I don't know what to say about Mr.Raghavan terming Western morality as "absolutism" and Indian ethics as "contextual". Trying to use AKR's writings to hide behind a tenuous wall of reasoning with the intent of hijacking it as his own intellectual output, if viewed favorably and appreciated by the readership, seems to be the motive behind this article!To begin with,to talk of western morality as "absolutism" is the most laughable and naive conclusion any one can come up with, be it AKR or Raghavan.AKR, after all, was a poet,an idealist who found his 'home' in Chicago while his 'heart' remained in Karnataka,or even old Mysore,to be precise.Having achieved economic success while also gaining academic freedom to carry out his own intellectual pursuits in the new-found 'home',he could not fault his benefactors,the US and the western world.What did he think of western world's involvement in Vietnam,Korea,Cuba,Nicaragua,Bolivia,Peru and of course,the middle-east?Were those based on moral absolutism?Even within their own society,could anyone equate permissiveness and crumbling family ties with moral absolutism?To misrepresent Gita as having exhorted "killing of brothers" is the wont of westernised Indian journalists.The Gita also says about the absolute and unchanging Dharma (i.e., morality and ethical conduct and not religion as purposely misinterpreted by these pseudo-intellectuals)irrespective of time place or age is completely ignored by Raghavan and his ilk.Hence my question!
