Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[RajeshA]

^^^ sometimes the quickest way over a wall is a detour to the gate.

Is Doval's end state the final goal or just the starting point for the next step?

These are things you will have to consider. You only have an end-state vision, not even a plan, and no roadmap of small achievable changes that cumulatively get you to your vision. Once you have laid out your roadmap, you will see it is a task for generations, so you need to figure out how to embody this in a long-lived institution. And your goal has to both be hidden as well as be visible (think about that).

And you know this for certain? And what makes you think others don't think about that?

I am not against Ajit Doval's plan. I have never said anything on those lines. I too consider it a step in a positive direction, for at least somebody is now looking at the problem and not doing a Mamata!

If I say, other narratives need to be kept alive, then because I too think that other steps would be needed, but more importantly because not all initiatives on this issue can be taken by GoI. GoI has its hands tied, and for tied hands, Ajit Doval will do a good job.

[shiv]

- Deenist vs. Qaumist: Deenist means the Muslim treats Islam only as his Deen - prayers and rituals. Qaumist means the Muslim considers Islam as his identity giver, determines his political interests and segregates Muslims from Hindus. Qaumist Muslims chose Pakistan. Deenist Muslims chose India. Deenists determine their political interests in terms of India. Then Indians can go hammer and tongs against Qaumist Islam and leave Deenist Islam alone. Of course then India would have to devise a security mechanism which prevents Qaumist Islam to raise its ugly head again.

- Incomplete Islamization: Just because somebody is a Muslim, does not mean his embrace of Islam is complete. He could still retain his other identities - nation, ethnicity, jati, etc. Earlier my claim has been that a Muslim is anywhere on the spectrum between Humanity and Islam. So there is also no need to demonize the Muslim. Yes he is susceptible to full Islam, but he may not be there yet.

I think that the story that deenists chose India and qaumist chose Pakistan is a simplistic story that we like to believe which has gone too far.

We know that many qaumists remained behind in India and parts of Pakistan had deenists as well.

The idea of a secular constitution was there would be a separate set of laws governing everyone - but the laws were deliberately supposed to be biased against quamists, because deenist behavior is required for cooperative nation building. That was the theory.

But soon after partition, in the confusion, pseudosecularism got a foot hold simply to make qaumist Muslims in India feel at home. No one gave a damn for deenist Muslims who were taken for granted. Most were SDREs anyway and who cares for SDREs? Muslims were not required to take part in nation building but had sops thrown at them. Have 4 wives if you like. Just say talaq and get rid of one. You want Haj? Wokay, the state will pay for it. This has brought is so far. This needs change. We need to recognize and utilize the deenist Muslims of India and tell the qaumists in no uncertain terms as to what is required of them

[RajeshA]

I think that the story that deenists chose India and qaumist chose Pakistan is a simplistic story that we like to believe which has gone too far.

We know that many qaumists remained behind in India and parts of Pakistan had deenists as well.

This is a Nehruvian narrative, which the Indian State can now put to good use. In fact we should make this division (Deenists viz-a-viz Qaumists) into an Article of Faith for the country.

This narrative should reject that any Qaumists stayed behind. According to this narrative, if you were a Qaumist and believed in the Two-Nation-Theory, of course you would have migrated to Pakistan.

The corollary is that only Deenists stayed behind in India, and more importantly any Indian Muslim from that time and his descendants in perpetuity were REQUIRED to remain Deenists in order to remain in India. Any violation of that condition, means you are basically a Pakistani living in India illegally with Indian citizenship papers, and the government has the right to take necessary "reeducation" measures as its deems fit.

Propagating Islamic Qaumism in India, after the terrible Partition, should be made a statutory crime. That means anyone saying that Muslims are somehow separate from other communities in India or have separate interests is itself a crime. That means anybody propagating segregation let alone separation is committing a crime.

We need to recognize and utilize the deenist Muslims of India and tell the qaumists in no uncertain terms as to what is required of them

All Indian Muslims should be squeezed into the good-Muslim Deenist Box. The narrative can accept that due to Pakistani propaganda, some Indian Muslims have gone astray, and they are being shown the right way.

It gives a lever to the government to beat all those who misbehave and at the same time nobody can say that India or GoI is against Islam.

[shiv]

We need to recognize and utilize the deenist Muslims of India and tell the qaumists in no uncertain terms as to what is required of them

All Indian Muslims should be squeezed into the good-Muslim Deenist Box. The narrative can accept that due to Pakistani propaganda, some Indian Muslims have gone astray, and they are being shown the right way.

And this is the area where western universalist rhetoric has been used against India "Human rights. Religious freedom. Right wing Hindus! Bla Bla" The link runs via Pakistan (using these accusations against India) with support from its allies USA and Britain

[RajeshA]

Just for clarity for readers, summarizing the above

There are different perspectives and narratives about Indian Muslims

1. Bigoted Internet Hindus (like me) Perspective: Islam is basically a political doctrine wrapped in faith, and adherents of Islam always see themselves as a separate Nation from Kufr. Pakistan was created for Subcontinental Muslims. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindu populations were oppressed and have decreased to miniscule numbers, so similarly India should be a Hindu state and Muslims should leave country or behave and have no say in running the country.
2. Pseudosecular Nehruvian Narrative: We are Secular, so Muslims have first right to India's resources. More officially, even if Pakistan was created due to Muslims wanting their own country, we Indians are secular, and do not differentiate between Hindu or Muslim, all are free to live here, and practice, preach and propagate their religions here. Those Muslims who stayed back in India after Partition chose India because of Secularism and rejected Two-Nation Theory. However the Nehruvians never set up any system to ascertain or ensure that the Muslims really believed in Secularism.
3. My Proposal for a Nationalist GoI: Retain the Pseudosecular Nehruvian Narrative especially the part: "Those Muslims who stayed back in India after Partition chose India because of Secularism and rejected Two-Nation Theory.", but build on that narrative. Call those Muslims who stayed back in India as Deenists, those who are interested only in devotion and do prayers, rituals, etc. according to Islam. Call those Muslims who left for Pakistan as Qaumists, who believe in segregation and separation of Muslim from Hindu. Then proceed to make Qaumism among Indian Muslims a statutory crime, considering that such thinking led to Partition and accompanying bloodshed. So basically even though I think that all Indian Muslims are Qaumists at some level, as Islam necessitates it, we should keep the pretense that all Indian Muslims are Deenists, and the Qaumists among them needed to be weeded out. This allows GoI to both be pro freedom of religion, sound friendly to Islam, but at the same time come down heavy on any Muslim who pushes the Qaumist angle. Since basically the narrative is same as Nehruvian, it would not cause too much distress.

[JwalaMukhi]

1. Pakistan is nothing but arab imperialism in action. That's in short "pax-arabia".

2. Arab-imperialism is essentially a zero sum game. i.e., arab-imperialism has very clearly defined that non-muslims have no space. period. The very existence of non-islamics is a crime. The most the so-called moderate "non-non-islamics" aka islamics believe and behave (when push comes to shove) is that non-islamics are subordinate to islamics. Only islamics can be equals. Pay Jaziya and do the nautch, one may be spared.

3. Given that arab-imperialism has already chosen and defined that they are going to play only zero-sum game, the "internet hindu" has a choice to face reality as defined by islamics themselves or dream about no zero-sum game.

4. Islamics have already chosen and the ball is in non-islamics court. The only choice left to non-islamics is either prove they are not subject to subordination or die.

5. The end goal (as has been repeatedly asked) is to overcome arab-imperialism. That means the short shelf life napakistan needs to be rendered such that it is incapable of allowing any opportunists (there are plenty) to piss in the watering hole of non-islamics.

Naturally most want to say what about muslims? What about them? They have already chosen or allowed arab imperialism to make a choice for them.
More important question is to non islamics - Given what the arab-imperialists have chosen and taken a stand, what is your stance?
a) Pay Jizya and do nautch
b) Roll back arab imperialism
c) Do not know - waiting for little green men/kalki avatar to make a decision.
d) Beg islamics about virtues of "non_violence"
e) pax-indica
f) sing kumbhaya

[A_Gupta]

I am less interested in picking the "right" narrative than in the mechanisms for actually making a change.

E.g., whatever your preferred narrative, do you agree with Modi and Doval?

You might think Modi, Doval get the nation in the right direction, but not the right end-state. Assuming that you agree with the direction, does it move your preferred narrative further along? If yes, what are you willing to do to make them successful? Will you insist on your end-state now?

As an example, I know BRF is a time-pass forum for most, but suppose a Doval said, "BRForum is not friendly to nationalist Muslims, please consider changing". Doval's is one small step along the path of "janani janmabhumisch swargadapi gariyasi", far from getting you there, but one small step, and much more than you can accomplish on your own. Just suppose. How much dedicated are you to the goal to make that happen? Or will you let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Does support mean merely - I vote for someone? Or does it mean I also embrace that someone's programs and try to make them successful? Is there any truth and force in "I need to be the change I want to see"?

Just curious.

[JwalaMukhi]

It is more interesting when if for example suppose Doval said "BRForum is not friendly to nationalists, please consider changing", rather than "BRForum is not friendly to nationalist Muslims, please consider changing". Then such a scenario could be discussed. Else it is same old scenario that has been garbed with hypothetically Shri.Doval asking the eternal question - What about muslims?

[shiv]

One form of cognitive bias is to make one or both of the following assumptions:
1. My behavior is exactly right
and/or
2. The behavior of this group (say group X) is exactly right and I agree with them

Following on from this bias is the conclusion that all people must follow this particular form of behavior.

Another variety of cognitive bias is to see more variation and inhomogeneity among one's own group (too many Jaichands) and homogeneity and robot like conformity among the "other" group (All Muslims think like this)

Adding to the confusion is the lack of precise definition of where nationalism starts and ends and where Islamism starts and ends...In my view these discussions, conducted regularly on BRF for over a decade have only led to GIGO. Let me point out, as an example that in the 2009 elections BRF was no less pro BJP and pro "nationalist" than 2014. At that time BJP was led by Advani with his single point Ayodhya agenda as his main achievement. Five years later, same BJP, different leader - a man with the guts to say toilet over temple - and he won with a thumping majority.

I would recommend setting aside words like "nationalism" because it is easy to pick holes in the argument of anyone who uses that word and convert any argument into a self goal. When I am a nationalist - it is easy for me. Anything I say or do is nationalist. When you have to be nationalist - you can't be as good as me because you are saying too many things that are wrong - you are psec or Islam pasand. As long as you agree with me, you could possibly be a nationalist. But ultimately I am the judge of nationalism. If I say something or soemoen is nationalist, that defines nationalism

[csaurabh]

John Oliver picking apart some problems in Western society - gender pay gap.
Look at the comments too.



My opinion: They actually do understand their own problems. It's just that they can't move forward and solve them because their base ( Western Universalism or individualism or whatever you call it ) doesn't support them.

[shiv]

My opinion: They actually do understand their own problems. It's just that they can't move forward and solve them because their base ( Western Universalism or individualism or whatever you call it ) doesn't support them.

I think they are trying to convert everything to a value in dollars and are finding out that women are worth less than men in dollars and that brown people in India (where call centers shift-see comments on that video) are worth even less.

To their eternal shame - Islam came up with these valuations before the west did

If you convert this argument into a "market forces" argument, it means market forces are driving costs and that is what good capitalism is all about.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ OK, shed the specific question I asked. As I said, I'm not interested in picking the "right" narrative, whether it be about nationalism or Islam or whatever. I want to know what roadmap people see for their preferred narrative getting closer to reality. I want to know how much people are willing to take the lead from a leader with whom they mostly but not entirely support.

Incidentally Doval said or implied, I think, that most violent Islamists are mercenaries. He said or implied that if Pakistan pays them 1200 crores, as the larger economy, India can afford to buy them out with 1600 crores. This is in the section where he talks about smothering terrorism. This is quite counter to the majority of posts e.g., the understanding of Islam thread. Is Doval simply wrong? is he being deceptive (if so how)? Is there something to be read between the lines? Suppose Doval succeeds in buying them off, will that change any minds here? etc. What does it mean to support a Doval?

[Arjun]

Can we take some of these posts to the Islamism thread please ?

[A_Gupta]

^^^The questions happen to be particular, but the question remains, that outside of words, philosophy, etc., is there a Indian way of doing things that differs from the Western way of doing things? Are beliefs and actions united or separate things? etc.

[RajeshA]

^^^The questions happen to be particular, but the question remains, that outside of words, philosophy, etc., is there a Indian way of doing things that differs from the Western way of doing things? Are beliefs and actions united or separate things? etc.

Yes there is an Indian way of doing things and solving problems!

Perhaps shiv saar can better explain using the analogy of how Ayurveda deals with illness and how Modern Medicine deals with illness.

My belief is that Dharma makes a far deeper surgical operation to remove a tumor of Adharma, where ever something is recognized as such, than say the West, which goes about banning a head-scarf here and a burqa there.

[RajeshA]

Incidentally Doval said or implied, I think, that most violent Islamists are mercenaries. He said or implied that if Pakistan pays them 1200 crores, as the larger economy, India can afford to buy them out with 1600 crores. This is in the section where he talks about smothering terrorism. This is quite counter to the majority of posts e.g., the understanding of Islam thread. Is Doval simply wrong? is he being deceptive (if so how)? Is there something to be read between the lines? Suppose Doval succeeds in buying them off, will that change any minds here? etc. What does it mean to support a Doval?

That is also a reason why Islam does not really do much to solve the problem of poverty among the Muslim masses. It makes recruitment of Jihadis and private armies from among the masses all the cheaper.

[abhischekcc]

With all due respect to Doval and his vast experience, he is completely wrong on this one. Paying jihadis more will not make them less violent towards India, it will only strengthen their resolve to step up the violence against India, as they will see that it brings more money.

Remember IC814 hijacking. Jaswant Singh went with Rs 400 crores for the jihadis to free the Indian passengers. All it did was that jihadis stepped up the violence against.

[shiv]

But what did the US do with Islamists? It bought those that could be bought and is kicking those that can't be bought. The will and ability to punish is first. Buying is next. If buying fails, elimination is the choice they must be given.

For decades we have spoken of power. For the first time Doval speaks of power and money.

[RajeshA]

^^^ OK, shed the specific question I asked. As I said, I'm not interested in picking the "right" narrative, whether it be about nationalism or Islam or whatever. I want to know what roadmap people see for their preferred narrative getting closer to reality. I want to know how much people are willing to take the lead from a leader with whom they mostly but not entirely support.

In order to fashion solutions, one has to chose a narrative first. That is what Ajit Doval did with his use of "Nationalist Muslims".

I think the problem with that are following:

1) He is practically saying that there is a separate equivalently-sized group of Indian Muslims who are not of the "Nationalist" kind. That may be true, but by admitting that he is also saying that this other group of "Not-Nationalist" Muslims have just as much right to be in India and to enjoy all the privileges here, because they too are Indian citizens, and simply belonging to the "Not-Nationalist Muslim" group doesn't imply any crime as such.

2) "Nationallist Muslim" is more of an empirical claim than an ideological claim. Ajit Doval is asserting that a certain section of the Muslims in India feel "Nationalism", that they have a "Nationalistic" orientation. Thus he has put "Nationalism" as an external light-house, rather than something that derives from Islam itself. Now that too may be the truth, but Ajit Doval has failed to make the case that having a "Nationalistic" orientation is something incumbent on the Indian Muslim.

3) The idea of "Nationalist Muslim" is that such Indian Muslims would help GoI in curbing the intolerant, aggressive and separatist urges and actions of the "Not-Nationalist Muslim". Ajit Doval is pleading for cooperation. However at the same time he is pitting the might of Islamic ideology that the Anti-Nationalist Indian Muslim camp can bring to bear on the "Nationalist Indian Muslim" camp. Ajit Doval is banking on Nationalist trait of the Nationalist Muslim but he is leaving the Nationalist Muslim to himself to fight out the ideological struggle with the Not-Nationalist Muslim who would be using Islam in his support. GoI may help the "Nationalist Muslim" logistically and financially, but ideologically speaking the "Nationalist Muslim" is on his own.

4) The bigger problem is that Ajit Doval is offering no Ideological Firewall to shield the Indian Muslim ideologically from all that what is happening in Pakistan or West Asia or elsewhere, as the ideologically brainwashing is happening through Islamic channels of propaganda, and not just political. The "Nationalist Muslim" narrative may have been of use when the enemy was Jinnah's Muslim League, but not when the enemy is Gulf money and ISIS and Taliban propaganda.

[RajeshA]

But what did the US do with Islamists? It bought those that could be bought and is kicking those that can't be bought. The will and ability to punish is first. Buying is next. If buying fails, elimination is the choice they must be given.

For decades we have spoken of power. For the first time Doval speaks of power and money.

Buying is good, but it should be like buying some Pushtuns to blow up TSPA assets for ordering an attack on us, rather than buying off some Islamists not to attack us.

If Pakistan can pay Jihadis to attack us, than India with more money can also pay a lot more poor Afghans to give Pakistan a much more thorough drubbing.

[abhischekcc]

RajeshA,

Buying some jihadis to kill some other jihadis is fine, but it needs an intelligence network to be built over the border. Something which the previous govt spent a lot of effort in destroying.

[RajeshA]

I have collected all the posts on Ajit Doval in the Bharatiyata Thread.

[RajeshA]

One thing that Western Universalism has achieved is to put everything in equal boxes.

Āryatva Sabhyata whose focus has been to spread knowledge, spirituality, science and to preserve humankind's oldest historical records has been forced into a box, where it doesn't belong, and called it Hinduism.

Similarly intolerant Jihad has been put in an opaque box and called it Islam.

Same is the case with imperialist Christianity.

Alll of these systems have been put into a box and called them religions, even though these may not have much similarity. Once having equal-shaped and sized boxes, Western Universalism says don't open these boxes and all deserve equal rights and treatment.

[SanjayC]

^^^ Islam and Chrsitianity are not religions at all and all attempts by these ideologies to label them as such (to get an easy pass in the world) need to be rebuffed by Hindus.

[A_Gupta]

RajeshA wrote in the WU thread:

My belief is that Dharma makes a far deeper surgical operation to remove a tumor of Adharma, where ever something is recognized as such, than say the West, which goes about banning a head-scarf here and a burqa there.

How this works - examples, theory, anything - would be most welcome on whichever is the appropriate thread.

[csaurabh]

One thing that Western Universalism has achieved is to put everything in equal boxes.

Āryatva Sabhyata whose focus has been to spread knowledge, spirituality, science and to preserve humankind's oldest historical records has been forced into a box, where it doesn't belong, and called it Hinduism.

Similarly intolerant Jihad has been put in an opaque box and called it Islam.

Same is the case with imperialist Christianity.

Alll of these systems have been put into a box and called them religions, even though these may not have much similarity. Once having equal-shaped and sized boxes, Western Universalism says don't open these boxes and all deserve equal rights and treatment.

^^Well said.

I think it was brought up earlier in this thread that WU has put men and women in a box and called it as equal.

The narrative goes something like this.

"Indian culture" says: Women shouldn't work. They should manage the household and raise kids.
"Western culture" says: Women should work.

And then the "Western" one is promoted as being "better".

Both these things are wrong actually . A woman should have the freedom to work if she chooses to. At the same time, the householder woman should be respected as well.

But we don't think this way. We just go round and round in circles and play blame games.

Swami Vivekananda's views on women are quite enlightening. Maybe I'll post them later on ( remember this was 120 years back, at the time remarkable thinking ).

[RajeshA]

^^^ Islam and Chrsitianity are not religions at all and all attempts by these ideologies to label them as such (to get an easy pass in the world) need to be rebuffed by Hindus.

SanjayC ji,

it's a question of definitions. Usually I call Islam and Christianity as religions, but I define Religion differently.

[ShauryaT]

I think it was brought up earlier in this thread that WU has put men and women in a box and called it as equal.

The narrative goes something like this.

"Indian culture" says: Women shouldn't work. They should manage the household and raise kids.
"Western culture" says: Women should work.

And then the "Western" one is promoted as being "better".

Both these things are wrong actually . A woman should have the freedom to work if she chooses to. At the same time, the householder woman should be respected as well.

But we don't think this way. We just go round and round in circles and play blame games.

Swami Vivekananda's views on women are quite enlightening. Maybe I'll post them later on ( remember this was 120 years back, at the time remarkable thinking ).

Most women in Indian culture have worked in the past. Women attended to their farms or those of others, if in service industries, they would participate in the vocation the family was engaged in. It is true the primary responsibility for the household fell on women just like the primary responsibility for a living was the onus of a man. However the wealth of the couple - and this was defined broadly in an earlier era was shared equally (lookup Mitakshara to understand the view of wealth) - symbolized by the requirement that the couple sit together to get their blessings in a yangya or a pooja.

So, the woman does not just have respect but equal rights - working to make a wage or not. Marriage being viewed as an almost indissoluble act. The marriage concept is being challenged with the changing value systems. Our western derived laws recognize none of these Indian experiences and rely solely on "individual freedoms" only. When a man and woman are free to break a marriage that freedom has costs, costs borne by society and other members of the family and most important kids. In our rush to adopt a rights oriented framework - we are in a rush to junk the experiences of the past. An experience that has held our society together, allowed us to live a largely unbroken civilization underpinned by an unbroken value system, except through external aggression. The challenge of WU is at this level of values. Something akin to Buddhism's conquest of Asia.

[JwalaMukhi]

Just to complete the thought my last post on this topic in this thread.
On Shri.Doval's Nationalistic ____fill your favorite group/groupings.

No need to rehash the background. But to help understand where the following reasoning comes from.
Countless number of people in India were given a stark choice by arab-imperialists. Convert, pay Jizya or die.
Very large number of them choose to "die" with honour. It is imperative that the "first right to resources", honor and duty goes towards them, their wishes and survivors of them. It is clearly abundant that successive administrations have clearly failed to even take a complete and necessary care, support to administer and cater to the cause for which those brave souls accepted death.
Then next in line would be cater to the wishes and worry about those paid Jizya.
After all that, then it would be time to worry about those that converted and their progeny.
It is not just illogical to get into a twist and change the order in which the worry and resources are mobilized. When the minimum necessary and sufficiency is achieved in addressing the cause of the martyrs, then rest of them can be taken up. About the wishes of those who paid jizya, followed by converts. Once it is clear in one's mind the priorities, then the question of what about nationalist muslims/muslims? will resolve itself. Instead it seems like 'ass-backwards' and everyone starts with famous and eternal question "what about muslims?" yes what about them? really!

[ShauryaT]

>>JohneeG
>>Actually, this is a very interesting topic in itself. And why can't you consider Lord Ganesha's head transplantation as a form surgery? What is irrational about it?
>>One would consider it irrational if one does not believe in Lord Ganesha. Then, it will seem irrational. But, if one believes it, then its certainly quite rational.

Rationality stems from reason, underpinned by facts and logic. If your view of ancient facts lead you to believe such, then all power to you, but I cannot convince a 10 year old of such claims. My belief in Ganesh has nothing to do with how he got his head. Rationality is not based on beliefs it is based on reason, which seems logical and based on facts.

On the rest of your post, I have read the works of many including Subhash Kak, Arvind Sharma, D.P Agarwal amongst others and have no qualms with our achievements of the past. However, these achievements need to be well qualified and it is important to not let them be hijacked by conjecture to make absurd claims as some venture to do.

[RajeshA]

How this works - examples, theory, anything - would be most welcome on whichever is the appropriate thread.

Answered in Bharatiya Thread.

[shiv]

Most women in Indian culture have worked in the past. Women attended to their farms or those of others, if in service industries, they would participate in the vocation the family was engaged in. It is true the primary responsibility for the household fell on women just like the primary responsibility for a living was the onus of a man. However the wealth of the couple - and this was defined broadly in an earlier era was shared equally (lookup Mitakshara to understand the view of wealth) - symbolized by the requirement that the couple sit together to get their blessings in a yangya or a pooja.

So, the woman does not just have respect but equal rights - working to make a wage or not. Marriage being viewed as an almost indissoluble act. The marriage concept is being challenged with the changing value systems. Our western derived laws recognize none of these Indian experiences and rely solely on "individual freedoms" only. When a man and woman are free to break a marriage that freedom has costs, costs borne by society and other members of the family and most important kids. In our rush to adopt a rights oriented framework - we are in a rush to junk the experiences of the past. An experience that has held our society together, allowed us to live a largely unbroken civilization underpinned by an unbroken value system, except through external aggression. The challenge of WU is at this level of values. Something akin to Buddhism's conquest of Asia.

The problem as I see it is that women are not considered to be "working" unless they are doing what is called "productive work" (aka employed by someone else). Part of the western paradigm is to convert everything into money.

A woman may do the housework, look after the kids and work on the fields, but unless she is earning a wage paid by someone and measurable by the financial system she is considered as not working and "unproductive". This attitude then leads to the idea that giving children a stable home is wasteful unproductive work because the woman is off the "workforce".

I just had a thought. No one will like it but I will say it. If women get lower salaries then men and they want to equalize it, why are people thinking of raising women's salaries. Why not lower men's salaries?

In fact that is what happens when you outsource, but it's just not seen that way. No

[johneeG]

>>JohneeG
>>Actually, this is a very interesting topic in itself. And why can't you consider Lord Ganesha's head transplantation as a form surgery? What is irrational about it?
>>One would consider it irrational if one does not believe in Lord Ganesha. Then, it will seem irrational. But, if one believes it, then its certainly quite rational.

Rationality stems from reason, underpinned by facts and logic. If your view of ancient facts lead you to believe such, then all power to you, but I cannot convince a 10 year old of such claims. My belief in Ganesh has nothing to do with how he got his head. Rationality is not based on beliefs it is based on reason, which seems logical and based on facts.

On the rest of your post, I have read the works of many including Subhash Kak, Arvind Sharma, D.P Agarwal amongst others and have no qualms with our achievements of the past. However, these achievements need to be well qualified and it is important to not let them be hijacked by conjecture to make absurd claims as some venture to do.

I think what you are saying makes no sense. Why can't you convince the 10 yr old? Everything about past is a claim because no one really knows what happened. But there are circumstantial evidences to build the case.

I gave you circumstantial evidence to show that Bhaarath was quite advanced(and was leading the rest of the world) in physics, chemistry, biology and maths. Given this background, what is so illogical about surgical transplantation of head or balls?

[ShauryaT]

I think what you are saying makes no sense. Why can't you convince the 10 yr old? Everything about past is a claim because no one really knows what happened. But there are circumstantial evidences to build the case.

I gave you circumstantial evidence to show that Bhaarath was quite advanced(and was leading the rest of the world) in physics, chemistry, biology and maths. Given this background, what is so illogical about surgical transplantation of head or balls?

A very respected guru of Brahma Vidya once said, especially as it relates to Valmiki, Tulsidas and the Puraans to treat them as works of poets. Does not mean everything was fiction but within the stories, names, places, events a certain poetic liberty was taken. Combining fact with fiction. More so, I think the fiction is great in making the erstwhile jobs of story tellers easy, as they become interesting soaps as opposed to boring factual documentaries. Fiction sells.

But, in all of this, what seems to have been lost to a degree is the design intent of these stories. It was to show Dharma in action. Hence the many pravarchans/talks on the Bhagwat, Ramayan and other puraans to communicate the messages of these stories.

I stick to the proven path of understanding its messages rather than worry about what is fact and what is fiction. If the story helps to communicate the message well and good or else move on, we have 18 million of them to choose from.

[johneeG]

I think what you are saying makes no sense. Why can't you convince the 10 yr old? Everything about past is a claim because no one really knows what happened. But there are circumstantial evidences to build the case.

I gave you circumstantial evidence to show that Bhaarath was quite advanced(and was leading the rest of the world) in physics, chemistry, biology and maths. Given this background, what is so illogical about surgical transplantation of head or balls?

A very respected guru of Brahma Vidya once said, especially as it relates to Valmiki, Tulsidas and the Puraans to treat them as works of poets. Does not mean everything was fiction but within the stories, names, places, events a certain poetic liberty was taken. Combining fact with fiction. More so, I think the fiction is great in making the erstwhile jobs of story tellers easy, as they become interesting soaps as opposed to boring factual documentaries. Fiction sells.

But, in all of this, what seems to have been lost to a degree is the design intent of these stories. It was to show Dharma in action. Hence the many pravarchans/talks on the Bhagwat, Ramayan and other puraans to communicate the messages of these stories.

I stick to the proven path of understanding its messages rather than worry about what is fact and what is fiction. If the story helps to communicate the message well and good or else move on, we have 18 million of them to choose from.

a) If someone is a guru in Brahma Vidya, then his views about Brahma Vidya should be taken seriously. His views on Ithihaasas and Puraanas(or myriad other topics) can be ignored.Even his views on Brahma Vidya should not be accepted blindly.

a)
1) People generally say things based on their audience's tastes. So what that 'guru' said would also be dependent on what he thought would be suitable to his audience.

a)
2) Many times, people misunderstand or misquote the 'Guru'.

a)
3) 'Gurus' can make mistakes.

a)
4) People who are accepted as Gurus may not be Gurus.

b) Even if one says that they are only poems or fictional literature, it does not negate the science that the literature is talking about. For example, if you pick up any modern literature, you will find mention about cars and aeroplanes. Just because the work is a fiction, does not mean that the cars and aeroplanes do not exist. If someone picks up these works 10,000 yrs from now, should they say that cars and planes did not exist because its fictional work? Similarly, even if the Hindhu literature is fictional, the sciences in those works still cannot be ignored.

c) Hindhu literature itself divides itself into Ithihaasa, Puraana and Kaavya.

Ithihaasa means 'it happened as it is' i.e. history. Raamayana and Mahabhaaratha are supposed to be histories. Of course, there can be some poetic license and some deviations. But, largely, they are supposed to be a historical accounts.

Puraana means old legends. They have been passed on from generations. They contain some very old legends(inspired from real historical events) and other aspects.

Kaavya is just poetry.

Raamayana is also a Kaavya(i.e Poem, infact, first poem of mankind).

Mahabhaarath contains many old legends like Garuda's legend, Nala's legend, ...etc. But, the principal stories of Raamayana and Mahabhaaratha are supposed to be histories.

[Pulikeshi]

This thread is soo entertaining....

To reform Islam or Pakistan? Both took my lunch money onlee
Our Muslims versus their Muslims. Why not our WU versus their WU?
Do beliefs drive actions or actions drive beliefs? unactionable disbelief?
To keep men at home raising children or lower their wages?
Dammit why can't wimmen stay barefoot and pregnant!

China's confucian social harmony, versus India's confused social acrimony.
The world as it really is, versus what we each imagined it is and would be.
To Do v'all or not to Do v'all is the penultimate question!

Little surprise then that WU is, the alternative is'nt.

[shiv]

Little surprise then that WU is, the alternative is'nt.

Cognitive bias. Just because alternatives B, C and D do not meet your requirements it does not lead to the conclusion that A is only one that is.

It is the only one you can see. Entertaining stuff.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ India was a civilization before it encountered the West. Either unknown to itself it was aspiring to Western Universalism, or else it had its own direction and goals. Now maybe we have lost touch with it forever, or when we look at it, it appears inadequate. But it would be inadequate, not having been attended to, seriously, in a long long time. India has been running mostly on past momentum. Hence what appears to be a lot of antiquated nonsense. Is it worth picking up? Or put it in the museum? Is the only way to fill the gaps to fill it with a Western sensibility?

There are no constraints on modern Indians - if being Western is the best thing to do, they are free to do so. The point is that they should do so in full consciousness and choice, not simply be swept along by the currents of the time. The worst thing would be to wear suit, boot and think one has become a Western gentleman, to ape without understanding.

[ShauryaT]

^^Arun: It has to start from the value system at play. If we do not have respect for the underlying values of the civilization then all other edifices of traditions, rituals, systems, laws are on weak roots and we are prey for others. If we understand and seek to preserve these values then the edifices have a rock to stand on and in process reform them as per the needs of the times - but keep the values intact.

So, do we understand and have consensus on the value systems of our civilization and how they are different from WU?

[ShauryaT]

The deviation to Islam, Muslims and Pakistan was entirely unnecessary for the thread. As far as India and its muslims are concerned, the challenge for any Indian from the precepts of western universalism are the same, Hindu or Muslim. Indian muslims are culturally Indian in their ethos and practices and in fact the biggest practitioners of WU in India are high caste hindus. Can we leave this one thread free of the talk of Islam and muslims and least of all Pakistan! We are maniacs and obsessed with the topic