Why diamond merchants like Lekhraj Kripalani were not cool

A simple starter for a much deeper topic address the infatuation the early and original Brahma-kumaris had for Lekhraj Kirpalani and questioning their fascination with the power and wealth the diamond and jewellry trade appears to have ... whilst ignoring the murderous brutality and abuse behind it.

This is what diamond merchants dealt in. We start with Sierra Leon but the story has been replayed in South Africa, South America, India and throughout history. Everywhere else the high value gemstone trade exists, with whatever weaponry existed. Only now do some "impure shudras" in the West establish "ethical" diamond trading.

Of little real value, the high value gemstones trade thrived off and exploited the ignorance and vanity of obscene rich ruling classes. Ruling classes that made their money exploiting others, spent on products that exploited others; enslaving, brutalizing and robbing the rights of the poor and indigenous landowners, destablize regions and regimes, operating monoplies and cartels.

Was Lekhraj Kirpalani party to all this? Yes, I am sorry, of course so. Did he do anything to change it? No. He made his wealth, quit and started up the Brahma-kumaris on the back of it. So this is where the Brahma Kumaris seed capital came from. If I am wrong ... prove me so.

Why do these people romance, deify (make like God) such trashy values - The Diamond Age - whilst doing nothing to fix the problems? Oh yes, I forgot. According to the Brahma Kumaris, "Its their karma" and black people must be the most impure because they suffer the most. It has nothing to do with the businessmen that buy and sell them nor the rich that demand to wear them.

The Diamond Age ... enjoy.

This is a thread for sorrow, grief and anger.

I am one of those who believe anger is a normal and even useful human emotion. The question is how one uses the emotion in a meaningful, even positive and constructive way – not denying, suppressing or cutting it off. But that may (or may not) be another thread.

My feelings belong on both this thread and on the “Real World Maps” thread.

It is puzzling to me how a group like Brahma Kumaris can, in its public face, say it offers a way to help ease the suffering in the world, while behind the scenes, does much to maintain a status quo based on entrenched inequality globally. And in a perverse sleight of hand, teaches a belief in the imminent destruction of most of humanity so the same Cycle, with all its suffering, can be repeated all over again.

To what extent does the belief in Karma lead to turning away from compassion and meaningful action to relieve suffering? (After all, someone must have done something in a past life to deserve this). To what extent does being “detached” lead to turning away from or ignoring human suffering, rather than seeking to understand its causes or offer help?

Many of the world’s religions have a similar disconnect between what they say and what their representative or believers do (the history of Western Christian nations and their actions in relation to non-white people’s and cultures, for example). We can follow the “money trail” of Western governments and corporations (whose leaders overwhelmingly profess to be Christians) across the continents, as they seek profit, power, and control of commodities like precious metals and oil. We can see the resulting wars, destruction and immiseration.

I’m not saying this to excuse Brahma Kumaris – quite the opposite. I am questioning how belief systems can say one thing (compassion and caring) while benefiting from and taking part in practices (increasing their wealth at the expense of greater impoverishment of others) that are exactly the opposite. And what are the ramifications of this – especially when the belief system claims direct connection with the divine or supreme force?

Of course, there are currents of social activism within (and outside of) many religious traditions. There are so many groups doing things both large and small to alleviate suffering and inequalities and to call into question the relations that give rise to the suffering and inequalities. It’s one of the things that gives me hope.

I’m not saying this to excuse Brahma Kumaris – quite the opposite. I am questioning how belief systems can say one thing (compassion and caring) while benefiting from and taking part in practices (increasing their wealth at the expense of greater impoverishment of others) that are exactly the opposite.

Its just the same old business ... both are empire builders. Both use the treat of annihilation. Whereas the old empire builders had their eyes on national/geographical empires to tax or exploit, the BKs have their eyes on international/mental empire to tax or exploit.

Rather than a slice of the earth, which is all taken by much more dominant and aggressive types, they want a small slice of all those dominant types societies and mostly only the fairly weak and passive elements.

But ... it all comes down to "economies of scale" and cherry picking. 100% of 1% of the world is just 1%. But so is 1% of 100% ... already they claim to rule 1,000,000 people and that makes them bigger than a few small countries. They don't own any countries yet, they don't have any of the problems of owning a population, but they already have the financial benefit of doing so.

A carrot merchant might need to make 50% market up on his carrots to make aliving. A diamond merchant make only make 1.5% but that 1.5% is more than the carrot merchant makes in his lifetime. Without any doubt, Lekhraj Kirpalani was a shrewed and clever businessmen ... just because he is dead, does not mean he has stopped being so. Quite the opposite, now he has a little more foresight and insight as given to him by his position in the spiritual world.

If Lekhraj was such well known diamond merchant visiting kings, how come it is never in any independent media? Only BK seems to be exaggerating about it.

Diamond Trade History