- Posts: 533
- Joined: 23 Aug 2015
If was to happen, it would have to start at the attitudes and differences between the Sindis, or rather the Bhaibunds, and other jatis and Indians. Firstly, between the Bhaibunds and their Amil clerks and managers as, I would argue, the core BK model is based on the Bhaibund sindiworki model. Something I've proposed here before if you want to learn where BKism model came from.
Culturally, although the Sindhis became very wealthy off the British rule and Empire - as the BKs did spreading along the Empire's network to places like London and Hong Kong first - I don't think it is inaccurate say they were not well liked or trusted by other Indians, e.g. there's a Gujerati saying, "if you meet a Sindhi and a cobra on the road, kill the Sindhi first". It related to their business mentality as entrepreneurs and the BKs have become 'spiritual entrepreneurs' (taking others ideas and trading them).
Janki traveled from the palaces of the Bhaibund to a big country house in England via numerous 5 star hotels and acted out her role doing VIP service all of the world, never holding down a proper job in her life and allowing her followers to fictionalise about her and deify her. There's a Janki Kirpalani quote, allegedly stated to Mother Theresa, "you serve the poor, we serve the rich". I'd argue, "serve ourselves".
So, in comparison to those world views, Africans in Africa and most in the Caribbean, the USA and even England where she encountered them first live poor, hard and often backward lives.
Remember, slavery - by BK theory - would be their own fault.
If you accept their "karma philosophy", you have to accept that.
As you say, how "green" ($$$), or not, you are is the most important factor in BKism. "Spirituality" alone won't pay the now substantial bills and business class airfares and, of late, we've watched the BK turn their attention further from 'the poor' or downtrodden to targeting and exploiting the corporations with their management courses. God thinks poor rich executives need uplifting first, it seems.
Fast forwarding and traveling to India, BKism has a thick slice of Hinduism and Indian points of views in it. The gap in my awareness of them is based on never having traveled around their Indian Empire to see how it is done over there, where the most of BKs are ... but it is clear from their public face that I don't see many dark ones there. I don't know who the centres- and zones-in-charge in South India are but I would suggest a hierarchy or positioning based on 1) Sindhi, 2) Gujerati or Punjabi, 3) Other Indians. Even Westerns (White) are seen as useful but some what unreliable (too strong minded and individualistic perhaps?).
As a White, I can say without fear of criticism, that in the early days of global expansion, the "power of Whites" was most certainly exploited - along with an awful lot of barefaced dishonesty about their status. I know in South Africa, much of it was "opened up" by Whites and then taken over to Indians (the Kirpalani Klan doing their usual thing of parachuting a Hindi Sister - indentured servant - in).
"Rich Indian", e.g. light coloured and plump (at least), is part of their marketing facade. Fat, as you know, is synonymous with wealth and power in India. When have they ever promoted skinny, poor, dark Indian Sisters on the basis of their spirituality, purity or devotion to god? Do they give them special breaks and uplight them, or just exploit them and their low expectations of life further? Like the bheli women they have breaking stones to lay roads and foundations in Mount Abu.
Do I think, or would I say Janki Kirpalani is racist? A difficult question, but probably not. It would go too far against the theory of soul they have based their religion on. Chauvinist? Yes, most certainly, but to caste and her caste, not race.
Therefore, are "black" people the most impure by according to the BK world, e.g. poor, powerless, suffering and facing obstacles and additional oppositions at whatever level or where ever they are? It's uncomfortable to agree with but, possibly they do ... And are we not seeing the soul as the BK leaders are meant to?
In the old days, the Murlis used to contain many negative metaphors to dark skin, just as they did to "cripples" (handicapped people). I suspect they have been swept out in one of their politically correct purges which, of course, whitewashes Lekhraj Kirpalani's own views. The evidence would appear to suggest that his world view was behind the times by today's standards.
As a Sindi and a trader, and this is a solid comment based on references, he might have encountered Blacks at the docks or ports, seamen and merchants from Africa. Because of this, it is said Sindis had a very negative opinion of Blacks as they were as sailors - or almost pirates - were; given to drunkenness and lustfulness, causing conflicts and fights and, I suspect, any African trader was a pretty hard nut to crack who would not bow to an Indian. (From a book on old Sind).
In my time and at my centre, there were a very few individuals of African/Caribbean descent. There were, perhaps, 3 or 4 out of 300 at the London centre, a few mixed families in the Caribbean which is where you come in. Many of those also had Indian blood. But we did not see them. They existed in a separate bubble. American BKs were either Indian or White. I heard that Hansa had a Mexican indenture servant at one of her centres.
Of course, "seeking spirituality" is a luxury activity for most and where one is concerned primarily for survival, it has a very low priority and a very secondary potential of expression, therefore we could expect it to be limited primarily to the upper middle classes. The BKs tend not to chase (serve) poor souls so much as they do "green" ones. It's primary aim and objective was - and I would argue still is - power and wealth.
Or now, sustaining the power and influence they have gained.
So, by "impure" do we understand "poor and weak" or is there a spiritual element, e.g. all their spiritual energy is in their lower chakras, has it not risen to their higher chakras (should such things exist).
Aside from BKism, I was always interested in why Africa had not had the technological revolution first - evolved to the second degree - since it had everything and was the cradle of human evolution.
Of course, BKs don't believe in human evolution. Rather the centre of the world for them is the Golden Age and the Sind. And they taught/believe that the "highest" souls in the world were those who were first born alongside Lekhraj Kirpalani and remained with him until his last of 84 births in Hyderabad.
* (They actually state New Dehli would be the centre of the Golden Age, I don't know what or why made them give the jump to there from the Sind. The Sind is actually one of the very oldest centres of human history).
Many decades have passed since my involvement and I am a little of touch. I have no desire to get back in touch. One difference between my time and now is that the Kirpalani Klan must have come in touch with a lot more "White Trash" (poor whites) and Hispanics. I wonder what their attitude towards them is?
"Everyone is a Shudra until proven otherwise"? Servant, driver and housekeeper material?
One thing I think is quite sad about the BK model is that it engaged zero is actually educating it "family". It is still anti-education and anti-academic standards. It is all about developing the great confidence trick to me. Get good at putting on a holy facade so you can bring in donations to support the centre and fly the Seniors around. That's about it. Which takes us back to the entrepreneurial Bhaibunds and the likes of Janki who learned arithmetic (accounts), loyalty to the clan, and how to sell.
The upliftment of "impure" humanity does not come into it. It's all about some kind of Brahmanic caste ordering of the rest of the world with them at the top of it.
Perhaps Black people are the most impure because they are least submissive now?