Letter
To A Young American Hindu
By Vijay Prashad
23 May, 2007
Pass The Roti
Dear Friend,
Like you, I was raised in
a mixed family. My parents’ families came to Bengal from Punjab,
and from Burma. One side leans towards Hinduism; the other to Sikhism.
The city, the metro, provided its own cultural mooring, and in secular
India, I found myself interested in all religions and deeply schooled
in none. Id meant fellowship with my Muslim neighbors and friends; a
Navjot meant a crash course in Parsi life; Nanak’s birthday meant
a visit to Gurudwara Sant Kutiya in the center of town; Christmas, which
is Bara Din in Calcutta, meant a brightly lit Park Street and a visit
to St. Paul’s Cathedral; and, of course, Diwali and Holi represented
the high-points of our festival culture. Religion was colorful, and
friendly. It didn’t represent either the harshest of personal
morality nor the resentments or distrust of others.
I learnt a few prayers and
songs, but this learning was not systematic. Some of my friends were
better schooled than I in their various traditions. Our diversity was
not simply across religion, but also a diversity of the density of our
engagement with religion: agnostics or religious illiterates were as
welcome as those who were committed to their faith. The festival that
I most liked was Saraswati Puja, the day when we wore yellow and put
all our schoolbooks at the feet of the goddess. The respite from study
was welcome, as you can imagine.
My morality came from elsewhere
than religion, from recognition of the pain in the world. Religious
teachers whom I encountered sometimes talked about this suffering, but
they didn’t seem to have more than charity to offer to those who
suffered. It struck me that while religious festivals were beautiful,
religions themselves were not adequate as a solution to modern crises.
But religion, as I came to understand while reading Gandhi many years
later, can play a role in the cleansing of public morality. In 1940,
Gandhi wrote, “I still hold the view that I cannot conceive politics
as divorced from religion. Indeed, religion should pervade everyone
one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means
a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less
real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and
gives them reality” (Harijan, February 10, 1940). In other words,
politics should not be simply about power struggles, but it must be
suffused with moral concerns. It is not enough to win; one must strive
to create, what Gandhi called, Truth in the world.
To strive for Truth does
not mean that we, as humans, can be sure that what we believe in or
what we aspire to is some transcendental truth. Gandhi’s autobiography
was not called I’ve Found Truth, but The Story of My Experiments
with Truth. The use of the word “experiments” is revealing,
since it refers to a scientific tradition that privileges verifiable
testing (this is also the case with the Gujarati word “prayago,”
which is in the original 1927 title, Satya-na Prayago athva Atmakatha;
Professor Babu Suthar links “prayoga,” the singular of “prayago,”
to the ayurvedic and yogic sense of treatment and practice. An ayurvedic
doctor must ask the patient to “prayoga” a medicine, which
would imply, try it out to see if it works). Religious traditions are
resources to guide us, as social individuals, through the difficulties
and opportunities of our lives. They are not dogmas to tear people apart
from each other. In a powerful essay against compulsory widow segregation,
Gandhi wrote, “It is good to swim in the waters of tradition,
but to sink in them is suicide” (Navajivan, June 28, 1925). Let
tradition be a studied resource, not a set of inflexible, unchanging
rules.
The Gita.
More than a decade ago, I
was teaching South Asian history in central New York. A few young students
invited me to their Gita reading group. I was delighted to join them,
not because I was an expert in the Gita, but because it pleased me to
see second-generation South Asian Americans take an interest in the
history and traditions of the subcontinent. The students, dutifully,
read their section for the evening and proceeded to have a discussion
about it. They had little guidance apart from the text, and they valiantly
drew from the analytical skills they learnt in their classes to make
sense of the Gita. For them, religion was not an “experiment with
truth,” but because of their context, it was the Truth that had
to be unmasked by their close, devoted reading. I felt myself sinking
into it.
The Gita is a remarkable
book, precisely because of its history (it was composed long after the
Mahabharata, written in classical Sanskrit of the Gupta era, and interpolated
into the long epic much later). Frustrated with the hierarchy promoted
by Brahmans through the Vedic traditions, scores of people turned to
Sramanic traditions (most familiarly, Buddhism). The Gita is a sublime
response to the power of Buddhism with concepts such as karma drawn
from it. The genius of the text is that it takes concepts and ideas
from these popular traditions and brings them into line with some of
the central principles of Brahmanism (varna, mainly). The Gita is awash
with contradictions: it preaches ahimsa, and yet is set in a battlefield,
where Krishna must convince Arjun to go into the fight; it validates
the importance of caste hierarchy, and yet shines a light on the equality
of all before the awesome might of divinity. The contradictory nature
of the text allows every reader to find something beneficial in it.
It works as a mirror to our reality.
Then there is bhakti, one
of the foundation stones of modern Hinduism. It is the Gita’s
central concept. Personal devotion (bhakti) drew out from the oppressed
peoples of the subcontinent the ability to challenge those who stood
between them and divinity (the Brahmins, for instance) and those who
stood between them and a peaceful life (Kings, for instance). The concept,
Bhakti, was the central idea for a series of important spiritual and
social rebellions, led by such people as Andal, Kabir, Mirabai, Tukaram,
and above all, Jnanesvar. Jnanesvar, the 13th century Marathi poet,
wrote an extended commentary on the Gita in which he not only went after
the powerful, but also bemoaned the great harm done to the people for
whom religion had become a crutch rather than an engine. “The
peasant farmer sets up cult after cult, according to convenience,”
he wrote. “He follows the preacher who seems most impressive at
the moment, learns his mystic formula. Harsh to the living, he relies
upon stones and images; but even then never lives true to any one of
them.” Jnanesvar’s powerful critique was not met with an
equally powerful movement to overthrow the foundation of the social
order of his time. As the historian D. D. Kosambi wrote, “Though
an adept in yoga as a path towards physical immortality and mystical
perfection, there was nothing left for [Jnanesvar] except suicide.”
The ideas were glorious, but there was no institutional platform to
realize them.
Noxious Hindutva
All this is lost if one reads
the Gita as settled Truth rather than an experiment in truth. When Gandhi
claimed to base his ahimsa philosophy on the Gita, he faced opposition.
“My claim to Hinduism has been rejected by some,” he wrote
in Young India (May 29, 1924), “because I believe [in] and advocate
non-violence in its extreme form. They say that I am a Christian in
disguise. I have been even seriously told that I am distorting the meaning
of the Gita when I ascribe to that great poem the teaching of unadulterated
non-violence. Some of my Hindu friends tell me that killing is a duty
enjoined by the Gita under certain circumstances. A very learned Shashtri
only the other day scornfully rejected my interpretation of the Gita
and said that there was no warrant for the opinion held by some commentators
that the Gita represented the eternal duel between forces of evil and
good, and inculcated the duty of eradicating evil within us without
hesitation, without tenderness…My religion is a matter solely
between my Maker and myself. If I am a Hindu, I cannot cease to be one
even though I may be disowned by the whole of the Hindu population.”
Those who criticized Gandhi
for his “misuse” of Hinduism came from the organizations
of the Right. The Hindu Mahasabha (1915) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (1925) provided this Right with an institutional nucleus to sharpen
the assault on both Indian society and on the Indian freedom movement
(whose undisputed leader at this time was Gandhi). The leadership of
this Right considered Gandhi a “traitor” to the “Hindu
people,” and it was their cadre that murdered him in 1948. The
RSS, the spearhead of the new “Hindu nationalism,” eschewed
the mass Freedom Struggle that emerged in the 1920s, sharpened in the
1930s and eventually defeated the British Raj in the 1940s. In 1928,
the RSS inaugurated its Officer Training Camp to train its own storm-troopers,
not to do battle with the powerful British and its institutions, but
with the relatively powerless Muslim masses. The swayamsevak, or volunteer,
took an oath, “offering himself entirely – body, mind and
wealth – for the preservation and progress of the Hindu Nation.”
The complexity of India, its diverse heritages and its fluid cultural
resources, was anathema to the RSS and its doctrine of Hindutva (Hinduness).
The influence of Italian
fascism and German Nazism pervaded the RSS, becoming clarified in the
1939 book by M. S. Golwalkar, “Germany has shown how well nigh
impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to
the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for
us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.” For Golwalkar, the role
of the “Jew” within India was to be played by the “Muslim”
(it should be said that his 1939 book was reprinted in 1944 and in 1947,
after the Holocaust was known to all, and yet there was no revision
of this section). No wonder Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen considered
the ideology of the RSS to be “communal fascism.” The RSS
remained a marginal element in Indian political life, having played
no role in the Freedom Struggle and having a noxious view of the complexity
of Indian social life that appealed only to a few among the dominant
castes who felt left out of the new Indian republic.
Indian Honeycomb
That complexity is something
that Gandhi and others well understood. In 1992, the Anthropological
Society of India published the first of an ongoing series of monographs
with the omnibus title, The People of India. In this volume, the late
K. S. Singh laid out the basic findings of this immense study of the
Indian people. There are, he wrote, 4635 identifiable communities in
India, “diverse in biological traits, dress, language, forms of
worship, occupation, food habits, and kinship patterns. It is all these
communities who in their essential ways of life express our national
popular life.” Strikingly, the scholars working under Singh’s
direction discovered the immense overlap across religious lines. They
identified 775 traits that related to ecology, settlement, identity,
food habits, marriage patterns, social customs, social organization,
economy and occupation. What they found was that Hindus share 96.77%
traits with Muslims, 91.19% with Buddhists, 88.99% with Sikhs, 77.46%
with Jains (Muslims, in turn, share 91.18% with Buddhists and 89.95%
with Sikhs). Because of this, Singh pointed out that Indian society
was like a “honeycomb,” where each community is in constant
and meaningful interaction with every other community. The boundaries
between communities are more a fact of self-definition than of cultural
distinction. This Gandhi knew implicitly. Unity was a fact of life,
not a conceit of secular theory.
When I went to Punjab in
the early 1990s to do my dissertation research, I was startled to find
communities that considered themselves on the fence about their religious
identification. Three in particular (that make their way into Singh’s
study) stood out: the Mirasi, Sonar and Rajputs, who claimed to be both
Hindus and Muslims. The group I had gone to study, the Balmikis, had
a wonderfully rich religious history, where they crafted their own spiritual
tradition around the preceptor Bala Shah Nuri and Lalbeg. Bala Shah’s
poems attacked both the Brahmins and the Mullahs for their perpetuation
of untouchability and their refusal to stand for justice. Ram te Rahim
kian chhap chhap jana, the followers of Ram and Rahim will hide themselves
in fear, sava neze te din avega, hade dosakh pana, and when the sun
sets, Bala will send them to hell. This evokes the kind of language
of that other great Punjabi poet, Bulle Shah, who sang, Musalman sarne
to dared hindu dared gor, dove ese vich mard eho duha di khor (Muslims
fear the flame, Hindus the tomb; both die in this fright, such is their
hatred).
Hindutva, or the ideology
and movement of Hindu chauvinism, attempts to do to this richness what
agro-businesses do to bio-diversity. They want to reduce the multiplicity
and plurality of cultural forms into the one that they are then able
to control: a deracinated “Hindu,” like a Genetically Modified
form of rice or barley. The joy of religious life, of social life, is
reduced into a mass-produced form of worship, cultivated out of hatred
for other religions rather than fellowship for humanity. With the RSS
and its parivar (family), we are no longer in the land of religion.
We are now in the land of power and politics, hate and resentment.
Till the 1980s, the RSS remained
on the margins of Indian politics. Rejected at the ballot, the movement
emerged only through assassination and intimidation, through riots and
mayhem, through which it sought to define the political and social space.
In the 1980s, conditions changed, as the Congress abandoned its soft
socialism/soft secularism for neo-liberal globalization and the politicization
of religion (first by patronizing Sikh separatists). The RSS family
won over the Congress’ “Hindu vote bank” through an
aggressive campaign against dalits (over the Mandal Commissions attempt
to deepen reservations), against Muslims (over the Meenakshipuram conversions
and the controversy over the mosque at Ayodhya) and against the Left
(by deeming its ideology to be “foreign”). Flamboyant campaigns
designed to make the most of the television media and harsh rhetoric
against minorities attracted the dispossessed, who now joined with disgruntled
dominant castes to bring the BJP to power.
The Indian honeycomb began
to breakup in this period. It was also in this time that Hindutva went
overseas with a new confidence.
Yankee Hindutva
More than a decade ago, I
used the term “Yankee Hindutva” to describe the way Hindu
chauvinism came into the United States. Eager to branch out to the Diaspora,
the RSS and its subsidiaries took advantage of multiculturalism to build
their foothold here. Not for the American audience an unadulterated
anti-Muslim rhetoric (that would come only in some “safe”
spaces, and more aggressively, after 9/11). Initially, the RSS organizations,
particularly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA) and its youth
wing, the Hindu Students Council (HSC), promoted the idea that Hinduism
is denigrated in the U. S. and that if other cultures are being celebrated,
why not Hinduism too. This is an unimpeachable argument, but it came
with some implementation problems. First, it assumed that “Hinduism”
is a singular thing, not a clumsy name for a diversity of beliefs and
affections that litter not only the subcontinent but also the South
Asian Diaspora (from Trinidad to Fiji). Second, because the VHPA and
the HSC jumped in the game first, and because the most stringent are
best often to claim to speak for a religion, the conservatives took
control of this issue. There was no liberal critique of the denigration
of Hinduism, and when liberals and radicals did dare to tread, the conservatives
harshly shut the door to them as being inauthentic defenders of the
Culture. This was the tenor of the battle over the 2005-06 revisions
of the California text-books. We didn’t like the old books either.
But we didn’t like the sanitized version of Indian history promoted
by the conservatives. We wanted “India” to appear for what
it is, a land of contradictions, not an unblemished “brand”
that needs to be sold so that we can feel falsely proud.
In 1990, a group of committed
activists of the hard Right formed the Hindu Students Council (HSC)
in the woods of New Jersey. Their public pronouncement was along the
grain of liberal multiculturalism, that they wanted to assist Hindu
students who struggle with the “loss and isolation” due
to their “upbringing in a dual culture Hindu and Judeo-Christian….We
try to reconcile our own sorrows and imperfections as human beings in
a variety of self-defeating ways. And we usually go through this confused
internal struggle alone. It was precisely to assist you with this spiritual,
emotional and identity needs that HSC was born.” Given the strictures
of liberal multiculturalism, everyone, including college administrators,
stood by and applauded. But the HSC was never simply about the identity
struggles of those whom it called Hindu Americans. It was also the youthful
fingers of the long-arm of Hindutva-supremacy in India. The HSC was
initially a “project of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America,”
the far Right “cultural wing” of the hard Right Sangh Parivar
(Family of the Faithful). When activists of the Right destroyed a five
hundred year old mosque in 1992, the VHP egged them on, the VHPA cheered,
and so did the leaders of the HSC. For them, concern over the identity
struggles of young Indian Americans could easily be reconciled with
their anti-Muslim politics. Multiculturalism in the U. S. provided cover
for the cruel, cultural chauvinism in India.
Young South Asian Americans,
such as yourself, come to the HSC not always for its politics, but as
a space for shelter and struggle against anti-Indian racism. Falguni
Trivedi, who participated with the HSC in 1997, tells the story poignantly,
“When I was twelve years old, American kids would gang up on me
at the bus stop, yelling ‘Gandhi Dot’ and ask, ‘why
do you people in India worship cows and drink cow urine?’ It is
pretty tough for young Hindus stuck between two cultures.” When
Trivedi went to her parents, they, like many first-generation migrants,
offered her the ostrich-strategy. “Adjust” to the verbal
abuse, they said. Trivedi, however, wanted her parents to offer clear
answers to the questions posed by the racist youth, such as answers
about the cow. The parents didn’t have ready answers. “Parents
don’t know,” said Dheeraj Singhal, now a lawyer in Ohio,
“they’re lost. They don’t know where to look. Kids
are really desperate to know who they are, the meaning of their customs.
This giant void of ignorance facing them is a great issue.” It
is here that the HSC and other such organizations (including the non-communal
South Asian Student Associations on various college campuses) come in.
But the HSC is actually unable or ill-fitted to deal with U. S. racism.
It tells the youth that they come from an ancient heritage and that
they should be proud of it, but the HSC makes no attempt to undermine
the structures of racism that produce this sort of off-the-cuff racist
remark. To promote Indians as the “model minority,” who
have a great and ancient culture, and not combat the racism that devastates
the world of color and pits people of color against each other, is inadequate.
It simply lifts up one minority, us, and says that we shouldn’t
take this nonsense because we are culturally great.
Groups like the HSC and the
VHPA are less concerned with the broad problem of racism and of Indian
American life, than they are to push the Hindutva agenda in the U. S.
and Canada. Here are two examples:
(1)Air-conditioned
Sadhus.
By the late 1990s, Hindu
temples could be found in most of the areas where Indian Americans lived
(or where American Hindus did, such as in Hawaiii). The Prathishtapanas
for the Middletown, CT., Satyanarayan temple near where I live took
place in 1999 (although families in the area had worshipped in their
basements since the early 1980s). These temples are a resource for Hinduism,
with ceremonies and festivals, “Sunday Schools” and devotional
sessions. The VHPA has other ideas for the temples. In 1998, at a VHPA
Dharam Sansad, the conclave decided that all temples and cultural organizations
“should associate, endorse and/or affiliate with the VHPA to make
the Hindu voice more effective.” In 2000, the VHPA sent a hundred
God-men from India on a Dharma Prachar Yatra “in a manner so that
all of America is covered with Hindutva,” as a VHPA activist put
it. One of the tasks of the Yatra was for the sadhus to “clear
the misconceptions about the VHP” and to assert “the VHP’s
point of view about issues like Ayodhya movement and attacks on Christians.”
All talk of “inter-faith dialogue” and of Hinduism as tolerance
was out the window. These God-men went on tour, not to offer solace,
spiritual guidance or to explain the travails of racism – they
came out to plug for the BJP, the VHP and its campaigns against Muslims
and Christians in India.
The God-men were treated
like touring rock-stars. Luckily I was teaching the Manavadharmasastra
(or the Laws of Manu) that semester: “A priest should always be
alarmed by adulation as if it were poison and always desire scorn as
if it were ambrosia” (II. 162). Our air-conditioned priests are
far removed from even the barest humility asked of them by their calling.
(2)Representing Hinduism.
For decades, there has been
an ongoing debate within the broad field of India Studies. Influenced
by social historians who opened up the world of Indian popular culture
and the struggles of ordinary Indians, and by the intervention of Edward
Said’s Orientalism (1978), these scholars fought against the racism
and conservatism of the academy. Sanskrit studies, for instance, treated
India as an ancient resource with no lived heritage of Hinduism; political
scientists saw India in terms of U. S. or British foreign policy, not
in terms of what is in the best interests of the Indian people. Graduate
school in the 1980s and early 1990s was a hive of conflict against what
some of us saw as a racist representation of the subcontinent.
In 2000, Rajiv Malhotra of
the Infinity Foundation published a long essay against the tenor of
Hinduism Studies in the U. S. As if he were a lonely pioneer, Malhotra
went hell-for-leather against the entire U. S. academy. Much of what
he said is correct (there is an insensitivity toward the Hindu tradition,
and a disregard for the real living Indians), and it had been the basis
for a long-standing debate around the institutions. With his access
to the Indian American media, Malhotra (and the soon to be formed Hindu
American Foundation) went after individual academics and then the California
6th grade textbooks. It was a lot of flash and lightning: many of us
liberals and radicals were already in the thick of these fights, and
much of our work has been fruitful. But we were not invested simply
in making India look good: we wanted to ensure that the diversity of
India’s history and its struggles be represented in the curriculum
and in the research agendas. “The social science and history textbooks
do not give as generous a portrayal of Indian culture as they do of
Islamic, Jewish, Christian cultures,” carped Malhotra. When asked
about the struggles of dalits and women in ancient India, Suhag Shukla
of the Hindu American Foundation grumbled, “In terms of men and
women, I think, first of all if you look at Christianity or Judaism
or Islam, no-where in the textbooks is there any discussion of women’s
rights. Then to pull it in for Hinduism, is a different treatment of
Hinduism.” All culture must have equal treatment, all contemporary
representatives of that culture should be able to create their sense
of self-worth based on this representation. Shukla has a point: no tradition
is in the clear on these issues. The solution is not to brown-wash the
textbooks on ancient Indian history, but to write more honest books
about the contradictions of all civilizations.
Malhotra’s assault
to get a politically correct interpretation accepted or nothing at all
is the genteel version of the Shiv Sena and VHP activists in India who
went after James Laine’s book on Shivaji (by book burnings and
physical assaults on his collaborators).
These issues are brought
to the center by the VHPA, the HSC, the HFA: all to blind us from other
issues, such as racism in the U. S., the Iraq War, economic uncertainty
and distress in India, rising numbers on sexual assault and female infanticide
in India, and the Gujarat pogrom. Yankee Hindutva is a set of blinders,
not an optic to see the world clearly.
What Would You Have?
yadidam svayamarthanam
rocate tatra ke vayam
If the objects themselves are like that, who are we?
Dharmakirti (7th Century).
The suffocating presence
of the VHPA and the HSC, of the RSS and the BJP does not exhaust the
capacity of either Hinduism or of its adherents. Our affection for its
resources is not diminished, nor should we turn away from our traditions
because the RSS and its family try to debase it.
In 2004, the Indian people,
and a majority of them being claimants to the title Hindu, rejected
the parties of the far Right in the parliamentary election (they were
defeated again in 2007 in the Uttar Pradesh state elections). The mandate
was offered to the Congress and the Left, who crafted a Common Minimum
Program that promised a more generous set of policies for the working-class,
the peasantry and the indigent, as well as a more secular defense of
the public sphere. The parties of Hindutva went into a self-imposed
period of infighting, as scandals interrupted their claim to holding
the high-moral ground.
In the Diaspora, there was
some reflection of this change in the Indian political landscape. The
far Right moved to consolidate its agenda despite changes within India
– closer ties between Indian American lobby groups and pro-Israeli
lobby groups, to sharpen the idea that the Indo-Pakistani problems can
only be resolved in the Israeli fashion, through force; the creation
of the Hindu American Foundation (whose main campaign in 2004-05 was
the Diwali resolution, and who was an active leader of the California
textbooks campaign); an assault on scholars of India and Hinduism, led
this time by the Infinity Foundation. But not a word from any of these
organizations on the farmer’s suicides in Andhra Pradesh, on the
deepening problem of unemployment across India, and on the cataclysmic
child malnutrition rates across the country. These matters were not,
apparently, of importance. Discussions about Planet India, as Mira Kamdar
puts it, eclipsed the burgeoning social crises in India. As Gandhi warned
his fellows ninety years ago, “The test of orderliness in a country
is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation
among its masses” (Muir Central College Economics Society, Allahabad,
December 22, 1916). Equally, these organizations remained silent after
9/11 at the attacks on South Asians and Arabs and at the illegal detentions
of hundreds of South Asians (the civil rights and activists groups,
such as South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow and Desis Rising Up
and Moving were in the lead here). Immigration reform, “Operation
Meth Merchant” (against the small Indian shopkeepers in Georgia)
and other such issues were equally off the radar of the HSC, the VHPA
and HAF.
If I were you, I’d
abandon the Hindu Students Council and create a new organization called
Sarvodaya (Compassion for All), a word Gandhi coined for his variety
of social justice. You can still have intellectual and spiritual investigations
of the Gita, you can still hold inter-faith discussions, you can still
educate your fellows about the rich and diverse tradition of Hinduism,
and you can also promote egalitarianism and social justice as values
derived from your tradition.
The Hinduism that cares more
for its reputation than for its relevance is no longer a living tradition.
It has become something that one reveres from a distance. To keep it
alive, Hinduism requires an engagement with its history (which shows
us how it evolves and changes) and with its core concepts (what we otherwise
call philosophy). “Every formula of every religion has, in this
age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal justice
if it is to ask for universal assent” Gandhi wrote in 1925. “Error
can claim no exemption even if it can be supported by the scriptures
of the world” (Young India, February 26, 1925). Submit all faith
to experiments, to see how they are able to assist one in the messy
world we live in: to detach faith into self-indulgence is to patronize
those traditions. That’s the nature of experimentation, a far
better approach to faith traditions than empty reverence.
The choice lies between giving
over the traditions you love to the forces of hatred who might masquerade
as the defenders of tradition; or to the force within you, and around
you, a force of love and ecstasy, passion and pain to transform the
world. What would you have?
Vijay Prashad
May 17, 2007.
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Click
here to comment
on this article