|
Could you tell us a little about your background,
for example your education and upbringing?
I was born in Paris in 1950. I had a strict upper-class Catholic education
but I never really fitted in the system and revolted against it quite early.
Thus, I was sent to many famous boarding schools all over Europe, from which I
was regularly kicked out! My family wanted me to be a businessman and I attended
an American business school in Paris called IDRAC, but my interest was in
writing and I quit to work in a small newspaper, which quickly folded; then I
wrote the script of a film for a friend (whose father, a famous film director,
had given him 30,000 francs to do his own film). Needless to say, the film was
never released and soon after, I left for India: I had just turned 19.
Have you worked with anybody other than Le
Figaro?
When I reached India, I stopped writing for a long time, except my own
diaries and I went into other spheres -- meditation and gardening, for instance!
In 1982, at the occasion of the Asian Games in Delhi, I chanced upon an article
(on the Asian Games) in a French newspaper. It had all the usual clichés
on India: poverty, fakirs, Mother Teresa... So I wrote a letter of correction to
the editor; and he offered me to write an article, which I did. And then another
article followed and another and another...
I then started writing and photographing for different publications and
finally ended-up being the correspondent in South Asia, for the Geneva-based Journal
de Geneve, which at one time used to be one of the best international
newspapers in Europe. Five and a half years ago, I switched to Figaro,
for which I now work exclusively, except for the occasional photo feature (on
kalarapiyat for instance).
How did you become interested in Indology?
Indology grew on me the moment I started getting out of Auroville (which is a
bit of an island in the midst of India). In fact I would say that India grows on
those (Westerners) who LIVE in India in whatever field (dance, music,
spirituality, crafts, photography -- but not journalism). Also I have an
interest in spirituality and it opens up so many different areas of Indian life.
You are married to an Indian, aren't you? Do you
have other roots in India now?
I have been married nine years to Namrita, who is from Delhi (mother is
Hindu, father Sikh). Being married to a "daughter of India" is a
natural complement of my being in this country for 30 years. My roots are very
much in this country, even though I remain a Westerner. But I have no intention
of going back to France, except for yearly visits to meet my family.
What is your relationship to Auroville?
I came to India with the first caravan for the international city of
Auroville -- and even though I spent seven years in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Pondichery, because I was immediately attracted by this totally Indian and
spiritualised atmosphere (lots of Westerners in Auroville), my dedication is to
Auroville, where I have spent most of the last 22 years. It is this ATTEMPT at
human unity which makes Auroville great (because so far, we cannot boast of many
achievements!) and the fact that such a place exists and that it is in India
(where else could it be but in the land of great tolerance and spiritual
experiment?) is a sign of hope for the rest of humanity.
I have read excerpts from Rewriting Indian
History on the web at www.hindu.org, the site of Hinduism Today. What is your
relationship if any, with Hinduism Today?
No direct relationship with them. Sitaram Goel, publisher of the Voice of
India (For a long time, Sitaram Goel and Ram Swarup, who just passed
away, single handedly defended Hinduism in the face of the
Marxist-Christian-Muslim onslaught in India) had read some of my articles in
Blitz magazine and asked me if he could publish a series of them under a
book form. I answered that I would rather write the book from scratch and thus
was born The Wonder That Is India.
Later, Hinduism Today, a remarkable set-up, which for the first time
in the history of Hinduism is attempting to rationalise and gather together this
great knowledge to present it to the world, offered to put it on their site in
the net.
You take exception to A L Basham's The Wonder
that was India: because it thinks of India only in the past tense?
Not only does he think that India was great solely in the past, but his idea
of India's greatness is very selective; furthermore, he subscribes to the usual
Western slogans: the eternal clichés propagated by a few Christian missionaries
and "enlightened secularists" on the Indian caste system. "The
Aryans anointed themselves the ruling class (= Brahmins and Kshatriyas), while
the poor conquered Dravidians (Harappans), became the slaves, (= Vaishyas and
Shudras)". Or: "As they settled among darker aboriginals, the Aryans
seem to have laid greater stress than before on purity of blood and class
divisions hardened..." (pp. 36, The Wonder that was India). Or else
this monstrosity: "...In the Vedic period, a situation arose rather like
that prevailing in South Africa today, with a dominant fair minority, striving
to maintain its purity and its supremacy over a darker majority"... (pp.
138, The Wonder that was India). Poor India, being granted the honour by
Basham, of being the founding father of racism! But it is thus that Basham lays
the ground for his later theories on what he calls Hindu imperialism.
You quote widely from Koenrad Elst (whom I have
interviewed in the past). Isn't Elst -- and for that matter Dr David Frawley and
Dr Subhash Kak -- dismissed by some as not serious scholars?
It is very unfortunate that Konrad Elst is not able to publish his writings
but in Hindu oriented magazines or publishing houses, for he is not only one of
the most thorough and knowledgeable scholars on India, but also, because he is a
Westerner, he is able to perceive things that Indians themselves, blinded by two
centuries of colonialism and 50 years of so-called secularism, do not see any
more. I hope that History will grant him his due place in the fight for Indian
Renaissance.
All are very rigorous scholars -- the scope of Elst's knowledge is amazing.
But they have been going for a long time against the mainstream thought of this
country, which was initiated first by the Britishers and later taken on by Nehru
and the intellectual left based in JNU, all of which were predominantly
anti-Hindu and which strove to eradicate the genius that was India.
Your views on the discrediting of the Aryan
Invasion Theory. Isn't it a bit far-fetched to suggest that in addition to not
being invaded, in fact Indian tribes went westwards?
Not at all. Because not only do latest archaeological and linguistic
discoveries prove that there never was an Aryan invasion of India and that it
was a theory propounded by the early archaeologists and linguists which were all
at the service of the British (including the much vaunted Max Mueller who has
falsified India's historical datings). Because how could the colonisers of the
land, the bearers of "civilisation" and the true religion, ever accept
that they might be the descendants of those they were colonising?
As for Aryan (or rather Indian tribes) to go westwards, there is nothing
preposterous in that theory. Just compare Greek philosophy with Vedic thought,
which it is known now, is much older than Greek civilisation. There is also a
striking similarity -- which has been dwelt upon by numerous Indologists,
including French scholar Alain Daniélou -- between some forms of Christianity
and Hinduism.
There is no doubt that Christ was inspired by Hindu and Buddhist esoterism
and there are numerous stories that he even came to India to be initiated. And
finally, many recognise that the Gypsies, whose language has still many
similarities with Sanskrit, and appeared in Europe around the 14th century after
having transited through Iran and Egypt, were a lost tribe of India, probably of
harijan origin.
I have been reading a good deal of argument about
Bhagwan Gidwani's The Return of the Aryans. What is your view of this?
I have not read this book and I would be interested
to know where I can get a copy. But this whole Aryan concept is an invention of
colonial linguists for their own hidden purpose; it is even today used by
Christian missionaries and was also taken up by Hitler, this great asura
of the 20th century, to justify the killing of six millions Jews. What does
Aryan mean? Nothing! There were Vedic tribes who happened to be receptive enough
to the forces of Nature and the Cosmos to develop a unique spiritual system
which was the basis for the future Indian civilisations. Full stop. All the rest
is propaganda of Muslim writers and Christian missionaries, who, since they came
to this country, have been intent to divide India into religions, castes, tribes
etc. Whereas Vedic philosophy was always for unity: santana dharma.
Everything, every path, every sect is acceptable, as
long as it leads you from untruth to truth, from darkness to light, from
mortality to immortality. Today the Congress, the Left and all the Mulayam
Singhs are still at it: how to divide this country and make sure it dies
forever.
Your views on the Islamic invasion and the
missionary invasion?
I think the above answers your question, but I must
add that if the Vedic greatness had not degenerated and India had remained
united in dharma, there could have never been Muslim invasions and later
Western colonisation. This said, the massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India
are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis;
or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the
slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and
Portuguese.
In the words of another historian, American Will
Durant: "the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in
history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation
is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment
be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying within".
Why is it that foreign writers fall into either
of two camps: either openly hostile (eg. Barbara Crossette, Molly Moore) or
openly supportive (eg. you, Mark Tully)
You either hate India or love it. Let's forget about
tourists, because they are a distinct breed and their purpose is different. But
if you take Western journalists or writers, you will find that a great many of
them (after some time) dislike India, or even sometimes hate it. Take the
British who were in India for 300 years, how many of them got even to understand
truly even a little bit of this great country? 0.02% (you can't even say that
Foster understood India)?
There is basically an unconscious militant dislike
of the Christian world towards Hindu India (and in this militant hate,
Christians are even ready to ally themselves with their traditional enemies:
Islam. Recently, I was in Jhabua, where the four nuns were raped [it was not
a 'religious' rape as reported by the Press] and the lawyer whom the
Christian priests had selected to defend their case, was a Muslim).
And even today you find that the West loves to
honour only these Indians who basically are anti-Hindus, such as Mother Teresa
or Amartya Sen, however brilliant they are in their own fields. True, India is a
difficult country for a Westerner : dirty, unhygienic, obscure sometimes. It is
also full of contradictions and it does not open-up to those who do not make any
efforts to truly understand it.
But once more, you have to LIVE India if you want to
understand it. This is why journalists and Western correspondents always closeted
in Delhi, this artificial and arrogant city, can never understand India: they
are just mouthing the same old clichés (Hindutva, caste system, Ayodhya,
secularism), which they hear at the same embassies cocktails, the same
journalists' parties, the same secular Indian press meet (such as Outlook)...
What is your view on the Saraswati Vandana/Vande
Mataram controversy?
The ministers walked out when the Saraswati Vandana was played. But
why should anyone object to Saraswati, the Goddess of learning, She who bestowed
so much Grace on India. In 1939, a disciple had said to Sri Aurobindo that:
"there are some people who object to the singing of Vande Mataram as
a national song; Sri Aurobindo had replied: "in that case Hindus should
give up their culture". But the disciple had continued: "the argument
is that the song speaks of Hindu gods, like Durga and that it is offensive to
Muslims". Said Sri Aurobindo: "but it is not a religious song, it is a
national song and the Durga spoken of is India as the Mother. Why should not the
Muslims accept it? In the Indian concept of nationality, the Hindu view should
be naturally there. if it cannot find a place, the Hindus may as well be asked
to give-up their culture. The Hindus don't object to "Allah-Ho-Akbar".
What do you think the solution is to endemic
Macaulayism in India?
It is obvious that education in India has to be totally revamped. The kind of
Westernised education which is standard in India, does have its place, because
India wants to be on par with the rest of the world, and Indian youth should be
able to deal confidently with the West: do business, talk, and relate to a
universal world culture. But nevertheless, the first thing that Indian children
should be taught IS THE GREATNESS OF THEIR OWN CULTURE. They should learn to
revere the Vedas, they should be taught the genius of the Mahabharata and the
Ramayana; they should be told that in this country everything has been done,
that it was an unsurpassed civilisation, when the West was still mumbling its
first words, that Indian civilisation reached dizzying heights, which have been
since unsurpassed.
But overall they should be taught early that India's greatness is her
spirituality her world-wide wisdom. INDIA'S NEW EDUCATION HAS TO BE
SPIRITUALISED; IT HAS TO BE AN INNER EDUCATION, WHICH TEACHES TO LOOK AT THINGS
FROM THE INNER PRISM, NOT THROUGH THE WESTERN ARTIFICIAL LOOKING GLASS.
Do you find Hinduism in danger? Besieged? But
isn't it true that it has always survived -- muddling through somehow?
Yes, it is true that Hinduism has always managed to survive in the face of
tremendous odds (Muslim holocaust, British colonisation, Nehruism...). But it is
also true that life is always on the razor's edge and that nothing is won until
the last moment. Today Hinduism is facing a more insidious onslaught, but which
may be even more dangerous: from its own people.
From the Left, who wants to eradicate totally Hinduism and for that purpose
supports whatever is inimical to it, including Islam and Christianity; from the
so-called 'secular' politicians, such as Mulayam Singh or Laloo Prasad, who have
done tremendous harm to India; from Sonia Gandhi, a Christian, who might one day
be prime minister of India; from missionaries who continue to convert through
covert means; from its so-called intellectual elite which swears by
liberalisation and Westernisation, not understanding that this will eventually
kill India's soul...
Overall, there is a vast semi-conscious conspiracy to denigrate Hinduism; and
there Muslims and Christians walk hand in hand: it goes from Husain painting
Saraswati naked, to Deepa Mehta's lesbians being called Radha and Sita.
Everybody calls Thackeray a fascist or a madman, but let a Hindu minority in
Saudi Arabia, or even in Europe, try to denigrate the Virgin Mary or Jesus, and
see what happens. At least the man has guts, whatever his excesses.
Do you think the State-sanctioned disparity
between Hindus and other faiths will continue?
It is a great tragedy that for instance different Congress governments have
left millions of Bangladeshis settle in Eastern India and have kept quiet about
it, just to cater to the Muslim vote bank. Today even, all the 'secular'
politicians refuse to accept the Assam governor's conclusions which are
absolutely right: Assam's way of life, its culture, religion, are being totally
wiped out by the Bangladeshis immigrants, who on top of that bring with them a
militant religion and do not really integrate in the Indian mainstream.
This should not happen and it is one of the dangers that Hinduism has to face
today, because Muslims multiply much more rapidly than Hindus, who have
generally accepted the need to have only two or three children, even in the
backwards villages of Tamil Nadu.
Where do you think the population is going in
regards to Hinduism, never mind the politicians?
I do hope that India is not going to turn its back on Hinduism. Because with
800 millions souls, Hindus constitute the majority of this country.
Traditionally and historically, Hinduism has always been the most tolerant of
all religions, allowing persecuted minorities from all over the world, whether
the Jerusalem Jews, the Parsis from Persia, Christians from Syria, or even Arab
merchants, to settle in India over the centuries and practice their religion in
peace. Are the French ashamed of their Greco-Roman inheritance? Not at all ! On
the contrary they even think that civilisation started only with the Greeks.
Would you call the Germans or the Italians "nationalists" because they
have Christian Democrats Parties?
Christianity is the founding stone of Western civilisation and nobody dares
deny it. Clinton goes to the mass and swears on the Bible and none finds
anything to say. We French are brought-up listening to the values of Homer's Iliad,
or Corneille's Le Cid. It is true that in France there has been a
separation of the State and the Church; but that is because at one time the
Church misused its enormous political power and grabbed enormous amounts of
lands and gold. But no such thing ever happened India. The much-maligned
Brahmins never interfered in politics and today they are often a neglected lot.
Aren't there ills in Hinduism? Why aren't these
being cleansed? You would admit that there is continuing casteism in India;
perhaps also patriarchal ill-treatment of women?
Oh yes, there are a lots of ills in Hinduism, the worst one being that for
some mysterious reason, Hindus tend to be the most undisciplined, (look how they
drive) collectively selfish, and nationally uncaring community in India, so that
it requires a Mother Teresa to look after their own underprivileged. In the same
way, they tend to extend cleanliness only to their own immediate surroundings:
their homes, or their front porches, but neglect the rest.
It is puzzling for instance how a people which has worshipped the Ganges for
thousands of years, treats it with so little respect, dumping every day
thousands of chemicals in its waters. They are panicky, cowards (I have my own
theory on this: the collective terror unleashed by the Muslim invasions in the
unconscious mind of Hindus still trigger in them this panicky and
everyone-for-himself syndrome) and have lost this great quality of courage,
selflessness and boldness, which Vivekananda tried to drill back into them, with
little success.
They are corrupt, which is the gravest of sins, because it is not only the
poor, which is understandable, but also the rich, who mix ashes in cement,
adulterate petrol, mustard oil, alcohol (maybe we should have here for a few
years a military dictatorship China-like. Take, for instance, a few of the
hoarders who recently manipulated the prices of onion or salt, put them against
a wall and shoot them like animals. You will see how India's economy will
straighten-up quickly). There is so much black money in this country, so much
hidden wealth, which could make India one of the richest countries in the world
if it became white again.
And finally Hindus exploit and abuse their own underprivileged: they pay
badly their servants, mistreat them; no wonder that sometimes these very
servants kill their masters for a few rupees! My good friend and competitor,
Françoise Chipaux, Le Monde's corespondent, showed me recently the
servant quarters of her flat which is in Sujan Singh Park, one of the poshest
districts of Delhi. You should have seen them: there were not even toilets! Once
again you take a few of these owners (who ask for two years advance, half of it
payable on a foreign account) and shoot them...
We have a dilemma regarding reservation and the
upliftment of the weaker sections. What is your view on the OBC, SC/ST problems?
India's great Sage and philosopher, Sri Aurobindo, felt that the caste system
is the most misunderstood, the most vilified subject of Hindu society :
"Caste was originally an arrangement for the distribution of functions in
society, just as much as class in Europe, but the principle on which this
distribution was based was peculiar to India. A Brahmin was a Brahmin not by
mere birth, but because he discharged the duty of preserving the spiritual and
intellectual elevation of the race, and he had to cultivate the spiritual
temperament and acquire the spiritual training which alone would qualify him for
the task. So it was for the Vaishya whose function was to amass wealth for the
race and the Shudra who discharged the humbler duties of service without which
the other castes could not perform their share of labour for the common
good".
But, yes, there is no doubt that the institution of caste degenerated:
"It ceased to be determined by spiritual qualifications and thus lost most
of its meaning. The spirit of caste arrogance, exclusiveness and superiority
came to dominate it instead of the spirit of duty, and the change weakened the
nation and helped to reduce us to our present condition". Thus, Nehru's
intentions by devising the reservation system may have been good, but as usual
it has been perverted by human nature and has encouraged sloppiness, cheating
and believe it or not, casteism in the reverse sense, as it pays today to say
that you from an underprivileged caste!
Thus, everybody wants to be part of OBC, even Christians who converted to
escape the caste system! Moreover, it has encouraged anti-brahmanism, like in
Tamil Nadu, whereas Brahmans never interfered in political affairs and single
handedly preserved the Hindu tradition.
What are your views on the Nehru dynasty and
Sonia Gandhi's recent rise?
It would be a real shame if Sonia Gandhi becomes one day India's prime
minister. It is not the question of her being a foreigner (although there should
be enough brilliant people amongst the 800 millions Hindus); it is the question
of her having not the slightest idea of what India is truly about, locked that
she is in her 6, Janpath fortress, surrounded by sycophants. Moreover there is
no doubt that she is a Christian, which is perfectly her right; but as most
Christians, she probably has a hostile bias against Hinduism -- and it shows in
her remarks against the BJP and for "secularism".
As for the rest of the Gandhi dynasty, I hold Nehru most responsible for this
country's present condition, because his policies have done tremendous harm to
India and continue to do so. What we see today is his legacy at all levels of
Indian life, be it political (secularism), education (Macaulyism),
intellectualism (Left) or even art (aping the West).
What do you think the long-term fallout of the
nuclear bomb will be?
India should stand by the dogma of ahimsa, non-violence, But to be
non-violent one needs to be strong . Over the centuries history has shown that
India has always been the bullied, the oppressed, the invaded, whether by
Alexander's armies, the Muslim, or the Western colonials. Even the Chinese made
mincemeat of India in 1962. By getting the nuclear weapon, India makes the first
step in getting some respect -- even if it is fear -- in the eyes of its hostile
neighbours.
Look at the paranoiac reaction of the Chinese, isn't it symptomatic? Also
there should be no doubt in anybody's mind that Pakistan is the latest
reincarnation of Islam's militant hatred towards Hindus, the Infidels par
excellence. Pakistan's present active hostility towards India, is nothing but
what the Koran still preaches: Jihad fi Sabilillah, 'Holy War for the
Greater Glory of Allah'.
In the face of such hostility, India has to guard herself; then only she can
allow herself to be magnanimous. Gandhi's and Buddhism's ahimsa, were
the non-violence of the weak and the coward; not the non-violence of the lion,
which lets prey walk by, because he is not hungry and knows he can get them any
time he wants.
In some ways, aren't you being disloyal to your
country and the Catholic faith into which you were born, by accepting India so
much?
Why? A soul has no nationality, no religion! Rather I would say that it has
only the religion and the nationality of it past lives. Each soul has a history
and belongs to some country, some race, where it reincarnates again and again. I
consider India as my country, not because I happen to live here, but because the
moment I set foot in this country, something deep in me recognised that it was
my place, my known territory. Now it is also true that I cannot deny my own
culture and upbringing -- and I am proud of it in many ways: it allows me to
express myself, it gave me the backbone of my professional and literary
achievements. If only India could get some of the material perfection the West
has, its thirst for perfection, its caring for the others and motto of
egalitarism!
If you were setting India's course with Europe,
what would you do, on a political and foreign policy front?
Again, India has to assert her own personality, by pursuing the foreign
policy that suits best her own interest. Automatically she will then gain
respect, not only from Europe, but also from the US. Actually India should take
a lesson or two from China. Look at the Chinese, they do exactly what they like,
they keep threatening and blackmailing the world, and not only they get away
with it, but also have the respect of all Industrialised nations.
India presents a far more better picture than China, which has killed a
million innocent Tibetans: it has managed to remain democratic in spite of all
its problems -- separatisms, overpopulation, corruption, etc.
I think Europe will come to appreciate India's democratic achievements,
specially the day when China's iron (and bloody) communist hand will be removed
by whatever circumstances. That day, all problems which were kept bottled-up and
suppressed in China will erupt to the surface and one could witness a chaos
similar to what happened in USSR.
And this is exactly what the present government should tell Europe :
"Look, you cannot ignore us, we are the next superpower in Asia and the
largest country by 2020; we are nuclear, but we are democratic and we have a
long tradition of tolerance and culture". I think a few nations will
understand that language -- maybe not the British, (who are anyway a spent
nation) because they still live in the past -- but at least the French; and
maybe the Germans.
How exactly does the French people and the French
establishment view India? The view from here is that the French are supremely
pragmatic, not given to posturing.
I did not know the French were supremely pragmatic! The German, surely; but
the French: you flatter them! French are like Bengalis: they are great talkers,
good artists, warm, fun-loving people, but infinitely lesser doers than the
Germans. Today with modernism and the American way of business, which the US has
slowly imposed upon the world, this may be changing; but still the French love
good food, fun, debating and posturing -- witness their sports mania, which is
mostly armchair sportsmanship! This is why maybe there is an empathy with India,
which is also a bit of an armchair sportsman, such an in cricket, this crazy
sports left by the British, which is totally unsuited to India's climate. True,
the French are the only nation which did not condemn India outright after their
nuclear blasts.
There may be three reasons to it: first of course, the French had just
concluded their Pacific tests and suffered themselves from the world's hypocrite
condemnation; two, there is that mysterious 'kinship' between India and France
(of which Sri Aurobindo and the Mother of Pondichery often spoke); and three,
different Indo-French programmes, started by Mrs Gandhi who spoke good French
and knew Malraux well, continued by Rajiv Gandhi who promoted the year of India
in France in 1985 and continued by Mr Chirac's visit to India beginning of 1998,
finally bore some fruits.
Your views on Hinduism and its central place in
the Indian enterprise, if it were to come from an Indian, would be considered
'fundamentalist'. But you seem to be tolerated to some extent by the
'secularists' of India. Is that primarily because you are a white person? Is it
a racial thing?
Very good question! I would say that it is not so much because I am a white
person, although that can help in India, either because the average Indian is
nice with the Western man, or because there is a colonial hangover here which
means that your white skin sometime opens you a lot of doors with India's upper
class, 'elite' intellectuals, or top bureaucrats (in passing, upper-class
Indians must be the most snobbish people in the world; but they don't realise
that it is something they inherited from the British and that they are only
aping their erstwhile colonisers).
No, I would say that the fact that I work for a very reputed and conservative
newspaper opens a lot of doors to me, which would otherwise be closed. Konraad
Elst or David Frawley, that other eminent Indologist, do not have this privilege
and I make the most of it (would you interview me otherwise?)
Paul Theroux said recently that Indians are
obsessed about race, caste and food. What do you think?
Paul Theroux is a very pompous man and on top of that, a mean and treacherous
friend -- witness his book on his ex friend Naipaul (who had the courage to
change his ideas about India). People like Theroux may be brilliant and witty,
but they are quickly forgotten by History: who will know Theroux in 100 years?
As for his opinion about India, I would not pay too much attention to it; first
it is not very original, as millions of Westerners have already condemned India
in the lines of race, caste and food.
By race, he probably means the Aryan race, which is as we have seen, is a
bogus subject; we shall not get again into the caste issue, the favourite
whipping boy of India haters.
But food?? At any rate, the West is much more obsessed with food than India!
From the Romans downwards there was a mania of overeating and bulimia is a
typically Western phenomenon, (which may come to India because of Westernisation).
But long ago, Indian sages knew that "one eats for living; but does not
live for eating".
(Excerpts from interview by Rajeev Srinivasan, source : The Rediff Interview on
www.rediff.com)
|