internet to circumvent the academic strangle hold of the Leftists. Now, the Leftists and their kind in media are taking to social media to counter this, as television media has been lost to them. How this plays out in the future is yet to be seen.

Another change that is happening is in the way Ahimsa is viewed in India. Ahimsa was considered the ONLY reason for Indian Independence during my school years. This is now changing to show how the Revolutionary movement was as vital a component of the Freedom Struggle as the Ahimsa led movement was. But the Ahimsa fervour added with the negative narrative about Hinduism led to the creation of Caste and Religion based vote banks in the country. This left many feeling dissatisfied and unable to openly air their concerns about the same.

Again, the internet came as a disruption. It gave a new avenue for venting these grievances. It also led to Indians reconnecting with the past beyond Ahimsa, a past of physical conflict and valour. This has made Indians more aggressive and proud as a people. Nothing is without consequences and the fallout of this is yet to be seen. The beneficiaries of the vote bank politics were belligerent for a few decades. But the passive population has become more like them and is showing signs of aggression. In the same vein, those no longer benefiting from the old narrative have taken to the passive protests based on Ahimsa, to achieve a moral high ground. This was seen in the anti-CAA protests and the protests against the Farm Laws, at least until violence undermined both, specifically the anti-CAA protests. So, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme; those that were raised on Ahimsa narratives are now realizing forms of power other than morality, while those who formed a part of the dominant narrative are now taking to the moral capacity of Ahimsa. Again, the opponents have become like one another.

If we consider the current events in India, the Prāna Pratishta of the Rama temple occurred a few days ago. This event is widely seen as a defining moment for Indic or Dharmic or Bharatiya civilization, in a hugely positive light. But there is a sizeable opposition to the focus on the event, especially about the involvement of the Central Government. It is a criticism of the Government for being right wing, and an adherent of “Hindutva”. Hindutva is the political zeitgeist in India as I see it. It has been so since 2014 for sure and maybe since a few years before then.

In an interview on the YouTube channel of “The Wire”, the criticism is very interesting. The Wire is considered a leading “liberal”, “leftist” media outlet. The interview is of Ramachandra Guha, by Karan Thapar. Both Mr. Guha and Mr. Thapar are regular critics of the current Indian Central Government. In the interview, Mr. Guha says that the focus on the Ram temple at Ayodhya is an attempt to convert Hinduism into a congregational religion, which it never was. And this attempt is just to benefit the political party in power.

This criticism is very interesting. It suggests that Hinduism should not change from what it was in the past! Despite Hinduism being in a process of constant change! Hinduism went from being a Yajna based religion with no temples, to a religion (it is way more than a religion, but I am using this word here for simplicity) centred on temples. It also went from a ritualistic one to adding a plethora of philosophies. It has now gone from a religion focused purely on the sub-continent to one looking outward. This change has occurred over the millennia, by its acquiring influences from communities all over the Indian sub-continent. Hinduism has led to Buddhism, maybe Jainism, Sikhism and also consists of the now extinct Charvaka and Ajivija ways of thinking. Hinduism has also been changed by these religions and the several local and tribal faiths that exist in the various parts of India. This aspect of Hinduism is so pervasive that invaders adopted one or more of the Indic systems and changed their names even (look at names of later Kushans, Hunas, Indo-Greeks etc), until the invasion of the practitioners of Islam and Christianity.

So, Mr. Guha bemoans the change in Hinduism (if it really is happening) despite it being a religion of change at all times of its existence! What we can consider is that the Abrahamic religions are congregational religions and if Hinduism adopts congregational aspects that are very pervasive, it might become more like the Abrahamic faiths. This is yet to happen, if it does at all. But if it does, it would be another case of a local religion adopting facets of a faith system that is perhaps a challenge to its existence. A link to the interview I am referring to, is seen in the notes below¹.

There are many other conversations happening within Hinduism relating to rediscovering its past and positives, the freedom of its temples, caste segregation and the like. There is no way to say how all of these will result in the evolution of the Dharmic systems in India and abroad. Hinduism is not yet a proselytizing religion, while its offshoot Buddhism is. Will this also change in the future as result of learning from “opponents”? There is no way to know as yet. Narratives always come up against lived experiences and face hurdles there. How the two interact defines the future of both. This is a whole different topic I am not very aware of and hence will not delve into it further.

Now for a view from the other side. Many of the people critical of the current Indian Government used to be superstars of television journalism. Now these channels are seen to be pro-government. A lot of these former superstars are no longer associated with the big media channels. They have all shifted to YouTube and use Instagram quite a bit to put out the “other side of the story”.

It was the political party currently in power that first used social media and internet platforms to reach out to citizens, during a time when the superstars still reigned. But now people supporting and criticizing the government use internet platforms and social media successfully. So, the critics of the government have learnt from and become more like those supporting it! 🙂 Seen in the notes below is an article which highlights the efforts of these critics in a positive light and obviously, goes on share how freedoms and democracy in India under threat. This article also mentions, obviously again, India’s ranking ranking in the World Press Freedom Index. 🙂 A link to this article is seen in the notes below². I had discussed narratives and such articles, and how they are weapons that act over time in a previous article of mine. A link to this article is also seen in the notes below³.

This change is playing out the world over. We are all citizens of Planet Earth, despite our national, communal, regional and tribal identities. Modern communication means we all have a stake in all that happens everywhere, not just our own states or countries. Also, happenings in far-away parts of the world influence the manner in which we react to local issues. This is a new Chimera we are all dealing with.

The Ukraine war was fought on digital and social media as much as on the financial and actual military fronts, at least in the initial months. Similarly, the current war in Gaza is being fought on social media, television debates, YouTube podcasts and on University campuses. University campuses that are not in Israel or even in West Asia. The fronts and non-combat participants who try to influence these wars with narratives might have no truck in the actual conflict on the ground at all! This is evidence that we are all global citizens, no matter what our identification documents state. It also shows how we are all becoming more like one another, especially if we consider someone an “opponent” or worse still, an “enemy”.

Even in the past, there are examples of this outside India. Native Americans learnt the use of horses and guns very fast when faced with the Europeans. Similarly, Texas Rangers had to learn the ways of the Natives to face the Comanche tribes. In Africa as well, troops of white colonizers in Zimbabwe and South Africa had to learn the ways of the locals to fight their resistance. In Vietnam, the local troops led by the legendary leader Vo Nguyen Giap destroyed the French at Dien Bien Phu, after learning the ways of modern warfare and communism from European colonizers. The examples are endless, enemies learn about and from each other and become like each other. Not the same, never, but a dynamic equilibrium is certainly reached where the two sides are similar enough to force a mitigation of the conflict, unless there is another disruption one of the two sides can exploit.

The world we live in is defined by conflicts, be they military, economic or ideological. Nationalism, Populism v Leftism, Supposed liberalism; Hindutva v Secularism; Immigration v Refugees; Anti-Semitism v Anti Zionism; Islamism v Modernity; Institutional democracy v Electoral/Authoritarian democracy, Israel v Palestine, Ukraine v Russia – the list goes on.

These days, all of these are fought on the narrative level as well. But be they narrative, financial or military, everyone is learning from everyone else all the time, in this super-connected world. And we will likely become more like one another, even if we learn what we consider “bad traits” of each other. This will lead to a lull in the conflicts, until a disruption, mostly technological, comes along, and things will flare up again. This is, at least for now, the way things are. But knowing that we will become more like each other, is that not a cause for hope? Because it means there is something to take away from the interaction with the “other” that we want to add to ourselves, as an improvement, or at least a protective mechanism. Can we use this aspect as means to manage conflicts? Or are we doing it already? Perhaps both. Either way, it is just a prospect for not giving into despair. Maybe the constant in the zeitgeist of every time is polarization, with an undercurrent of adaptation and disruption.

Notes:

* https://mundanebudo.com/2024/01/04/a-myriad-of-methods/

** The Hysteresis curve shows how a force might cause a displacement, but when the force reduces to zero the displacement does not go back to zero. A force in the opposite direction is needed to make that happen.

This is like a disruption causing a change in society, but the removal of that disruption (when it is no longer a disruption and has become normal) does not make society go back to its original state, which is a new normal. A different adaptation will be needed for that to happen. This adaptation will move society in a new direction beyond what was planned and that change needs a new adaptation or disruption to attempt a return to the new normal. But that in turn causes more change, and this goes on and on.

This is like the negative force causing a displacement in the opposite direction beyond the original zero. And the reversal of that causes the curve seen in the image seen earlier.

¹The interview between Mr. Guha and Mr. Thapar – the point about congregational religions is made around the 15 minute mark in the video.

² https://restofworld.org/2023/india-youtube-journalism/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-intl

³https://mundanebudo.com/2023/10/15/missile-long-range-weapon-narrative-long-time-weapon/

Missile – long range weapon :: Narrative – “Long time” weapon

October 15, 2023March 26, 2024 Vikram M RBudo, Bujinkan, Current Affaris, India CurrentAffairs, Indian History, Martial Arts5 Comments

“Kirik” in colloquial Kannada means, “deliberate mischief”, maybe with malicious intent

Training of any traditional martial art system involves learning to use weapons. Generally, practitioners learn the use of weapons based on the reach of the weapon. The range a weapon can affect is based on its reach. A simple classification of weapons based on their reach is,

Unarmed combat – the human body is the weapon
Short range – weapons like knives/daggers, Vajra/yawara stick, bagh nakh, loh mushti/knuckle dusters
Medium range – weapons like batons, hanbo, jo, gada/mace , swords
Long range weapons – bo, quarterstaff, spears, all other pole weapons
Discharged weapons – weapons with a range greater than those mentioned above, including all missile weapons, like bows and arrows, javelin, slings, chakra, shuriken, and all modern weaponry

The weapons in short, medium and long range, as far as Indians are concerned, are classified as Shastra, weapons that are hand held. Discharged weapons are Astra, weapons that are discharged with either the hand (javelin, chakra) or through a device that is handheld (arrows through bows, stones through slings).

The reach of a weapon is the distance at which it can affect an intended opponent/target. The range of a weapon is the area that can be influenced by a weapon. Reach is two dimensional, whereas range is three dimensional. For example, the reach of a sword would be the length of its blade if the wielder of the same does not extend her or his arms and legs. The range of the sword would be a sphere, whose radius is the length of the blade. The sphere is generated when the sword’s wielder turns around and moves the weapon over the head and below the waist.

When we consider modern weaponry like missiles, bombs and the like, the range will be the area around the point of impact where the destruction occurs, while the reach is the distance the missile can travel. Of course, in common parlance we refer to this as the range of a missile and the area of impact or blast radius as the range of the warhead the missile was carrying. There could be even more technical terms used which I am not aware of.

In the Bujinkan system of martial arts, Soke Hatsumi Masaaki had designated as the “theme of the year” for the years 2002 and 2003 respectively, the concepts of “Sanjigen no sekai” and “Yugen no sekai”. These concepts were the point of focus in the training of practitioners for those years respectively. The result of this training would be improving the movement of budoka with the addition of these concepts to their existing abilities and experience. “Sanjigen no Sekai” is “the world of three dimensions” and “Yugen no Sekai” is “the world of elegance”.

In simpler terms, Sanjigen no sekai reminded budoka (practitioners of budo, one of the systems of which, is the Bujinkan) to remember to also use the third dimension in their movement. As beginners, we tend to focus on angles and distance to learn the basics. This is facilitated by the dojo being a flat indoor space. Over time, one needs to learn to use one’s legs better to lower one’s centre of gravity to achieve better stability and power by the use of potential energy. It also gives extra space to protect oneself when there are attacks (a diagonal requires an attacker to traverse a greater distance). An additional aspect that my mentor explained while training this concept was that a real fight need not be on a level ground. It could be on uneven terrain or even a slope (think stairs). This changes the distances and needs adaptation in one’s movement and the use of weapons. In other words, the reach and range vary with the terrain.

Yugen no sekai by its name is very poetic. But in reality, it is a lot simpler, based on my understanding. The application of sakkijutsu over Sanjigen no sekai should lead to a realization of Yugen no sekai. Sakkijutsu refers to using intuitive abilities as a guide to move, instead of only relying on the other sensory cues from opponents. It is using one’s gut feel to move in a conflict situation. So, if one can move when the intent to attack is felt and also move in 3 dimensions, perhaps then, one has experienced the concept of Yugen no sekai in the movement.

Sakkijustsu*, as described in previous articles of mine, is generally expected to help gain a fraction of time in facing an attack and this tiny bit of extra time hopefully saves one’s life or mitigates injury. Thus, Yugen no sekai introduced the element, or dimension of time into movement during a fight. This is perhaps logical as Sanjigen no sekai was all about space (three dimensions and their efficient use). Maybe if one used Sakkijustsu, the movement would appear effortless and hence seem elegant, as a consequence of being in harmony with the opponent and the surroundings, leading into the translation of Yugen no sekai in the first place. Of course, harmonizing with the opponent by nullifying one’s own motivations in a fight is a key to practicing Sakkijutsu. So, it is a virtuous cycle (when I read “The Final Empire” by Brandon Sanderson, and the main characters are fighting by using the abilities bestowed by the fictional metal “Atium”, Sakkijutsu was what I always saw⁺).

Now that we have brought time as a dimension in a fight, it leads us to another concept. Just as there are “long range” weapons, can there be “long time” weapons? A “long range” weapon is with respect to space; a weapon which can strike a target at a distance and maybe also one that has a destructive impact on a much larger area. These might be weapons like today’s stand-off range missiles and bombs. A “long time” weapon is with respect to time; it would be one that has an effect over a long duration of time, irrespective of the physical space where its effect is felt. It could also be a weapon that takes a longer duration to show its effect. The term “long time weapon” is something that I am using here, it is not a real, established word. The concept is relevant and any term can be applied to it.

So, what could constitute “long time” weaponry? One thing that comes to mind immediately is “narrative”. This is a term used very often in all forms of media today. There is discussion of having national narratives where a populace feels pride in its nationality and civilizational history and how this drives confidence in citizens to take risks without fear of failure. There is also talk of “foreign interference” through media to set a narrative inimical to the progress or achievements of a society by highlighting only its negative aspects.

Before exploring this further, one thing has to be said. Long range weapons have an impact over varying durations of time and “long time” weapons have impacts over varying regions of space. If a region of a city is destroyed with bombs that region is lost for the citizens until the reconstruction takes place. How long this takes depends on the duration of the conflict that caused the destruction and the nature of the weapon used for the same. So, apart from the space destroyed, there is a duration for which the effect of the destruction persists (effects of nuclear weapons being the extreme). Similarly, if a specific narrative is set, irrespective of the intentions behind the same and the correctness of it, the effect of that narrative can shape societies for many generations, lasting decades or perhaps centuries. This narrative, can spread to different regions through various means and have an effect to varying degrees. So, even “long time” weapons have a spatial impact. That said, let us return to exploring the idea of “narrative” as weaponry.

In his book, “Japanese Sword Fighting, Secrets of the Samurai” Soke Hatsumi Masaaki, states that one should “aspire to the arts of both the pen and the sword”. This is mentioned early in the book, in the preface. He is making a point about sword saints (kensai) and this is one of 5 aspects related to them. But it is not a concept intended to be relegated for use only by the sword saints of old.

This concept of “the pen and the sword” is referred to as “Bun and Bu” in Japanese, as I have heard from my teachers. The “bun” here refers to the pen or the literary arts in general. It also extends to learning and acquisition of knowledge. The “bu” refers to war and the martial arts which is represented by the sword. This concept is mirrored in Hindu culture by the phrase “Shastra and Shaastra”. Shastra as described above are handheld weapons, which represent the fighting arts. Shaastra is a collection of knowledge which leads to and is generated from wisdom through experience.

So, the idea of knowledge beyond just the martial arts has always been recognized as a necessity for survival and conflict management, which is life in general. It is also recognized that the pen and sword go hand in hand and complement each other. An additional point is that the transmission of both “bun and bu” is couched in tradition. In Hindu culture, this would be “Sampradaaya” which is tradition being the container used to transmit knowledge** (this is beautifully put by Dr. Aarati V B in the video which is linked below).

There is another concept called “Kyojaku jyugo arubekarazu” which is practiced as part of the Bujinkan system of martial arts. It states that there is no hard or soft and no strong or weak. It means that there are no dualities. This is used to remove certain misconceptions that practitioners might have after the basics are trained. One of the ways an individual receives an attack (Ukemi) is to absorb the same. This is saying that the defender moves to a position where the force of the attack is low or has been expended. Thus, that particular attack is nullified. So, a hard attack was received and mitigated by a soft response. It is also the same as keeping the joints loose while falling. This allows the impact to be absorbed and distributed instead of keeping them stiff and causing damage to the joints. After this learning, it is possible that practitioners might think of specific soft options against an attack, as against a hard option which could be a block or counter to the attack. This concept is meant to dismiss the artificial distinction. In a real situation, one does what is necessary, absorb, block or counter as the situation demands. There is no distinction or even the need to consider the same.

If we apply this concept to the pen and the sword, knowing that they can complement each other, it is also clear that they can be applied to oppose each other. This aspect of using the pen and the sword against each other and the concept of “kyojaku jyugo arubekarazu” is explored further in my earlier article titled “Might is Right, always”. The link to this is seen in the notes below¹.

Thus, if knowledge or “bun” or “shaastra” and their medium of transmission, traditions, can be applied as weapons, will an attack on the traditions and knowledge systems not be a valid counter to the weapons? Is this not exactly like attacking the supply lines of an enemy to diminish their fighting ability over time? Just as denying food and ammunition to troops to get them to stop fighting is a long known tactic, diminishing a society by messing with its culture, identity and traditions is also a long used strategy. Culture and identity are deeply influenced by “bun” or shaastra, and affect the application of bu or shastra in defence of the same. If these can be defeated, maybe the source of the conflict can be eliminated. And the origin of the ability to use the shastra can also be defeated at the same time. In any case, knowledge and traditions are legitimate targets in a conflict and also valid and useful weapons.

Narratives are the tools of “bun” and “the pen” in the modern world we currently live in. They are vastly more acceptable, and more importantly, cheaper than actual weapons that cause physical harm. It is acceptable to attack culture and civilization as it not harming an individual’s person physically, at least in the near term. It is however unacceptable to cause physical harm in the world we live in, at least in the countries that have functioning democracies. This is true even though an attack on culture and identity might be equally devastating with effects lasting over a long time. Of course, the effect of the narrative also takes a longer time to reveal itself. And there we have it, weapons of “long time”. This is clearly visible in the points in the previous paragraph. Attacking the knowledge, traditions and identity of a society with a series of narratives, yields results only after a consistent attack of years and perhaps even decades, and might only be evident after a century. Thus, it is a weapon that shows its effects after a long time. Similarly, the effects of this weapon will last a long time, as a counter narrative has to be designed and applied to nullify it. Even realizing that an insidious narrative was at work might take time and any counter comes about only after this. So, the weapon causes damage unopposed and unmitigated for a long time before it is countered.

I have to share a point about “shastra” here. Narratives and “the pen” are tools, which can be used to cause damage. If a tool can cause damage, it becomes a weapon and can be called a “shastra” or an “astra”. There is another term we use in India, called “Aayudha”. An “aayudha” in the Kannada or “aayudh” in Hindi, is a commonly used term for “weapon” in India. But, “aayudha” can also be used to refer to “tools”, as in, “tools of the trade”. We have a festival called “Aayudha Pooja” in India. “Aayudha Pooja” is the festival celebrated on the ninth day (Navami) of the Dasara (Dussehra) festival. On this day, everyone pays their respects to the tools that allow them to earn a livelihood. All of us clean and perform rituals where out tools are considered Gods. We all clean our vehicles, engineering equipment, laptops, pumps, machines, switchboards and of course, weapons and training equipment. We then offer our gratitude to these object for their part in supporting our livelihoods. I am not going into the story about the origins of this festival here.

This shows that an “aayudha” is a tool first and a weapon, if necessary. An aayudha becomes a shastra or astra based on the objective of its use. Based on this observation, a narrative is an “aayudha” more than a “weapon”. It is a tool first; the application of the narrative to specific objectives determines if it becomes a weapon or not.

Earlier, I mentioned that using a narrative as a weapon is not entirely different from attacking the supply lines of an enemy. Achieving this could involve subversion, guerrilla warfare, militia and the like, if not conventional military means. This is classified as “unconventional warfare”. Another example of using unconventional warfare would be misinformation campaigns of various hues. One example of this is the use of the fake army by the allies to make the German troops not be sure if the invasion would begin in Pas de Calais and not Normandy. A similar method is supposedly suggested by Chanakya where one should use the bodies of dead soldiers on battlements to make the troop numbers seem larger than what they really are. Apparently Russia is currently using inflatable tanks to fool Ukranian drones.

Also falling under unconventional warfare is the use of psychological warfare. Examples of this include dropping pamphlets to make soldiers and civilians think their army or country is losing a war and break the morale of the society. If I recall right, US forces during the First Gulf War used audio recordings of artillery and tanks to make Iraqi troops abandon their positions and retreat. This allowed a faster and bloodless capture of territory.

Using narratives as weapons would fall under this category of unconventional warfare. It can be used for all of the above – misinformation, psychological assaults, subversion, misleading populations etc. An example of this that is quoted often in India these days, is how the idea devised by Thomas Babington Macaulay was used to destroy India’s traditional education system in the 19^th century, first during the Company Raj and later during the British Raj. Traditional education systems being replaced by a British one with elements of it aggrandizing Western Christian culture caused the populace to gradually accept British superiority and lose pride in its own. This is a problem to this day in India and narratives are bring changed after nearly 200 years of the speech by Macaulay in 1835 in the British Parliament where this attack started. Macaulay apparently wrote in a letter in 1837 that Hindus who receive an English education rarely have reverence towards their own religion.

People who toe a line that looks down upon Indian culture as a whole (nobody says it was all hunky dory in the past or that current Indian society is perfect) are derisively called “Macaulay putras” (sons or more appropriately, Children of Macaulay) in today’s India.

Coming to contemporary times, we are currently in election season in India. Everything is political and everyone is an intense political animal whether or not they openly share their opinions. And this means an intense “war” of narratives is on in our country on all forms of media. And this media conflict includes both domestic (includes Indian media with foreign investment) and foreign media (media originating outside India).

Currently India has what many call a pro-Hindu or a “Right-wing” government. Many others say it is a “Left-wing” government with a veneer of being right-wing. Many a time, it is also called a “Hindutvawadi” or “Pro-Hindutva” government. Both sides (maybe many more than two if we consider the minutiae and nuances of the data used) are convinced they are right.

One major achievement of the current government as seen in all surveys time after time, is that it has made Indians a lot more proud of themselves, their country, their history and their culture. This also means that any doubts that Indians might have had about the positives and glory of their identity and past are diminished if not gone. Further, Indians no longer consider western culture as superior even if the quality of life as seen by various indices of human development are better for the western nations. This aspect is visible in the assertiveness of Indians in various walks of life, governance and foreign policy. Of course, all of this is built on continuous economic development.

As a counter, the outfits opposing the government say that India is not doing great. And the main aspect where India is supposedly not doing great is in “democracy”, “human rights” and “equality”. There are umpteen articles that refer to “India backsliding” in the area of democracy. It is claimed that democratic principles and institutions are under attack in India by the government and that press freedom is reducing as well.

One of the evidences quoted routinely to prove the above are the reports and ratings from Freedom House, V-Dem and the World Press Freedom Index (by Reporters without (Sans) Frontiers – RSF). It is interesting to note that the World Press Freedom Index ranks Afghanistan above India. 😛 As is to be expected, stories and articles using these three sources are considered part of a narrative with the reports being components of the same.

Considering what was just said about Indians being more assertive and confident, there is pushback to the above narrative. And the counter is not just to the articles specifically, but against Freedom House, V-Dem and RSF. The methods used by these organizations is questioned and their motives are under scrutiny. This treatment is true for all the western universities and their statements perceived as “anti-India” as well, especially those emanating from the social sciences and humanities departments (history departments receive special attention). When I say western universities, think Oxford, Harvard, Princeton and the like. Indians rarely take these reports at face value or ascribe much importance to them.

That said, the awareness of narratives and other tools of “the bun” and their potential to affect the progress of a nation is considerably higher these days in India. I am linking a few videos and an article below that exemplify this much better². These are interviews with Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal, who is a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Government of India. The article is also co-authored by him. He is a very respected thought leader in the country these days, not just in economics but also in aspects of history. In the video he speaks of how he does not accept the reports mentioned earlier and also how he is trying, unsuccessfully so far, to counter their methodology.

Mr. Sanyal also explains why Indians need to learn to counter the “bun” from the west as it could have an adverse impact on our economic progress. He picks out how a new narrative is being built by western think tanks to ensure that their ideas of democracy and human rights are imposed on the world. He specifically mentions the Open Society Foundation, Ford Foundation and USAid as three organizations funding efforts to impose their ways of thinking on the world. He further mentions how the notion of ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) is one such concept they are pushing to control the direction which the world intellectual and economic progress is taking.

How exactly can think tanks influence how people think and how economic progress happens? I will quote an example from my personal experience for this. 20 years ago, I was working in the automotive industry. While there, my colleagues and I were working towards achieving the certification “TS 16949”. I am not sure if this certification is still relevant or used anymore. One of the requirements to achieve this certification was that all our suppliers (vendors) had to adhere to and achieve the certification ISO 9001. In case they were not already certified, we needed to get a confirmation from them that they would do so in a defined time.

So, not only were we as an organization committing to practice certain processes defined by an organization that is not our own, we are also ensuring that our suppliers follow certain practices defined by a certifying organization. This was all supposed to be in favour of having uniform practices that improves the industry as whole. The idea is great as a concept. But there is a hitch.

This certification process forces certain behaviours on organizations. And once an organization commits to it, its employees need to too. And to facilitate this, there are training programs that are put in place. And training is like education, it changes the behaviour and way of thinking of those who undergo the same; it makes them CONFORM. There is no guarantee that this adherence to a process does not limit progress in ways that might have happened if left unfettered.

Also, there is the question of who devised the processes defined by the certifying organizations and what their motivations were. They might have all been good and altruistic, but that is not necessary. Ulterior motivations might have existed, or not, but do we know that ulterior motives might have existed that even the ones who had those did not realize? This is the crux of how think tanks can come to control knowledge, its generation and behaviour.

Consider a think tank with massive resources. They can design processes and behaviours and get governments to subscribe to the same. They can do this with pressure through educational institutions and other “intelligentsia”. Governments can get business houses to follow these new norms. These norms can force businesses to only invest in other countries with “specific rankings” in “select reports” generated by “reputed organizations”. Also, they can mandate that businesses only partner with other businesses overseas who also adhere to these norms. And how does one know if the norms “as desired/expected” are followed? Device certifications to ensure the same. And thus, control is achieved as described in the earlier paragraph. When business do not get certified, they lose out on the potential opportunities and over time the economies of nations get affected unless they and through them their businesses fall in line. Once businesses and the economy falls in line, so does the society, if a little later.

This entire process is all about devising and delivering weapons of “the bun” or Shaastra. Once this is achieved, the tools are in place to build new narratives and deliver opinions that are more judgements, which those at the receiving end might never have asked for. Of course, the new narratives use existing ones to build and further themselves. No one has opposition to ideas like ESG. But once the process to achieving them is revealed, the weapon takes shape. Once the weapon exists, a counter to it comes into being by default.

The previous paragraphs represent the “waza” and “kata” (techniques and forms) of narrative weaponry. Before the above few paragraphs, we discussed how there is a counter in India to the narratives using the reports on Indian democracy coming from abroad. This growth of the counter is also understood by the ones peddling it. A great example of this is seen in the video linked below³. It is a video showing a well-known journalist and columnist in India, Mr. Vir Sanghvi. Mr. Sanghvi states that people on the “liberal” side should avoid making statements that provide “ammunition” to the side that espouses “Hindutva”. And there we have it again. He actually calls statements “ammunition”. Of course, he is saying this in the context of a war of narratives, with “Hindutva” on one side and “Liberalism” on the other. Do we need any further evidence that narratives are weapons and have time based outcomes, considering he wants the ammunition to not be provided while we are in election season?

I am sharing the link to two articles below that could add to the narrative of negativity towards the current government. One article speaks of how ethics in the art scene in India is troubled due to the current government and the other one speaks of why nationalism is a bad thing (based on the writer’s personal life experience). My opinion on both articles is irrelevant, these are just used as examples^{4 5}. The links are seen in the notes below.

Coming back now to actual physical conflict, like tense standoffs and wars between nations, I will quote some examples of how narratives and in general “bun” or “shaastra” are used are weapons. Journalist Pravin Sahwney recently wrote an article on the news portal, “The Wire”. Mr. Sawhney is a well-known journalist and domain expert who writes on matters of defence and national security, specifically from an Indian perspective. He recently published a book titled “The Last War: How AI will shape India’s final showdown with China”. I have not read this book⁶ (link to the book is seen in the notes below). I have read and seen reviews of the book on other news portals and their respective YouTube channels. In the book, Mr. Sawhney supposedly explains how China is far ahead in terms of technology compared to India in matters of defence and will have a massive advantage in the very near future.

Mr. Sawhney, in his article on “The Wire”, was responding to an article by General Naravane on another news portal, “The Print”. General Naravana is a former Chief of the Indian Army. There is a video on the YouTube channel of “The Print” where Genral Naravane details his article⁷. A link is seen in the notes to this video. A link is also seen in the notes to the article⁸ written by Mr. Sawhney. In the article, Mr. Sawhney says that apart from the three conventional arms of the armed forces, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, China also focuses on 3 others areas, namely, cyber, electromagnetic spectrum and outer space. He further states that in case hostilities breakout between China and India, China will severely affect data in cyberspace, to the extent that it can bring civilian life to a halt and cause extreme confusion in the political decision making sphere. This is by making everyone unsure of what data to believe, misinformation in other words. It will supposedly be impossible to trust any data online. I personally understand his observations as an exponential increase in China’s information and propaganda war.

Based on my understanding, the effect on the government and civilians will happen in a short time and the attacks on data will also happen very quickly. So, this is still using “bun” as a weapon, but it is now not necessarily a “long time” weapon. Maybe this is an evolution of narrative weaponry where it can also double up a quick use conventional weapon.

On the YouTube channel of the news portal “The Print”, the chief editor of the same, Mr. Shekhar Gupta, another very well-known journalist of India, had carried out an analysis of the report by the Special Competitive Studies Project’s (SCPI) on future war and how to confront China. The link to this video is seen in the notes below⁹. In this video, Mr, Gupta explains, from the report of course, that currently persistent conflicts exist below the level of armed clashes. The report essentially states that information and data warfare is constantly on in the world we live in. Perhaps then, even if the weapons Mr. Sawhney mentions are not necessarily “long time”, if they are to be applied and defended against incessantly, they do constitute a “long time” weapon, because, it is operational for a long duration, which is literally always! A link to the actual report is also seen in the notes below¹⁰. This report is truly fascinating and I would recommend that everyone, specifically martial artists, read it.

Another term that keeps coming up when looking at the use of information and data warfare is “intelligentized warfare”. It is used to refer to the use of AI and other latest information technology, which affects the understanding abilities of adversaries. This again goes back to “bun” or “shaastra” or knowledge, which evolves into technology and eventually to intelligentized warfare.

A simple example of this from Hindu tradition is when Lord Krishna used a solar eclipse during the Kurukshetra War in the Mahabharata. Arjuna was supposed to kill Jayadratha before sundown or give up his life. When the eclipse occurred, Jayadratha came out from behind the layers of warriors protecting him assuming the sun had set. But alas, it was an eclipse and not the sunset. Arjuna killed him before the actual sunset. This use of the solar eclipse is also seen in the old Tintin graphic novel, “Prisoners of the Sun”, but is a lot more condescending and racist manner. It is this use of information and a narrative that leads to the weaponization of data. In the case of the Mahabharata, the narrative was that Arjuna was doomed as he had failed, since the sun had set, and the precursor to this was spreading the information that Arjuna had taken a vow to kill Jayadratha before sunset.

In the Bujinkan, there are two concepts that are taught. One is “Kasumi no ho” or “the way of fog”. The other is “Kyojitsu tenkan ho” or “switching between truth and falsehoods like either side of a pivoting door”. Kasumi no ho was the theme of the year in the year 2004, the year after “Yugen no sekai” was the theme. Both these concepts refer to causing confusion, doubt and a lack of trust in one’s own ability to achieve an objective (like a hit or a cut or any other attack). I will not delve into these concepts in detail here. But the negative objective of narratives or “long time” weaponry is essentially the same as that seen with these two concepts.

The above examples refer to the use of “bun” or “shaastra” as weapons against “bu” or “shastra”. In other words using narratives to counter conventional war fighting or just fighting ability. This is as simple as laws (read constitution) being a deterrent against physical violence in societies. But there can be cases where “bu” or “shastra” can be applied to counter “bun” or “shaastra”. Physical violence can be used as weapons against narratives. This is especially true when physical violence can be used against individuals or groups that generate or perpetuate ideas, knowledge and narratives.

Consider that the author Salman Rushdie had to face threats of violence for several years. Also, some years ago, there was a spate of murders in Bangladesh, of bloggers. These bloggers were supposedly rationalists and promoting ideas against the dominant religion. In India a few years ago, there were murders of individuals who were considered by many to be rationalists and atheists. These individuals were promoting views against traditions by what many considered belittling the same. This hurt many who had faith. Also, these individuals were widely known to have leftist associations. In all these instances, ideas of a certain kind, which could morph into narratives were stopped or at least slowed down by applying “bu” against “bun”. For details about the example from India I mentioned, I would suggest a book titled “The Rationalist Murders” by Amit Thadani. Again, I have not read the book, but seen a discussion about the same between the author and a popular podcaster. It was a fascinating listen and I hope to get to this book soon. A link to this book is seen in the notes below¹¹.

I have discussed the application of an ability that is different from the one possessed or used by an opponent in my previous article titled, “Might is Right, Always”. A link to this article is seen in the notes below. It could serve as a precursor to this article.

In conclusion, I opine that a narrative is an aayuda, which is “bun” in nature with characteristics from “yugen no sekai”. We humans being tribal creatures, are always looking to achieve superiority or power over the other, whether it is as and over an individual or a group. The reasons may be myriad, but usually involve personal gain or satisfaction or both. In trying to achieve superiority, I would think that the application of violence is the primal expression of us humans. So it is perhaps the very first of the arts, considering even hunting is the use of violence. This violence changed over time, starting with physical violence to being emotional violence and now, intellectual violence, which is what narratives (“bun” and “shaastra”) are fine tuning in our times. Perhaps, this will lead to spiritual violence when “intelligentized conflicts” make us doubt who we are.

Personal note: I post on alternate Thursdays. But I am posting this on a Sunday instead of a Thursday, so it coincides with the start of the Dasara (Dussehra) festival. The next couple of posts are also likely to not follow the usual Thursday pattern, as I would like them to coincide with the end of the Dasara festival and to be during the Deepavali (Diwali) festival.

Notes:

*https://mundanebudo.com/2023/07/20/connect-control-part-2-boons-blessings-curses-the-sakki-test/

**Watch between the 12 and 14 minute mark

⁺In the Mistborn trilogy written by Brandon Sanderson, “The Final Empire” is the first book. In the series, some characters use a magical ability called “Ferromancy”, which allows the use users to ingest different metals and this act, depending on the metal manifests differing magical abilities. The fictional metal “Atium” when used, allows the “Ferromancer” to literally see the next move an opponent makes. This makes the fight seem one-sided and also like the Atium user is dancing effortlessly and elegantly around the opponent(s). A link to the first book is seen below.

¹https://mundanebudo.com/2023/05/11/might-is-right-always/

²Watch between the 30 and 38 minute mark