Homies of a homeless man.

20.11.8
Pondicherry



There is nothing that so disturbs my peace than talking history or world politics with a particular brand of Indians. This is probably no fault of theirs or mine, but mostly a matter of our education and our respective Government's propagandas. The thing that I find so difficult is that their History of the World is at times completely at odds with what seems to be not only the US's version of History but even the entire western world's.



Now this obviously leads one to the question of what really was history? In
the western tradition, "History" needs to be collaborated by various countries, populaces, etc. and needs to be documented and supported by various other forms of testimony. The degree to which these criteria are fulfilled, determines the degree of veracity that we give an event or person. (I would like to note at this point I am NOT a western Historian, so my rudimentary knowledge of this area is based soley upon two things, my history and politics lessons, and my logical/philosophical background.)



Case in point: Most Indians seem to argue this: Pakistan belongs to India.

The rest of world from a geopolitical standpoint would point out this:

India and Pakistan became countries on the exact same day. Neither owned the other.

Rebuttal from an India: Pakistan has always been India, even before Independence.



Rebuttal from world: India has never been fully "unified". It was at various times and various places under various local and foreign emperors. Prior to Independence from the British, it was in fact a coalition of principalities that were forced to work together by the British. These principalities gave up their rights and joined "INDIA" or "PAKISTAN" either under diplomatic agreements or under threat of arms by "India" or "Pakistan".

The next rebuttal from an Indian would point to their shared cultural history.

And the next rebuttal from the world would be to point out their disparate cultural history.

And so on.




But surprisingly, this at times dramatic difference in history is not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to ask the question: "Who cares?"
Granted "History" is and has always been one of many ways to war. The old "I claim my Ancestor's Kingdom, which should have come to me by right of Birth" line. And this is a line being used today by India... but aside from Indians, and aside from countries who have agreed to buy into India's history for x, y or z political favour/reason, the world isn't fooled. The point is, countries will always play politics with History, and promote their version as subtle forms of propaganda.




How much propaganda have I swallowed? Who knows. And though I do believe that a transparent propaganda free history should be promoted, I find it nearly impossible to create, by the very nature of national self-interest. And lets be realisitic, countries only report and write history that either is beneficial (or can be spun as beneficial) or if negative, was forced to be written. No one really wants to know the dirty secrets of their goverments.




So back to my point: "Who cares?" Well I do, because I have a great love for my country. But I also strive to not care. Because I have a greater love for my true Patria. My true Fatherland, from whence the Son of God came to bring mercy and forgiveness to all. And to Unite all to Himself.




The point of love of country is to remind us of this Love of God's Presence. And we should always keep our eyes on this goal, the Resurrection. And to that point, if my brother tells me what seems to be absurd in my world-view, then why do I need to argue? When instead I should direct his and my love of country to our mutual love of the destination of our Pilgrimage?




God Himself.

We are all but pilgrims on the way home, to our true Homeland, our eternal resurrection in the presence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where we will all dance and sing, hand in hand, and arm in arm, to the Glory of God.




Blessings to all my fellow pilgrims,
Edward.
915pm.