Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[KrishnaK]

Growth? What growth? Growth in population, yes.

The Indian economy has grown more than its population in the past 20 years. 5x for the economy vs well less 1.5x for the population. We have definitely grown wealthier.

But we have the largest numbers of malnourished people, highest infant mortality etc. In absolute numbers the figures for 2014 exceed the figures at any other time in India's history. So what is this admirable growth you are talking about. You are simply making excuses for a system that is not working as claimed.

That just means we need to grow some more. The difference in economic growth is marked, after we changed course. At least those choices were our own. BTW the choice of the word "absolute" in that statement leads me to suspect you're trolling big time.

I guess you will move the goalpost and say "it's not the political system. It's bad economic policies". You need to make up your mind and stop switching.

It is clarification, not switching. Just like when I clarified that universalism doesn't mean it universally exists, but that it is universally applicable.

Britain became a democracy only in 1721 by which time it was already the biggest colonial power on earth. It was a powerful military and "good economic policies" represented by grab what you can that made Britain. Not democracy.

How long before 1721 was the absolute right of monarchs curtailed ? How long before 1721 was the principle of habeas corpus established ? There was significant advances made in political freedoms well before 1721. Some history if you'd like to peruse..

An excerpt

Democracy of sorts had existed in England for centuries - as far back as 1432, Henry VI passed statues declaring who was eligible to vote (male owners of land worth at least 40 shillings, or a freehold property - perhaps half a million people nationwide). However, the counties and boroughs that sent Members to Parliament were of wildly differing size. The county of Yorkshire had more than 20,000 people, and the borough of Westminster had around 12,000, but they only sent one representative to the Commons - as did, for example, Dunwich, which had 32 voters, or Gatton, which had seven.

What was the situation in India thereabouts ? This is a serious question.

[KrishnaK]

Democracy does not create wealth in the short term (30 years). Human rights do not create wealth in the short term (30 years). If I employ 20 slaves on my farmland I will be wealthy in 5 years and remain wealthy for my lifetime and may pass on wealth to future generations. These are sound economic policies for me - not democracy and human rights.

Of course it makes wealth in the short term. Only to be trounced by somebody who figures out how to think long term and involving larger numbers of people.

[Arjun]

I did make a factual error. Not acknowledging that would be boorish. My argument was never that the british did not profit enormously from the colonization of India. It is that they already had gained an advantage that they used to their benefit and our detriment. The west gained a material advantage because of it's political and scientific advancements. It is that advantage that allowed them to colonize India. If that political setup is something that will provide India with a similar advantage, then it is something we should adopt and we did. Whether practitioners of that political setup also indulged in colonialism or slavery is irrelevant. And as pointed out by Johann, countries which hadn't anything to do with colonialism and slavery have also done well.

KrishnaK, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this thread.

There is no confusion, as far as I am concerned, as to what the national objective is for India (or for any other contender to being a global leader for that matter). India NEEDS to emerge as the world leader in science, trade and in setting the tone for universal human values (aka JAGATGURU - in Modi's language).

The last one necessarily involves taking on the West's 'universalist' claims - which is precisely what this thread is focused on. As a matter of fact, even for the first two objectives (ie hard sciences and wealth creation) - India would benefit significantly from an attitude that is far more sceptical of Western Universalist claims.

This thread is part of healthy civilizational competition between the Dharmic / Indic and the Western - not sure why you and some others are reacting so violently against it. Yes, if the end objective is NOT competitive but aimed at reverting to some kind of myth-worshipping non-competitive state of the nation, it would be a different story. But that is not the case.

The West plays unfair, India comes out on top if this and that were to be the case is the sort of nonsense I'm arguing against. 100 million people, given access to the same resources, the same scientific and technical base, given the same political freedoms in India, Europe and Africa will end up performing the same over a period of time. Precisely the reason almost every people in the world have had their time at the top and have significant achievements to their credit.

The West did play unfair and continues to gain advantage from this. I would like this thread to continue to stress on that fact loudly and repeatedly. That is completely separate from (and actually an aid to) reverting to the pre-1700 status of India as global GDP leader.

Also, I disagree with your view that all peoples given the same political freedoms and other resources will land up performing the same on outcomes - at least in the short term. There are differences in social capital between various groups which imply that some groups will continue to outperform others on education, income and other intellectual achievement.

[shiv]

Democracy does not create wealth in the short term (30 years). Human rights do not create wealth in the short term (30 years). If I employ 20 slaves on my farmland I will be wealthy in 5 years and remain wealthy for my lifetime and may pass on wealth to future generations. These are sound economic policies for me - not democracy and human rights.

Of course it makes wealth in the short term. Only to be trounced by somebody who figures out how to think long term and involving larger numbers of people.

No Krishna. Democracy per se does not create wealth and good statecraft can always hold back or trounce others - even other democracies. Statecraft does not require democracy.

Remember this post

But let me give you an example of universalism and western universalism

Universalism: Nuclear weapons are destructive and the world would be better off without them
Western universalism: Nuclear weapons are destructive and the world would be better off without them except for the US, France, Great Britain and two other members of the P5 who joined the club before the rule book was created

The latter is western statecraft. Par for the course for all countries, including India. After all Chanakya was a product of the Indian civilization ?

[KrishnaK]

The Mongols did something right, too. They dominated Asia for about as long as the British did.

Yup they did. But their innovation stopped at military tactics. Any like any one trick pony, the pony eventually died. The west doesn't have any colonies today. Nobody forces the Chinese, Malays, Thais, Indians, europeans to buy iphones or mercedes' or boeing/airbus jets. People do that because they want to. No different from when India sold her wares all over the world.

So you see, Iran stinks too. Every Asian civilization fell before the Mongol onslaught. And I'm sure the KrishnaKs' of that era were saying everyone should emulate the Mongols. The fact is that no-holds-barred will almost always defeat civilization.

If that's the case, why didn't the no-holds-barred communist bloc win ? Or Nazi germany ? You're talking nonsense.

[KrishnaK]

No Krishna. Democracy per se does not create wealth and good statecraft can always hold back or trounce others - even other democracies. Statecraft does not require democracy.

No democracy does not create wealth in and by itself. It is human beings and their innovation that does that. Democracy will enable that a lot better than anything else around. It will eventually result in prosperity.

Universalism: Nuclear weapons are destructive and the world would be better off without them
Western universalism: Nuclear weapons are destructive and the world would be better off without them except for the US, France, Great Britain and two other members of the P5 who joined the club before the rule book was created

The latter is western statecraft. Par for the course for all countries, including India. After all Chanakya was a product of the Indian civilization ?[/quote][/quote] We managed to get nukes and retain it. No amount of statecraft helped stopped that. We also don't want Iran to get the same nukes. Japan and Germany don't have nukes today. How is this relevant ?

[shiv]

No democracy does not create wealth in and by itself. It is human beings and their innovation that does that. Democracy will enable that a lot better than anything else around. It will eventually result in prosperity.

"Innovation" is a broad term. Innovation in weaponry and then looting also created wealth. You may not believe it but that has been true for many nations who are now wealthy.

When did you say Britain became democratic ? 1300?

Look for a graph of Britain's GDP from 1300 to 1950 and you find that Britain's GDP really shot up starting around 1850, in in Britain's "Imperial Century". Democracy failed to create wealth until innovation helped colonialism. Britain did conquer most of the world. That was not an act that could be described as a "Universally applicable value" today, although Britain and other European nations used innovation and statecraft to to universally apply their values to the rest of the world. Why are those values not "universal" now? Are Britain and European nations now regretful?

We managed to get nukes and retain it. No amount of statecraft helped stopped that. We also don't want Iran to get the same nukes. Japan and Germany don't have nukes today. How is this relevant ?

And democratic states can use statecraft to take down or hold down or oppose other democratic states. How would democracy then qualify as "universally applicable"? Statecraft does not require democracy or sound economic policies. It also does not require the application of universal values. These "Universally applicable values" that have been pushed as western universalism are not universal or universally applicable. That is where we started. Remember?

PS: I want Iran to get nukes. And they will.

[shiv]

So you see, Iran stinks too. Every Asian civilization fell before the Mongol onslaught. And I'm sure the KrishnaKs' of that era were saying everyone should emulate the Mongols. The fact is that no-holds-barred will almost always defeat civilization.

If that's the case, why didn't the no-holds-barred communist bloc win ? Or Nazi germany ? You're talking nonsense.

Please Krishna. You should not use expressions like "You are talking nonsense" when you consistently reserved the right to do that yourself. You take one point in history (now) and talk as if we are at the end of history.

The "communist bloc" still exists in China but is only seen as less threatening in America. "No holds barred" is the American way - but it is statecraft when America uses it and does not have the negative connotation that it had when the USSR was dubbed as following such a policy. The US has curtailed freedom for its people in the name of security. But those same acts were bad only when the communist bloc did it. When the US does it it becomes statecraft and "democratic choice of the majority". This is sophistry.

You are seeing history through Anglo American eyes and believe that there is only one viewpoint. What Nazi Germany did was to bring down the established colonial powers, though they were democratic. The US and the USSR rose after that. The "victory" of the US came at the cost of the rise of China and the rise of Islamism. You are right in saying that the values espoused by the anglo-american bloc are better than the values espoused by the Chinese or by the Islamists, but I put it to you that the Anglo American values you espouse are not universal and only represent a post WW2 tactic to hold opposing communist and now, Islamist, values at bay. Neither Britain nor the US have had any hesitation in breaking their own values.

India does not have to follow the Anglo Americans or their temporary values of convenience any more than we have to follow Islamist or modern Chinese values.

[shiv]

The Greatest Cover-Up in History ? How Imperial Britain's Racist India, Africa & China Narrative ‎Still Persists

This, the penultimate article of this series, seeks to explain how British perceptions of India (and by extension, those of a once prosperous Africa, China and Middle East) are still unwittingly framed through the capricious prism of supremacist colonial propaganda. Firstly, for a country which a number of respected scholars have suggested may be the greatest single contributor to human civilisation, such perceptions of India are not just crassly derogatory, but factually untenable.

[A_Gupta]

If that's the case, why didn't the no-holds-barred communist bloc win ? Or Nazi germany ? You're talking nonsense.

Because the opposite side also went no-holds-barred. Look up the bombing of Germany, the nuking of Japan. The jihadi mess in India's neighborhood is a fallout of the no-holds-barred against the Soviet Union.

[A_Gupta]

The west doesn't have any colonies today. Nobody forces the Chinese, Malays, Thais, Indians, europeans to buy iphones or mercedes' or boeing/airbus jets. People do that because they want to. No different from when India sold her wares all over the world.

Yes, the West doesn't have any colonies today -- thanks mostly to World War II, which sapped the powers of the colonial powers; and not because of any greater level of civilization on their part. But like G.W. Bush & co and Iraq, the colonial impulse is never far away. Remember, Iraqi oil was going to pay for what turned out to be the trillion dollar occupation of Iraq? Remember the immunity from Iraqi law that Americans had? Making the occupied pay for their own occupation; and giving the occupying forces immunity from the local law -- these are the major two characteristics of colonialism. While one cannot be enthusiastic about the violence in Iraq, ultimately the Iraqis defeated both American goals.

[A_Gupta]

Shiv, from your article:

Under British rule, India suffered more famines in mere decades than during the preceding 1,000 years.

Each famine claimed millions of lives, as many as the Nazis took in the holocaust they created. Yet the British are somehow the paragons of civilization. At least here in the State of New Jersey, the great Irish Famine of the 1840s can be taught as genocide. In India that would be considered highly unsecular.

The point KrishnaK doesn't get is that just as we don't want to learn civilization from the Mongols, we don't want to learn civilization from such mass killers as the British. Any more than we want to learn civilization from Nazi Germany. At least Germany has had to disavow its past. Britain still produces turds like Niall Ferguson who glorify its past. Yeah, the British may have more arrows in their quiver than the Mongols. So what?

iPhones, Mercedes, Boeings do not make a civilization, they are products of technology.

[shiv]

The west doesn't have any colonies today. Nobody forces the Chinese, Malays, Thais, Indians, europeans to buy iphones or mercedes' or boeing/airbus jets. People do that because they want to. No different from when India sold her wares all over the world.

Yes, the West doesn't have any colonies today -- thanks mostly to World War II, which sapped the powers of the colonial powers; and not because of any greater level of civilization on their part. But like G.W. Bush & co and Iraq, the colonial impulse is never far away. Remember, Iraqi oil was going to pay for what turned out to be the trillion dollar occupation of Iraq? Remember the immunity from Iraqi law that Americans had? Making the occupied pay for their own occupation; and giving the occupying forces immunity from the local law -- these are the major two characteristics of colonialism. While one cannot be enthusiastic about the violence in Iraq, ultimately the Iraqis defeated both American goals.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy missiles or nuclear bombs from China. People buy them because they are available to some. That does not mean that China's values are universally applicable to all. China did not have to apply western universal values to become an exporter of goods that others will buy.

If you have followed aircraft tech from the 50s or 60s you find that no one was forced to buy Boeings from Boeing. People could buy British jets, French jets and even Soviet jets. Most Indians who were well above the poverty line have flown the Viscount, Avro, the Caravelle or Tu-124. They bought these planes because they were available for sale - not because the selling nations had a good human rights record or a lovable political system.

90% of Indian smartphone sales are from Samsung, not iPhones. Now why is that not an indicator of the weight of western universal values?

KrishnaK is mixing up cause and effect. The political system and the much bandied about "universal" values did not create technology. The idea that applying those values will magically create technology and wealth is a statements that he keeps making, but there are too many exceptions for those statements to be credible.

It is easy to veer off what we were talking about - "Universalism". technology and trade are not the result of universal values. Universal values should stand on their own, isolated from and technology and trade.

[Vayutuvan]

So we are back to square one. Are there "universal" values - may it be west, china or sanAtana dharma? By the way I keep hearing from all my friends Pakistanis, Indians of all stripes, and whites almost all god fearing religious people say "I teach my kids good values" and these are the first to put down other cultures, other religions, and of the belief that my religion "khatre mein hain", "my way of life us under attack". They are the first in line to object to - local observation - non-Brahmins entering "garbhAlaya", first to say "blacks are like SCs of the US", "our kids know what is good and what is bad - they keep away from blacks".

[shiv]

The only universal values I know are don't kill, don't tell lies, don't cheat, look after your family, be kind, be generous, be charitable, be faithful to your spouse, help the weak, don't mock those who are unlucky or in distress, don't show excess pride or arrogance, don't be greedy.

These are values that I consider universally applicable. Outside of these there is nothing that can actually work. Human rights is not a value that I consider universally applicable without talking about the right to life and the rights of all animal life. A human, in my view does not enjoy automatic rights over animal life and animal resources. If strength, power and guile translates into power of all humans over all animals, then the same factors can be used for humans to dominate other humans, and once we go down that path, the concept of human rights becomes secondary to human strength and power.

Let me try a thought experiment.

If nation X manufactures iPhones and Boeings and does not respect human or animal rights, is openly racist and has a record of making war and dominating smaller nations or groups of people, would others stop buying those Boeings and iPhones?

Unlikely, unless there was another better source, or the world consisted of people who place greater emphasis on values than desirable material things.

In actual fact there is no human group that I know of who place values over and above material things. All material things that are desired by humans are invariably designed to increase human comfort and human power. Any nation that produces anything that increases human power over other humans, over animals or over nature will always face a demand for those things, no matter what the morality record of that nation is. They may be orcs or rakshasas, but if they make and sell stuff that gives humans power over others, or over nature or over animals, others will buy them. Desire for such material comforts/tools is a universal human value.

If the seller group/entity or nation is largely good and has good human values, its power to do those good things will increase as it sells. If the group/entity/nation that sells useful things has largely negative values and seeks domination and world power, those values will gain power as more and more people buy the goods.

Do human beings have the moral choice not to buy things that improve their lives. Do they have the moral choice not to buy Boeings and iPhones and medicines and guns? Yes of course. No one is being forced to buy such things. But not buying these things make the groups that keep away weak, and at risk of being dominated by another human group. So once the world is producing things that help human beings get power over other humans, animals and nature, we have a one way street where either you join everyone else or be dominated and possibly wiped out. So it becomes a matter of survival to have what it takes to exert some degree of power over the next guy.

Such a situation actually demands very high moral values. When the world is largely trading in things that make humans more powerful every nation has the responsibility to demonstrate that they are not going to dominate or subjugate another group. The United Nations was actually set up to uphold these moral responsibilities - but it was set up to be led by nations with the worst morals. That is because the only morality is power and the only power that seemed respectable was frightening military power. The UN is not a balance of morals. It is a club led by brutal goons.

What I find amusing is that nuclear weapon power is now spreading partly because of the laughably low morality displayed by the P5. And AK-47 power has become virtually universal.

Western nations, who are currently at the top of a power peak which is set to decline, have set up a system by which they like to describe themselves. They like to speak of themselves not only as world leaders but as upholders of freedom, democracy and human rights. As the military balance of absolute coercive terror power in the world shifts out of western domination, the only thing that the west can identify itself with would be "freedom, democracy and human rights". No matter how flawed, pretentious and fake the real application of these values might be to others, this is what the west purports to stand for - by its own definition. Without those values (as interpreted and implemented in the west) the west is dead. That is why they will use all their power to claim that these values are universal and must be preserved. These values are "universal" to the west and as long as the west sees itself as the only group that matters, their universal values will be thought of as really universal. Every country that challenges the west will be dealt very severe punishment that is the exact opposite of "freedom, democracy and human rights", and any country who assists the west in this will be an ally even in the complete absence of "freedom, democracy and human rights". That is why "western universalism" is not universalism at all. It is just a set of words to self identify the west and a lakshman rekha, a red line, which other nations must not cross if they disagree with the very restricted western definition and implementation of those values.

[member_23692]

Does that mean, I am particularly sensitive to talk about heart issues in general ? Or that I hate cancer more than heart problems in general ?

But it helps to talk about your heart when you are in the heart hospital and about cancer in the cancer hospital. This thread is about western universalism.

Yes, of course, you talk about heart in a heart hospital. But a good hospital while never lies and always apprises the patient realistically of its condition, also always talks about treatment options and hope and cautious optimism. I realize this is a thread about Western Universalism. I get it. I am not asking that in this thread we talk about treatment of cancer and express optimism about cancer or the Islamic menace and its treatment, but we can at least talk here about treatment of Western atrocities in the form of deterring them in the future to pull stunts against us and certainly, immunity for us from Western atrocities, rather than just bashing.

But its ok. I think you understand what I am talking about. You simply disagree, which is your perogative. For some reason, you have decided to just bash, which is also well within your rights. Bashing does not bother me particularly, per-se. I just wish we can find solutions. But enough about that....

So, all I say to you is.........Happy Bashing !

[chanakyaa]

Apart from healthy debate, which often can get personal (passionate debates often are), and unresolved viewpoints, I mean which is the right way, this dhaaga has been the best thing happened to me. In spite of my best wishes, not every Indic, child or adult, man or woman, will spend their precious time educating themselves on this dhaaga or the subject from other sources. It would involve not just un-learning western cr@p but unwinding our own biases imposed on masses over god know how many centuries. Books have done a good job capturing the thoughts but nothing can be as effective as English and regional language videos, documentaries, and even movies, made by Indics for Indics, on the subject of "who we are and who are not", like Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" series, which focuses on Economics. Wouldn't it be nice if 100s of pages of posts were documented in easy to understand cartoons for kids and mature video content for adults? Other than print media, has there been any attempts to communicate this knowledge in a easy to understand medium to the masses? I'm vigorously looking at some software to allow creation of animation cartoon to publish on YouTube. I know it is not going to be an easy task..

[KrishnaK]

"Innovation" is a broad term. Innovation in weaponry and then looting also created wealth. You may not believe it but that has been true for many nations who are now wealthy.

I don't disagree with your statement at all . If a certain society allows solely another to gain that sort of an advantage who is to blame ? Why is the state that did not keep up at fault ? After all isn't dharmic injunction to wage war for righteousness ? What could be more righteous than protecting one's own freedom and security ? What more could be India's dharmic duty that to be able to wage war to protect itself if need be ? You seem to want to concentrate solely on what the west did and not on what India failed to do. No amount of wailing about the fact that the west didn't play fair is going to change one bit of history or make India secure in the future.

When did you say Britain became democratic ? 1300?

Look for a graph of Britain's GDP from 1300 to 1950 and you find that Britain's GDP really shot up starting around 1850, in in Britain's "Imperial Century". Democracy failed to create wealth until innovation helped colonialism.

Not true. List of regions by past GDP. By 1913 Germany had a larger GDP than the UK. And germany had NO COLONIES. Again I'm not disputing that the UK got wealthy by gaining access to the Indian market. However, they seem to have shot themselves in the foot, given by 1900s germany was overtaking them. Even in 1830 UK's GDP was just barely larger than the Germany's. England's colonies can't be responsible for Germany to have the same GDP as the UK AND cause the US to have an economy twice that of the UK. Something else must have been afoot.

Britain did conquer most of the world. That was not an act that could be described as a "Universally applicable value" today, although Britain and other European nations used innovation and statecraft to to universally apply their values to the rest of the world. Why are those values not "universal" now? Are Britain and European nations now regretful?

I don't think they're particularly proud although there's a lot of dishonesty to cover it up. Plenty of whitewashing in the form of we gave India railways, democracy and english goes on to cover up that guilt. None of that in any way takes away the fact that some chain of events in europe caused them to gain significant breakthroughs. Those came about before colonialism or even slavery. What is more important, acquiring future prosperity or whining about past grievance ? Your arguments are solely based on grievance.

And democratic states can use statecraft to take down or hold down or oppose other democratic states. How would democracy then qualify as "universally applicable"?

What does one have to do with another ? You seem to have a notion that my argument is that democracy is righteous and any hypocrisy involved means democracy isn't better for people that live under it. There's definitely a lot of argument made in that vein. I don't care about morality. I'm solely concerned with the material benefit. I also think it's better for the people under democracy, but that's irrelevant here.

We wouldn't want Bangladesh to get nuclear weapons either. Hopefully if that ever comes to be a possibility, we'll do all it takes including military and economic coercion to ensure that it doesn't happen. Our policy should solely be around ensuring we continue to have the freedom to bear nuclear weapons while ensuring nobody more does.

Statecraft does not require democracy or sound economic policies. It also does not require the application of universal values. These "Universally applicable values" that have been pushed as western universalism are not universal or universally applicable. That is where we started. Remember?

I don't see how they're not applicable just because there was hypocrisy involved. If you don't want to be coerced by countries 1/4th your size, you'd better come up with the same advantages they have.

PS: I want Iran to get nukes. And they will.

I strongly doubt that. Nobody is interested in having the mullahs in tehran get nuclear weapons. Having Iran get nuclear weapons might make you feel better, but is not going to help India in any way.

[KrishnaK]

Please Krishna. You should not use expressions like "You are talking nonsense" when you consistently reserved the right to do that yourself. You take one point in history (now) and talk as if we are at the end of history.

Ok.

The "communist bloc" still exists in China but is only seen as less threatening in America.

The entire ideology of communism is class warfare. That it is inevitable and the working classes will win. All that is out of the window. No more standing up to the imperialists. China today is a running dog of the imperialists . Can't see how that's standing up to anything.

"No holds barred" is the American way - but it is statecraft when America uses it and does not have the negative connotation that it had when the USSR was dubbed as following such a policy. The US has curtailed freedom for its people in the name of security. But those same acts were bad only when the communist bloc did it. When the US does it it becomes statecraft and "democratic choice of the majority". This is sophistry.

The people in the US have a choice and will no doubt chose to roll any curtailment to their freedoms back if they think it goes too far. How is it in any way comparable to say China, where nobody has the choice to anything. How is it sophistry ? That doesn't mean the US can't or shouldn't be criticized for restricting freedoms at home.

You are seeing history through Anglo American eyes and believe that there is only one viewpoint. What Nazi Germany did was to bring down the established colonial powers, though they were democratic.

The colonial powers were going down anyway. WWII just hastened their end. That Germany somehow took them down is a tale that makes you feel better. Hence anybody that points out factual errors in that statement, is somebody who sees history through "anglo american" eyes. Also if Germany without colonies was able to take the colonial powers down, how is colonialism responsible for prosperity and power ?

The US and the USSR rose after that.

America's GDP in 1913 was roughly the same as UK and Germany put together. The world was already changing by then. Vast colonies was no longer enough to be powerful.

You are right in saying that the values espoused by the anglo-american bloc are better than the values espoused by the Chinese or by the Islamists, but I put it to you that the Anglo American values you espouse are not universal and only represent a post WW2 tactic to hold opposing communist and now, Islamist, values at bay. Neither Britain nor the US have had any hesitation in breaking their own values.

No disagreement here. How is that relevant to figuring out the path that India should take ?

India does not have to follow the Anglo Americans or their temporary values of convenience any more than we have to follow Islamist or modern Chinese values.

We're not following anybody blindly. We did it out of our own conviction. Just because we adopted the anglo american form of governance doesn't mean we kowtow to them on a bunch of issues.

[KrishnaK]

If that's the case, why didn't the no-holds-barred communist bloc win ? Or Nazi germany ? You're talking nonsense.

Because the opposite side also went no-holds-barred. Look up the bombing of Germany, the nuking of Japan. The jihadi mess in India's neighborhood is a fallout of the no-holds-barred against the Soviet Union.

So no holds barred itself is hardly enough. You need to back it with real material strength.

[KLNMurthy]

The only universal values I know are don't kill, don't tell lies, don't cheat, look after your family, be kind, be generous, be charitable, be faithful to your spouse, help the weak, don't mock those who are unlucky or in distress, don't show excess pride or arrogance, don't be greedy.
...

This may be redundant to the values you have listed, but from an Indian pov I would also rank, "pay your debts", and "don't demand something for nothing" as core universal values in their Indian expression.

"paying one's debts" or balancing the books is the core of the karmic doctrine of civilizational morality.

[KrishnaK]

If you have followed aircraft tech from the 50s or 60s you find that no one was forced to buy Boeings from Boeing. People could buy British jets, French jets and even Soviet jets. Most Indians who were well above the poverty line have flown the Viscount, Avro, the Caravelle or Tu-124. They bought these planes because they were available for sale - not because the selling nations had a good human rights record or a lovable political system.

I believe this is called a self goal. Why is Tupelov not able to compete successfully today ? The Soviet/Russian model of politics and economy was inferior and doomed to failure.

90% of Indian smartphone sales are from Samsung, not iPhones. Now why is that not an indicator of the weight of western universal values?

It is. Samsungs sell very well in the US and elsewhere too. Where would samsung be without access to the US market or technology ?

KrishnaK is mixing up cause and effect. The political system and the much bandied about "universal" values did not create technology. The idea that applying those values will magically create technology and wealth is a statements that he keeps making, but there are too many exceptions for those statements to be credible.

There are some exceptions, but not many really. Some form of democracy is the only sustainable form of governance. Without it, any progress made is going to be temporary. A flash in the pan, like Nazi Germany, Hirohito's Japan, the Soviet Union, etc. How long China will be able to keep going without letting go of it's inferior political model remains to be seen. It certainly can't keep going this route AND avoid eventual failure. Hopefully they can manage a soft landing on moving to a more consumption based economy along with increased political rights for her citizens. A China that doesn't base its governance on a tale that only the CPC can keep the country together will be much better for the world at large. That tale has only caused paranoia in a country that's supposed to be a challenger to the US. Doesn't look like much of a challenge to me.

[KrishnaK]

The point KrishnaK doesn't get is that just as we don't want to learn civilization from the Mongols, we don't want to learn civilization from such mass killers as the British. Any more than we want to learn civilization from Nazi Germany.

Who's we ? Indians since 1951 (?) seem not to be as butt hurt as you to reject what they see as good. 600 million Indians cast their vote in the last elections. They don't seem to see their right to cast their vote as learning civilization from anyone, let alone from the British. They seem to see it only as a jolly good idea.

[KrishnaK]

It is easy to veer off what we were talking about - "Universalism". technology and trade are not the result of universal values. Universal values should stand on their own, isolated from and technology and trade.

Incidentally boss, you're utterly wrong. Humans somehow developed empathy and morality not because it was right, but because those gave humans the ability to form larger groups and become more productive and eventually wealthier. It was an evolutionary advantage.

[brihaspati]

http://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-thr ... ry?src=web hmm..the point where UK goes up, India-China goes down. A gift of western universalism. even Sen thinks democratic India failed to attend to "basic" stuff in contrast to non-democratic China. Shame on Sen.

Ah and when did "democracy" shoot off in UK to bring in the prosperity - the sheer material benefits onlee - that allowed UK to colonize from mid 18th to 19th century? to develop the triangular Atlantic slave trade from 17th to 19th century that developed the initial seed capital and market for ironware connected to slave trade in such hotspots as Bristol which some say was the foundation for industrial "revolution"?

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/path ... g_vote.htm

Voting rights before 1832

In early-19th-century Britain very few people had the right to vote. A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. In Scotland the electorate was even smaller: in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. Large industrial cities like Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester did not have a single MP between them, whereas 'rotten boroughs' such as Dunwich in Suffolk (which had a population of 32 in 1831) were still sending two MPs to Westminster. The British electoral system was unrepresentative and outdated.

through "French revolution", Peterloo stuff, this great democratic urge was ultimately about the fear of preventing "revolution" a la France:

The Prime Minister, Lord Grey, supported reform to 'prevent the necessity of revolution' and was responsible for the first (or 'Great') Reform Act of 1832. However, the Act gave the vote in towns only to men who occupied property with an annual value of £10, which excluded six adult males out of seven from the voting process.

Even in ancient 1870 only 2/5 had voting rights, and in the ancient pre-colonial-success, pre-industrial-rev grand old day of 1880's

The Tory politician Lord Derby described the second Reform Act (1867) as 'a leap in the dark'. And yet only two in every five Englishmen had the vote in 1870. Even the third Reform Act (1884) - which enfranchised all male house owners in both urban and rural areas and added 6 million people to the voting registers - fell some way short of introducing universal manhood suffrage.

Finally this site is probably not doing good service to western universalism: it thinks (and there are tomes of research on this)

By the time of the third Reform Act in 1884, Britain was less democratic than many other countries in Europe.

[brihaspati]

I guess a lot of half-baked enthusiasm for a mythical "democratic" past of pre-modern UK comes actually from the Whig agitprop of 18th century.

http://www.historytoday.com/ralph-v-tur ... carta-1215

Sir Edward Coke’s portrayal of England’s past was now fashioned into the ‘Whig interpretation’ of history, with a triumphalist view of liberty’s ceaseless advance. Whig writers ranked the 1688-89 Revolution alongside King John’s 1215 concessions, convinced that it reconfirmed an ancient compact between king and people, restoring fundamental law and limited monarchy. Debate late in Charles II’s reign over excluding his brother, the future James II, from the succession had led royalist propagandists to challenge Coke’s myth of the ancient constitution. Tories turned to the royalist historians’ rediscovery of the ‘feudal law’ and Norman ties of lordship and vassalage that had made the barons dependents of the king, holding their lands in return for services to him. Royalist writers tended to dismiss Magna Carta as a feudal document with little long-term relevance, and in fact royalist historians such as Robert Brady (d.1700) painted a more accurate picture of the medieval past than Coke. Nonetheless, the Whig interpretation triumphed in the eighteenth century. Its victory was symbolised by Brady’s replacement as Keeper of Records at the Tower of London, curator of the kingdom’s historical records, by William Petyt, a historian supporting Coke’s ancient constitution.

Early eighteenth-century Tories, languishing without power under the first two Georges, replaced their faith in unrestrained royal power with defence of the ancient constitution, charging the Whig majority with undermining historic English liberties. Tory support for the ancient constitution drove Whig defenders of their parliamentary leader, Sir Robert Walpole, to stress the superiority of the post-1688 constitution, and to question Magna Carta’s relevance. One Whig writer, repeating earlier royalist arguments, now maintained that the barons alone had gained from the Charter. After George III’s accession in 1760, American colonists and their English sympathisers began to question parliamentary sovereignty, and radical political movements challenged complacency about the glories of the English constitution. Opponents of Parliament’s monopoly on power denounced its political machinations, graft and corruption. The reformers were a diverse group ranging from radicals inspired by the rationalism of the Enlightenment to religious dissenters looking back to a golden age of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan parliaments.

With radical journalists stirring up public opinion against Parliament, freedom of the press came under attack. One radical writer, Arthur Beardmore, arrested for seditious libel in 1762, showed an eye for publicity, arranging to be arrested while teaching Magna Carta to his young son. He became a popular hero, and a print picturing him showing the Charter to the boy circulated widely. Another radical, John Wilkes (d. 1797), imprisoned in the Tower in 1763 for seditious libel, transformed his prosecution into a campaign for the people’s rights against oppression, invoking Magna Carta, ‘that glorious inheritance, that distinguishing characteristic of the Englishmen’. The radical movement proved short-lived, however. After 1789, radical sympathy for the French revolutionaries alienated moderates, and the government took such harsh measures against them that reaction and repression soon became the rule in Britain. A satirical article in a radical newspaper noted that the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) was descended from ‘two notorious traitors of old times, called Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights’, and declared that the Charter was ‘so very old and infirm that he seldom stirs abroad, and when he does he is sure to be insulted, and is very glad to get back to his lodgings again’.

Ironically, the so-called representative-democracy myth of the medieval, pre-colonial-enterprise UK, was based on the highly non-representative feudal baronial claims for their small "class" onlee, and this ancient "constitution/representation" claim was opposed by pro-parliamentarians.

All of that in 18th-19th century.

[shiv]

It is easy to veer off what we were talking about - "Universalism". technology and trade are not the result of universal values. Universal values should stand on their own, isolated from and technology and trade.

Incidentally boss, you're utterly wrong. Humans somehow developed empathy and morality not because it was right, but because those gave humans the ability to form larger groups and become more productive and eventually wealthier. It was an evolutionary advantage.

This is at least the second time you have referred to the manner in which you claim that democracy enables humans to form larger groups. Yes, but the largest group that a democracy can gather is "nation state". Democracy has not found any formula to involve all humans. Why is this important or relevant? Let me quote two previous exchanges I have had with you.

And democratic states can use statecraft to take down or hold down or oppose other democratic states. How would democracy then qualify as "universally applicable"?

What does one have to do with another ? You seem to have a notion that my argument is that democracy is righteous and any hypocrisy involved means democracy isn't better for people that live under it. There's definitely a lot of argument made in that vein. I don't care about morality. I'm solely concerned with the material benefit. I also think it's better for the people under democracy, but that's irrelevant here.

Statecraft does not require democracy or sound economic policies. It also does not require the application of universal values. These "Universally applicable values" that have been pushed as western universalism are not universal or universally applicable. That is where we started. Remember?

I don't see how they're not applicable just because there was hypocrisy involved. If you don't want to be coerced by countries 1/4th your size, you'd better come up with the same advantages they have.

The point is whether democracy is a "universal" value or not. The democracy you are speaking of has utility only inside one nation state, and any such restricted value is not universal.

A universally applicable value should not act to defeat itself. That means that a democracy, as a collection of human beings should not work to undermine other democracies and ally with non democratic states under the guise of statecraft. If one democracy can do that then it leaves the field open for all sorts of other political systems to ally with any other political system that happens to be available and work to defeat or undermine another democracy. You have dismissed this as statecraft, but you have also failed to realize that this "statecraft excuse" makes your democracy a feature that is only good within one nation state and not across all of humanity. Only the latter can be universal. Undemocratic nations and leaders are able to sense the weaknesses of US style democracy and use it for their ends, making the US dependent on the support of non democratic states for its narrow parochial interests.This is hardly an advertisement for democracy.

A classic example is the US allying with a Pakistani military dictatorship to support Yahya Khan in a genocide while the results of a democratic election in Pakistan were ignored. Later the US looked the other way as Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons from China because Pakistan was needed to combat the USSR. Two democratic states have been seriously affected by the US's actions. The first of course led to a genocide in East Pakistan. the second is India that faces a nuclear threat. India the democracy is now coerced by Pakistan, which is 1/4th of India's size. The US has undermined democracy and aided undemocratic states so that its own democracy can remain safe against communism. This is not an example of the strength of democracy. It is a weakness. And it is a weakness that had been exploited by Chinese communists and Pakistani Islamists. So much for democracy being a universal ideal. It is just another weak political system that has as much of a future as the Chinese system. Surely there is no reason to believe that your prediction about China should be better than mine.

At best you are simply trying to push democracy as a universal value ONLY because you have been taught that it is right. Not because of its track record or universal applicability.

[shiv]

If you have followed aircraft tech from the 50s or 60s you find that no one was forced to buy Boeings from Boeing. People could buy British jets, French jets and even Soviet jets. Most Indians who were well above the poverty line have flown the Viscount, Avro, the Caravelle or Tu-124. They bought these planes because they were available for sale - not because the selling nations had a good human rights record or a lovable political system.

I believe this is called a self goal. Why is Tupelov not able to compete successfully today ? The Soviet/Russian model of politics and economy was inferior and doomed to failure.

KrishnaK, you have scored a self goal of your own. But my post was deliberate, and you missed the nuance.

Of course Tupolev is no more. But so are Vickers (Viscount), Sud Aviation (Caravelle) and A.V.Roe (Avro)/Hawker Siddeley. Russia is still mostly self sufficient even in civil aircraft. The entire western world uses Russian An 124 and An 224 aircraft for oversize loads. Nations across the worlld are buying Sukhois.

Now how is the failure of Vickers and Sud Aviation not the failure of British and French democracy?

You are talking about closure of one company (Tupolev) and the conclusion you reach from that is:

The Soviet/Russian model of politics and economy was inferior and doomed to failure

Remember the words you used to say what you thought of Arun Gupta' post? I requested you to stop using such langauge.

[shiv]

You are seeing history through Anglo American eyes and believe that there is only one viewpoint. What Nazi Germany did was to bring down the established colonial powers, though they were democratic.

The colonial powers were going down anyway. WWII just hastened their end. That Germany somehow took them down is a tale that makes you feel better. Hence anybody that points out factual errors in that statement, is somebody who sees history through "anglo american" eyes. Also if Germany without colonies was able to take the colonial powers down, how is colonialism responsible for prosperity and power ?

This is a disingenuous post. Those that have gone "were going down anyway". Those that exist (like the USA) are forever.

Because the opposite side also went no-holds-barred. Look up the bombing of Germany, the nuking of Japan. The jihadi mess in India's neighborhood is a fallout of the no-holds-barred against the Soviet Union.

So no holds barred itself is hardly enough. You need to back it with real material strength.

The Mongols perfected archery on horseback. They were no more a flash in the pan than the USA. They were as effective and brutal as the US. Material strength and looting are always good economic policy. It was not the political system, but the material strength and ability to impose their writ that mattered. But because they are gone I guess you might be tempted to inform us that the Mongols were "going down anyway". And the US, that exists now, is forever and therefore its political systems and actions are right, universal and eternal

Your viewpoint is a perfectly valid one for you to hold. But it's neither convincing nor credible to me. What this means is that differences of opinions can and do exist and cannot be brushed away in any environment that purports to be free.

You earlier said that India is a democracy with poor economic policies.

You later said that democracy by itself is not enough, material strength is required

Obviously "democracy" by itself is not enough. As per your assertions, you need democracy+good economic policy+material strength. As we saw with the Mongols, material strength itself is good economic policy. Democracy is redundant.

I put it to you that the US is a faulty democracy that is at odds with democracy in the world and supports despotic regimes. US democracy requires the support of autocratic and undemocratic regimes for its own survival as a self proclaimed democracy.

In fact it is only those who personally benefit from the US who believe that the US democratic system is both good and universally applicable, not because it is actually good or universal. As such you have consistently posted a biased viewpoint which have currency only in areas of the world where the US is relevant. In areas where the US has been rendered irrelevant, these views are completely meaningless. I have found that believers in US exceptionalism have a hard time swallowing this fact - but it is something they are increasingly going to have to suck up and live with.

[shiv]

Where is the proof that Britain as a colonial power was responsible for massacres and famines?

In this day and age, with the internet a Google search provides precious few links to famines and deaths caused by colonial Britain.

Does this mean that these things never happened at all? Or does it mean that they happened, but were very rare in a largely just and humane system?

Or does it mean a systematic cover up?

A just and humane system cannot have mass murders and famines on its record and cannot escape having those blemishes pinned on its record book. If famines and killings occurred, they occurred and colonial Britain must be held guilty. Now if one were to argue as KrishnaK does (disingenuously in my view), that it was democracy that made Britain wealthy and not colonial looting it only means that British democracy allowed mass murders and famines to occur.

KrishnaK further argues that democracy allows more people to get together and become innovative and invent iPhones and Boeing jets. He argues that people are important. Its the people who do all these things, and democracy helps to get them together in a stable political environment to be creative. For exactly the same reasons, democracies also allow one set of people to get together and agree to organize a campaign of looting, killing and destruction on another group of people. KrishnaK argues that all these negatives (Killing, looting, genocide) are things that even non democracies do, but only democracies lead to innovation and wealth.

Without disagreeing with a single point that KrishnaK has made I would like to point out that anyone who is only half-moral is immoral. A moral person or group has no immorality. You cannot claim moral greatness for a system that is partly immoral and partly moral, no matter how much wealth it appears to create.

And yes, KrishnaK is perfectly right. It is about people. Political systems do not confer morality. It is the people who collect under a political system who dictate its morality. If immoral people collect under a democratic banner and perform immoral acts the people are responsible, not the political system. No matter what political system an immoral people follow, it is the people who are immoral. The political system can only justify or rationalize the immorality.

By the same token a political system such as democracy can only be as morally upright as the people who collect under the democracy banner. When you look at it in this way you start seeing the parallels between the morality of Abrahamic religions on the one hand and the morality of dharma.

In Christianity and Islam, morality is expressed as part of the religion. That morality has been handed down by the "greatest superpower", God. In the case of dharma, morality is deemed to exist isolated and independent from God. In both Christianity and Islam, immoral acts have been (and still are) committed on people who are not followers of the great political leader of Christianity and Islam. It is claimed that the people organization of Christianity (or Islam) is the best organization there is, and anyone who disagrees (unbelievers) can be subjected to the worst immoral excesses.

if you look at how "democracy" is pushed by the US in the world (and by KrishnaK on BRF) - "God" is replaced by "democracy". Followers of this US democracy are followers of the one and only God. Those who do not follow this god of democracy are devil worshippers (communists, imperfect democracies) and can be subjected to the worst immoral excesses that can be creatively and innovatively imagined by immoral people who have collected under the democracy banner.

This is why I argue that the democracy that is being pushed by the US is decidedly not a Universal ideal. It freely allows immorality in the form of murder by immoral people who demand that it must be their way or no way. The fact that people under the democracy banner are wealthy and productive is not sufficient justification for it to be called a universal ideal. It is just another clone of Christianity. The excesses that were committed in the name of Christianity just continue under the banner of western democracy. The political structure and the moral justifications are the same.

When I speak of a universal value, I am referring to something that is morally applicable to all people. Not a parochial system that justifies immorality as a necessary feature of creating wealth and sustaining itself.

[Pulikeshi]

So we are back to square one. Are there "universal" values - may it be west, china or sanAtana dharma? By the way I keep hearing from all my friends Pakistanis, Indians of all stripes, and whites almost all god fearing religious people say "I teach my kids good values" and these are the first to put down other cultures, other religions, and of the belief that my religion "khatre mein hain", "my way of life us under attack". They are the first in line to object to - local observation - non-Brahmins entering "garbhAlaya", first to say "blacks are like SCs of the US", "our kids know what is good and what is bad - they keep away from blacks".

More like square -∞ : 'bashing' & 'smashing' ignorance in every crack of those edumacated injuns!

PS: make new friends!

[Vayutuvan]

Sire: why do you think I am on BrF if not for making new friends who have open minds? back to you.

[Pulikeshi]

^^Brf could add a 'make friend' button and have followers... or perhaps a plug to fb or twitter to do same? I'd friend you
But Brf is for the opinionated it is where real men hang out, smoke virtual cigars and sip bourbon while making wise cracks! Damn thats WU!
There are no friends or enemies here only permanent interests.
--> ducks quickly to nearby kave komplez!

[Pulikeshi]

I throughly enjoyed Prime Minister Modi's speech on independence day... that said, read this article by Tavleen Singh and got thinking...

So it came as music to my jaded ears to hear the Prime Minister remind us of all the things we like to disregard. He reminded us of how shamefully we treat our women, of the sickening squalor of our cities and towns, of our inability to compete with other countries because of bad governance, and of our shameful failure to eliminate poverty.

Is Modi WUfied? why is he speaking about squalor and trying to eliminate poverty?
democracy is WU why is he not suggesting something radical - perhaps a bring back of a Mauryan Empire?

When I sat down to analyse why I was so moved, I realised it was because it was the first time ever that I have heard a prime minister tell Indians what they can and must do for India. The first time that a national leader has not told us that he will bestow upon us everything we need, and that all we have to do is sit back and receive.

Is he saying it is our duty to follow WU? to build a better democracy, eliminate poverty and build more toilets? Quo vadis?

quote source: Fifth column: A new direction

[ShauryaT]

if you look at how "democracy" is pushed by the US in the world (and by KrishnaK on BRF) - "God" is replaced by "democracy". Followers of this US democracy are followers of the one and only God. Those who do not follow this god of democracy are devil worshippers (communists, imperfect democracies) and can be subjected to the worst immoral excesses that can be creatively and innovatively imagined by immoral people who have collected under the democracy banner.

The narrative fits perfectly and this is how they justified the cold war too. However, the same narrative has a dent now as Putin has claimed Orthodox Christian legitimacy for Russia's actions. Russia is unlikely to become "democratic" in the true sense of the word as their experience with western style democracies has only led to their misery, as they see it. Russia is going to be around as the anchor state of the Slavs for a long time. Same is the case with China, the best way to destroy China is to introduce western style democracy to them. While the Chinese empire lives in the garb of the CPC controlled PRC - China's transition is more likely to be NOT towards democracy but towards a reinvention of the CPC in the colors of the empire. This is unless, the west succeeds in its westernization project, as they have executed in Taiwan and to a lesser extent in South Korea, where a third of the population is now Christian. As for Islamic states turning democratic - good fricking luck with it for 500 years for West Asia. I expect SE Asia to be under the heavy influence of China with competition from an expansionist USA, unless defeated in battle and pushed back - which is not an unforeseen possibility in my life time!

As for India, our issues are different. A form of Democracy or ganatantra at local levels would be most suitable to our cultural ethos - under a rule of law, however the practice we have adopted under the garb of a "unitary" constitution is the reverse of localized democratic action and a bias against local structures of governance - in that sense the colonial prejudices continue to live in a "democratic" India. Shedding our macuaylized thought processes and banking on a reinvention of VarnAshrama based is one way out for India. Knowledge, Wealth and Power have always been regulated in our civilization structures and the reason why Saraswati, Lakshmi and Durga exist. Do we macuaylized Indians have it in us to tap into our civilization mores and craft a system that preserves Dharma for our age?

As for KrishnaK's arguments, he only reminds me of Charvaka, which our civilization rejected completely. Western Universalism is Charvakism in disguise.

[Pulikeshi]

The only universal values I know are don't kill, don't tell lies, don't cheat, look after your family, be kind, be generous, be charitable, be faithful to your spouse, help the weak, don't mock those who are unlucky or in distress, don't show excess pride or arrogance, don't be greedy.

These are values that I consider universally applicable. Outside of these there is nothing that can actually work....

Why are only these values universal? Why and what substrate makes these values alone universal?
So all the soldiers in every army and police who are forced to kill sometimes are violating Shiv's Universalism (SU).
Per your SU, killing animals for food is a violation, so are non-vegetarians out of luck in SU?
What happens if we are raped? If a corporations agent exposes private information? What if someone clones me and robots me with a chip?
Who or what system redresses my grievance if my SU is violated? perhaps many of my grievances above are not even recognized as such.

You get the gist of what this is... every one of the values claimed can be objected to and further who is the agency that helps establish it.
Did you get it from a burning bush? From the Sruthi? From a UN body, convention, declaration or adoption as treaty? Indian Constitution?

PS: I am not denying your ability to make such a claim, I am merely questioning who or what agency allows your claims to be Universal.
Also note, your claims can be all written in "Don't.... " fashion - those wallowing in WU are very familiar with such declarations.
There are 10 commandments that do the same, that is "Thou shall not...," you have 12, what the WU?
SU is the new WU?

[shiv]

Pulikeshi, did you miss the first 7 words of my post:

"The only universal values I know are"

This is what I know. No source. No bush. Source is me. You rightly called it SU. You could have PU if you like, but I will come to that in due course

Why are they universal? They are universal because they are applicable to every individual human being .

What if they are not followed? They are not laws. No one is compelled to follow. They are simply suggestions for what I think would cause less distress and fighting between humans.

No one needs to agree but I will say that if you put my 12 (or whatever number - I did not count them, you did and I take your word for it) points down and ask 7 billion humans whether they think they are useful pointers for an individual human, I put it to you that most will likely agree. There will be those who disagree. Am I going to provide you with statistical proof? No. Does that make my statement false? You have to decide that as you wish. Your call.

In fact I don't get your gist. I wrote a list and committed myself to a view. You have a lot of questions and I don't understand some of them. I have answered a couple and will not bother about the rest.

I doubt if you have any opinions that you can put down firmly as your own original opinion rather than waiting to question what someone else says. That is all I see from you. If I am wrong on that count please oblige me and say something that makes sense to you that is not a question posed as a reaction to a post made by someone. What would the nature of any PPs - Pulikeshi Pearls, be? Or PN Pulikeshi Nuggets? or Pulikeshi Universalisms - PU? I have seen mostly PQs Pulikeshi questions, PS,Pulikeshi Sarcasm, and some PJs, Pulikeshi Jokes.

[shiv]

Do we macuaylized Indians have it in us to tap into our civilization mores and craft a system that preserves Dharma for our age?

Probably not. Most Indians seem confused about what dharma is supposed to mean. Some say what they know; others only show that they are confused and undecided.

There is no one who is able to tell a Macaulayite Indian what dharma is and how he can live by values that correspond to dharma. The more intelligent he is the more confused he becomes, and in any case the more he finds logic in western mores.

Having said that - I think most of our parents and grandparents blindly followed rules for their lives that they believed corresponded to dharma, and they taught us what they could. Most educated Indians don't seem to have a clue, but do end up living lives that are a parody of what their parents taught them to do. Since there was probably some dharma in living that type of life - I suspect that some dharma simply continues like the convolutions of a snake's tail after the head has been cut off.

It's probably not all gone, but few people are willing to commit and say what living a life of dharma is. Would you be able to state your view?

[Shanmukh]

By 1913 Germany had a larger GDP than the UK. And germany had NO COLONIES.

A list of German colonies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire

And you are overlooking the German share in the large scale loot of China due to Open Door policy. Take a look at just how involved the Germans were in China from the 1870s.

[A_Gupta]

We're not following anybody blindly. We did it out of our own conviction. Just because we adopted the anglo american form of governance doesn't mean we kowtow to them on a bunch of issues.

I would say to the extent India continues to hold together, is successful, etc., it is because it understood something and adapted it to its own needs. Where India is not working so well is where it adopted something without examination, because it was a colonial inheritance or because its elite class were dazzled by phoren.

One major purpose, to me at least, about the WU thread, is that **everything** must be examined and adapted before adoption. A second purpose is to jolt people out of their Anglo-American-centric points of view, which must be recognized to be that - points of view only. It is certainly legitimate to hold a point of view, but one must recognize that it is only a point of view; someone from a different vantage point can have a completely different point of view. No point of view is universally valid.

The Anglo-American point of view, crudely speaking, is first it took up the "white man's burden" of civilizing the world, then it took up wars to "make the world safe for democracy" and so on. Suppose you are truthful and trustworthy in business, and that makes you successful. That does not turn you into the arbiter of what is truthful and trustworthy in business. You are merely a prime example of such a policy. But that is the position of WU. It claims to be the arbiter and safeguarder. Per WU, China should not be economically successful (because economic growth requires Protestant values and freedom); India as a united country is an aberration (because it violates every definition of nation, it is as artificial as Iraq or Syria or Yugoslavia); and so on.