Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[symontk]

female infanticide is to be condemned - yes, but it is a bit rich coming from nations like US where significant abortions take place per capita. apparently it is ok and 'a women exercising her choice' to abort child of unknown sex. Indian social conditioning of patriarchy, 'girl child = expenses' is bad etc (agreed, no defense of that from me), but massa conditioning of 'live your life, child is burden, so abort' is 'exercising choice'.

For these indexes you don't need to compare. But in this case too, US abortion rates aren't as bad as India's

Equality and Inequality are Western constructs. In India the underlying basis of gender relations has always been Respect and Responsibility.

"Equality" and "Inequality" doesn't have any worth in India.

Is it possible to define indexes for respect and responsibility? Let's follow that then, do you really think India would fare any better?

At the moment ISIS holds around 2500 Yezidi women as slaves to be raped and sold. Please go and ask, whether Yezidi couples would prefer to give birth to boys or to girls! May be one doesn't even need to go that far! Maybe one can simply ask Hindu couples still living in Pakistan.

Don't they need women to have Yezidi kids?

Preference for boys is a consequence of that insecurity, which is still ingrained in generational memory.

Why it is not there in all Indian states? Almost all of India had been under British or some other foreign power

[Arjun]

Is it possible to define indexes for respect and responsibility? Let's follow that then, do you really think India would fare any better?

Good question actually.

Couple of suggestions from my side - 'Rapes per capita' & 'Percentage of places of worship that portray the divine as feminine'

Why it is not there in all Indian states? Almost all of India had been under British or some other foreign power?

The sex ratio is most skewed in the North-West and Central-West of India - which sits oddly in contrast to the same belt's reputation as being the 'most aspirational' and highest on entrepreneurship. With this belt having served as the entry-point for Muslim hordes over the last millennia - I think RajeshA's argument has validity. Its probably less about being ruled by Muslims (the rulers are likely to land up adopting local liberal customs if they have to survive long) and more about the number of wars fought where the opposition is using standard Islamist tactics.

[RajeshA]

Is it possible to define indexes for respect and responsibility? Let's follow that then, do you really think India would fare any better?

Good question actually.

Couple of suggestions from my side - 'Rapes per capita' & 'Percentage of places of worship that portray the divine as feminine'

Arjun ji,

Divorce rate in the West or even Saudi Arabia is directly proportional to the level of respect a woman is accorded! Cheating on one's wife is another measure! Number of half-sibling relationships is another measure! Sexual harassment at workplace and in public places can also be seen as lack of respect. P0rn0graphy, prostitution, use of female bodies for advertisement, are all useful measures.

[Arjun]

Arjun ji,

Divorce rate in the West or even Saudi Arabia is directly proportional to the level of respect a woman is accorded! Cheating on one's wife is another measure! Number of half-sibling relationships is another measure! Sexual harassment at workplace and in public places can also be seen as lack of respect. P0rn0graphy, prostitution, use of female bodies for advertisement, are all useful measures.

Good suggestions.

'Attitude towards family' is another important measure which can be measured by agencies equivalent to PEW in the West. Indian Americans, as per PEW, have the strongest feelings towards family amongst all ethnic groups in the US.



I suspect the figure for Indians in India would turn out to be even higher than the one above for Indian Americans.

[symontk]

Is it possible to define indexes for respect and responsibility? Let's follow that then, do you really think India would fare any better?

Good question actually.

Couple of suggestions from my side - 'Rapes per capita' & 'Percentage of places of worship that portray the divine as feminine'

Although India has less number of rapes than some countries, it will not fare better with some other countries. Yes one index India would fare very good is feminine divinity. Will that show Indian's being hypocrites is another question?

Why it is not there in all Indian states? Almost all of India had been under British or some other foreign power?

The sex ratio is most skewed in the North-West and Central-West of India - which sits oddly in contrast to the same belt's reputation as being the 'most aspirational' and highest on entrepreneurship. With this belt having served as the entry-point for Muslim hordes over the last millennia - I think RajeshA's argument has validity. Its probably less about being ruled by Muslims (the rulers are likely to land up adopting local liberal customs if they have to survive long) and more about the number of wars fought where the opposition is using standard Islamist tactics.

Muslims were ruling large parts of India not just North West of India. If there are issues in those parts of India, those needs to be corrected

Divorce rate in the West or even Saudi Arabia is directly proportional to the level of respect a woman is accorded!

Once freedom is given to women, we would see divorce rates shooting up. Kerala is a good example

Also divorce is not a disrespect to women, in certain cases to save them the respect, divorce might be ncessary

Cheating on one's wife is another measure! Number of half-sibling relationships is another measure! Sexual harassment at workplace and in public places can also be seen as lack of respect. P0rn0graphy, prostitution, use of female bodies for advertisement, are all useful measures.

Really, do you think India would come in great colors in these indexes? Don't count only Internet Prawnagraphy alone, Also are you reading news, articles and advts, of some newspapers in India?

[RajeshA]

Divorce rate in the West or even Saudi Arabia is directly proportional to the level of respect a woman is accorded!

Once freedom is given to women, we would see divorce rates shooting up. Kerala is a good example

Also divorce is not a disrespect to women, in certain cases to save them the respect, divorce might be necessary

Somehow the logic escapes me! So Hindu men are beating their women so incessantly, that the woman cannot avail of any opportunity to run away and file for divorce! Or have we locked them up in the houses, lest they escape?

Basically this is the message that is being sent out: Freedom's main measure is the divorce rate! The reason we Hindu men and Hindu women stick together is because Hindu women have no freedom! Mutual love and respect don't seem to play any role in keeping marriages together!



Is the high divorce rate in Saudi Arabia also a consequence of high level of freedom for the women?

It is not any high level of freedom in the West, that is the cause of high divorce rates, but rather the Religion of Individualism, which hinders people from bonding properly with one another. For the same reason, one sees many children among couples who choose to live together but not marry. Marriage is considered a step in bonding, which trespasses on their "Individualism"! Non-commitment and Transactionality in Western society is often called "Freedom"!

You may unknowingly be calling Hindu men and Hindu women's commitment to the institution of marriage as lack of freedom! Hindu commitment to institution of marriage may seem unrealistic to those who view Indians from Western eyes, but for Hindus it is normal.

Cheating on one's wife is another measure! Number of half-sibling relationships is another measure! Sexual harassment at workplace and in public places can also be seen as lack of respect. P0rn0graphy, prostitution, use of female bodies for advertisement, are all useful measures.

Really, do you think India would come in great colors in these indexes? Don't count only Internet Prawnagraphy alone, Also are you reading news, articles and advts, of some newspapers in India?

This game always proceeds this way!

1) Curse Indian society as its sores are most eagerly shown by Secular media!
2) Call all the sores as intrinsic to Hindu society and symbolic of its institutional backwardness.
3) Call upon Hindus to adopt more Western prescriptions!

Sure there is much degeneration in Hindu society, but this should not lead us to points 2) and 3)! The sores are a consequence of ravaging of Hindu society by Islam, European Colonialism, Nehruvian Apathy and Imported Western Cultural Corruption, and also due to lack of strong Hindu leadership for centuries!

And of course Hindu Samaj needs to be revitalized, but West here has neither the moral authority to pass judgments on us nor to prescribe any solutions, not only because West's history betrays its lack of any moral standing and it does so for propaganda reasons but more importantly because West is itself a failed social model!

[Arjun]

Muslims were ruling large parts of India not just North West of India. If there are issues in those parts of India, those needs to be corrected.

That's the point I was making in my previous post. Being ruled by Muslim kings is not the same as having ancestral memory of standing up to Islamist (read ISIS type) armies that probably resorted to large-scale rape and routinely carried off women as sex-slaves.

I would submit that perhaps what the North-West of India went through is qualitatively and quantitatively different from anything that the rest of India would have undergone. All of Persia was flattened by the hordes within a century and then they overran Baluchistan and Sind. Remember these hordes would have been no different in behavior than today's ISIS. If you and I are not Muslim today - I think it is due to the bravery and courage of these communities in the North West that have withstood these hordes and continuous attacks for over a millenia and yet have remained true to their Dharmic religions !! Please remember that India has been the only place other than Spain to have withstood this level of barbarism. This relentless onslaught from Islam seems to have had a very unfortunate consequence in the sex ratio. Certainly - they will need help to get rid of this destructive attitude, and we need to encourage it. But it will take time !

[symontk]

Somehow the logic escapes me! So Hindu men are beating their women so incessantly, that the woman cannot avail of any opportunity to run away and file for divorce! Or have we locked them up in the houses, lest they escape?
........................
This game always proceeds this way!

1) Curse Indian society as its sores are most eagerly shown by Secular media!
2) Call all the sores as intrinsic to Hindu society and symbolic of its institutional backwardness.
3) Call upon Hindus to adopt more Western prescriptions!

Sure there is much degeneration in Hindu society, but this should not lead us to points 2) and 3)! The sores are a consequence of ravaging of Hindu society by Islam, European Colonialism, Nehruvian Apathy and Imported Western Cultural Corruption, and also due to lack of strong Hindu leadership for centuries!

And of course Hindu Samaj needs to be revitalized, but West here has neither the moral authority to pass judgments on us nor to prescribe any solutions, not only because West's history betrays its lack of any moral standing and it does so for propaganda reasons but more importantly because West is itself a failed social model!

You are assuming I thought of Hindus only but neither I have mentioned Hindus or divorce in India is limited to Hindus. You are completely wrong in those assumptions

Muslims were ruling large parts of India not just North West of India. If there are issues in those parts of India, those needs to be corrected.

That's the point I was making in my previous post. Being ruled by Muslim kings is not the same as having ancestral memory of standing up to Islamist (read ISIS type) armies that probably resorted to large-scale rape and routinely carried off women as sex-slaves.

I would submit that perhaps what the North-West of India went through is qualitatively and quantitatively different from anything that the rest of India would have undergone. All of Persia was flattened by the hordes within a century and then they overran Baluchistan and Sind. Remember these hordes would have been no different in behavior than today's ISIS. If you and I are not Muslim today - I think it is due to the bravery and courage of these communities in the North West that have withstood these hordes and continuous attacks for over a millenia and yet have remained true to their Dharmic religions !! Please remember that India has been the only place other than Spain to have withstood this level of barbarism. This relentless onslaught from Islam seems to have had a very unfortunate consequence in the sex ratio. Certainly - they will need help to get rid of this destructive attitude, and we need to encourage it. But it will take time !

Thanks for that response and to add if those attitudes were acquired over time, it should relent over the time. Such a behavior is not seen even after around 70 years of Independence. This one is not really related to education as you are mentioning. So this should have been gone after 3 generations of Independence which hasn't happened

Spain's sex ratio is favorable to women and Iran's one is also not bad

[RajeshA]

You are assuming I thought of Hindus only but neither I have mentioned Hindus or divorce in India is limited to Hindus. You are completely wrong in those assumptions

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I assumed the discussion was about Western Universalism being a model for Indians as some "modernized" Indians don't see the native Hindu way of life as a better alternative.

[RajeshA]

if those attitudes were acquired over time, it should relent over the time. Such a behavior is not seen even after around 70 years of Independence. This one is not really related to education as you are mentioning. So this should have been gone after 3 generations of Independence which hasn't happened

So called "Independence" was a false dawn, as transfer of power was basically to those who kept the same colonial system running, albeit with brown faces as frontends.

Hindu leadership is only now showing signs of revival! So one would have to give it some time for this leadership to nudge the people to embrace change!

[shiv]

It is not any high level of freedom in the West, that is the cause of high divorce rates, but rather the Religion of Individualism, which hinders people from bonding properly with one another. For the same reason, one sees many children among couples who choose to live together but not marry. Marriage is considered a step in bonding, which trespasses on their "Individualism"! Non-commitment and Transactionality in Western society is often called "Freedom"!

+1

Perfect

How western society was actually taken in this direction is revealed most tellingly in the following 1 hour documentary. Do take the time to watch

http://vimeo.com/48842811

[symontk]

Shiv, Rajesh, please illustrate on Religion of Individualism, its concepts and precepts

Also specify which book it is taken from like, Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Upanishad etc

[symontk]

if those attitudes were acquired over time, it should relent over the time. Such a behavior is not seen even after around 70 years of Independence. This one is not really related to education as you are mentioning. So this should have been gone after 3 generations of Independence which hasn't happened

So called "Independence" was a false dawn, as transfer of power was basically to those who kept the same colonial system running, albeit with brown faces as frontends.

Hindu leadership is only now showing signs of revival! So one would have to give it some time for this leadership to nudge the people to embrace change!

Which colonial system was responsible for India after 1947 to have declining sex ratios? and what will be put in place to prevent the same in future? how it will differ?

[symontk]

You are assuming I thought of Hindus only but neither I have mentioned Hindus or divorce in India is limited to Hindus. You are completely wrong in those assumptions

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I assumed the discussion was about Western Universalism being a model for Indians as some "modernized" Indians don't see the native Hindu way of life as a better alternative.

Please enlighten about "hindu way of life" contributing to increase the sex ratios?

[RajeshA]

symontk ji,

Religion of Individualism is one of the most important pillars of Western Universalism!

[RajeshA]

symontk ji,

please feel free to look through many many threads on BRF, which can answer your doubts on "Independence Struggle" and post-1947 India. The Bharatiyata Thread's mission statement was to answer doubts and queries about native Indian models!

[shiv]

Shiv, Rajesh, please illustrate on Religion of Individualism, its concepts and precepts

Also specify which book it is taken from like, Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Upanishad etc

I think Rajesh may be a better person to illustrate what he termed as "religion" of individualism. I simply think that this is a very good description of the way western societies have gone - in making the individual king/queen over and above the needs of society.

I am not referring to any specific sources like Vedas etc when I speak of the west. As far as India is concerned - there is no "One holy book" or "Holy trinity of books" like Sura, Hadith, Quran. I can only speak of Indian tradition and multiple sources that put society over individual needs.

I have written about some of this in earlier pages and you are asking me to repeat. For example staying married to one partner is a sacrifice made by both men and women over and above the self expression that may make man or woman indulge in bonking with the neighbour. The interest of the family group trumps the individual interest.

The "religion of individualism" allows the individual to seek gratification even if it means destruction of family. The loss of family at best leads to children with single parents and broken families - some of whom grow up into maladjusted adults. Often, because of individual needs of "freedom" - people are choosing not to have children at all - leading to negative growth of populations. These are consequences of putting the individual before the group. I think that is wrong. Individualism needs to be restricted for the good of the group. Families and societies survive longer than individuals or even states. The needs of family and society are being eroded in the west by untrammelled "individual gratification". The ridiculous idea that the "state" has the responsibility to look after children and old people is something that has not stood the test of time. No state has lasted long enough to claim that they can do that.

Ultimately in all societies, all over the world, since the beginning of time, it has always been family and society looking after children and old people. The incentive to do that is being removed by pushing individualism too far and imagining the state can replace family and social care. How silly that sounds to me - I thought it was commies who did such stuff - take ownership of everything and say the state will do what society should be doing. Obviously even western democracies are heading in the wrong direction where a collapsing society supports bloated government without which the society might fragment even further. These are gross errors that should not be copy pasted into India without deep consideration of the long term consequences.

[ShauryaT]

Please enlighten about "hindu way of life" contributing to increase the sex ratios?

Reiterating in the social milieu of Man-Woman as equal partners to pursue their Purusharthas of Artha, Kama and Dharma backed by political law is a "Hindu" route to contribute to equal respect and responsibility of the sexes, which would in turn contribute to normal sex ratios.

PS: Symontk: Not interested in defending the hypocrisy and practices of many Hindus towards this aspect today or pinning blame on Islam/colonialists for this issue or rhetoric by posting Wiki definitions. The problem is ours to own and we have to decide what template to use to get rid of it. Templates of WU is one way to solve this issue, just saying there is a Hindu template too, if one looks closely. Yes, showing the hypocrisy of Hindus to the hindus and by the hindus, who have no qualms worshipping female deities and then conduct female infanticide can be part of the solution.

[symontk]

Good info Individualism, now what you propose to negate that?

[symontk]

Please enlighten about "hindu way of life" contributing to increase the sex ratios?

Reiterating in the social milieu of Man-Woman as equal partners to pursue their Purusharthas of Artha, Kama and Dharma backed by political law is a "Hindu" route to contribute to equal respect and responsibility of the sexes, which would in turn contribute to normal sex ratios.

Nice. Very good in theory. Can you confidently say that in all the descriptions of Hindu holy books, this (equal respect and responsibility of the sexes) was done actually?

PS: I am not disrespecting the Hindu texts but it is very difficult to do this

[RajeshA]

I call it "Religion of Individualism" because first and foremost characteristic of "Religion" is empowerment of a certain "religious establishment" by having the populace drugged into living by the tenets of the religion!

Individualism means first and foremost that one is taught that self-fulfillment is targeted at the individual, that individual's interests outweigh the interests of the collective, of society, of family. The citizen is taught that he or she needs to rebel against her family bonds in order to assert her individualism. The person is taught to both keep distance from others and to respect other people's privacy and need for distance and individualism, which weakens social cohesion.

The worship one sees of Individualism in the West, if often akin to how others may refer to God!

Thus the state takes over all the responsibility of arbitration between any two individuals who may be in disagreement or conflict of interest. And those who control the state, the power brokers, they get a system which in no way threatens them, and allows them to gratify themselves any which way they like.

[RajeshA]

Not interested in defending the hypocrisy and practices of many Hindus towards this aspect today or pinning blame on Islam/colonialists for this issue or rhetoric by posting Wiki definitions.

Ah old habits!

[shiv]

Please enlighten about "hindu way of life" contributing to increase the sex ratios?

This question was not directed at me, but can I ask you what is the "right" sex ratio and what data exists even in that last 2000 years of recorded history as to what the ratio should be. This of course is an unfair question. No data exists other than the last 100 years or so.

But then if data does not exist to describe all the possible social stresses (war, famine, genocide) that societies have been though how does anyone simply decide that some particular ratio is correct? I have asked this question earlier and I ask again.

Sex ratios in India are assumed to be skewed because of female infanticide and selective abortions. I say "assumed" because there is no robust evidence even today. It is a working hypothesis. It completely right to condemn female foeticide - but it is another thing altogether to damn a society using data that is only a working hypothesis, simply because it is, as you say, and "indicator" of something.

Societies and nations are smeared in this way by insinuations and observations that may not have a cause and effect relationship. Just a tool to say "You are defective. Set your house right".

[ShauryaT]

Nice. Very good in theory. Can you confidently say that in all the descriptions of Hindu holy books, this (equal respect and responsibility of the sexes) was done actually?

The word "holy" books does not exactly equate and this is part of the problem here, as our frame of references are "western". We have books and then we have books Our Dharma shastras or the codified law books, read from today's perspective would come across as completely biased against women. However, two points, 1. The socio-economic contexts they were written for have changed but the books have not evolved. 2. We are evaluating these works from today's social lenses, which are again largely not from our own framework.

These works, which do read as biased and unequal from today's lenses, were written for a framework that does not exist anymore and hence sounds alien to us. If one attempts to understand the framework they were written for, one will largely make sense of it - for its times. Its roots and design intent was not to subjugate women but to promote different roles for a harmonious society. Not saying they apply for today and the works themselves do need evolution. How can we take these roots and modify for use in the current era is a separate discussion. However, discard these roots at our own peril.

[shiv]

Good info Individualism, now what you propose to negate that?

One step is to get more people to understand that such an issue exists. Particularly significant is for people to realize that "individualism" and "freedom" as promoted in the west are not always what they are said to be, and often have effects that could be negative for a society in the long term

The individual needs to know that he has a responsibility to society - not that he has a lot of freedom while society will be cared for by the state and laws enacted by the state. Recall that concepts like "dharma" and "morality" are designed to guide individuals before they do damage to themselves and society. Laws are designed to inflict punishment after the fact and do not pre-empt damage to society.

[shiv]

Nice. Very good in theory. Can you confidently say that in all the descriptions of Hindu holy books, this (equal respect and responsibility of the sexes) was done actually?

PS: I am not disrespecting the Hindu texts but it is very difficult to do this

1. Hindus do not follow "holy books" like Christians. The books are guidelines that illustrate, not compel. This is something that neither the Brits nor the Muslims were able to understand. Are you in the same boat?
2. No Hindu literature claims that all was good at some time - except in biographies like the Ramayana and his "Ram Rajya" which was righteous rule - not "all was good with no evil at all" . Hindu tradition and folklore only provide guidelines which are to be followed for the best possible outcome give that there will always be greed, violence, crime and lust in human society. No Hindu source claims that all will be well if you do xyz. They describe society as it is and say that the most likely good outcomes are likely to accrue from such and such behavior. Examples abound about every type of depravity and goodness and no tradition exists that says that all will be good with X behaviour and all will be bad for Y behaviour.

Given that the traditions are accurate descriptions of society as we still observe even today and many of those writings are sociological observations that date back over 5000 years - there is a weight to them that no social changes made in the last 1000 years can rival. Funnily enough even the Greeks had some of this figured out 2500 years ago and the western claim that they follow the Greeks is utter bullshit. They only claim Greek heritage - but they have flushed real Greek heritage down the Pakistan

[symontk]

Rajesh,

You are mixing Western Religion (like Chirstianity) with secular laws that they have. Christianity has a socialistic upbringing in the early times. Your premise is on wrong angle, you need to present better arguments for western individualism deriving out of Christianity. But I agree that their secular laws are individualistic

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

I want to bring the discussion that you, Shiv and Shaurya mentioned regarding family responsibilites rooted in Hindu texts. If you closely look at them, they are at individualistic level. I can take the example of Ramayana in which in three incidents, the decisions are at individualistic level

1. Sage Valimiki, who was a hunter in his earlier trade, wanted his wife and kid to share his sins where in which his wife and kid refuses to do so

2. When Kaikeyi pushed ahead with her demands, Lord Rama took steps in line and not in contrary to her demands in greater family, kingdon good

3. During the washerman controversy, Lord Ram took the decsion to move Sita to a forest

Your argument of greater family good are not taken into account in the above examples. So expounding on HIndu texts for an alternate of individualism will not work

[symontk]

Laws are designed to inflict punishment after the fact and do not pre-empt damage to society.

Isnt it gross for a simple divorce?

[symontk]

1. Hindus do not follow "holy books" like Christians. The books are guidelines that illustrate, not compel. This is something that neither the Brits nor the Muslims were able to understand. Are you in the same boat?

I thought you were mentioning the "Hindu way of life" and so got carried away, sorry if I mistook you

[symontk]

They only claim Greek heritage - but they have flushed real Greek heritage down the Pakistan

since this is a western universal ism thread, please do elaborate. Not that I am an expert or knowledgeable in Greek heritage

[symontk]

Good info Individualism, now what you propose to negate that?

One step is to get more people to understand that such an issue exists. Particularly significant is for people to realize that "individualism" and "freedom" as promoted in the west are not always what they are said to be, and often have effects that could be negative for a society in the long term

Please give examples how it will impact a society and what are the tradeoffs with collectivism?

The individual needs to know that he has a responsibility to society

Really? isn't that individualism?

[symontk]

Nice. Very good in theory. Can you confidently say that in all the descriptions of Hindu holy books, this (equal respect and responsibility of the sexes) was done actually?

The word "holy" books does not exactly equate and this is part of the problem here, as our frame of references are "western". We have books and then we have books Our Dharma shastras or the codified law books, read from today's perspective would come across as completely biased against women. However, two points, 1. The socio-economic contexts they were written for have changed but the books have not evolved. 2. We are evaluating these works from today's social lenses, which are again largely not from our own framework.

These works, which do read as biased and unequal from today's lenses, were written for a framework that does not exist anymore and hence sounds alien to us. If one attempts to understand the framework they were written for, one will largely make sense of it - for its times. Its roots and design intent was not to subjugate women but to promote different roles for a harmonious society. Not saying they apply for today and the works themselves do need evolution. How can we take these roots and modify for use in the current era is a separate discussion. However, discard these roots at our own peril.

Fully agree, I don't claim any other religious book would pass today's secular laws. But I referred to them since you mentioned "Hindu way of life", nothing more, nothing less

[shiv]

,

You are mixing Western Religion (like Chirstianity) with secular laws that they have.
<snip>
I want to bring the discussion that you, Shiv and Shaurya mentioned regarding family responsibilites rooted in Hindu texts.

Two errors here

1. Family responsibilities are not in just "Hindu texts" alone. they exist in Cheistianity and Islam. The west has discarded religion
2. The "secular laws" of the west and colonial looting were built upon Christian concepts of rights. God is sovereign and He has right to do whatever he wants over His domain, which is the entire universe that he created. The church restricted human rights for centuries based on these Christian tenets until Christians broke free from the contradictions of such a law. For example, if God own everything, can a man own a tract of land? Can he own the produce? After the peace of Westphalia secular laws prevented the Church from ruling, but the old Christian concepts of rights remained. Christian laws were diluted and modified to allow man ownership rights over his domain. It was these "ownership rights" that came into play in the colonies that were occupied with the full backing of the Church.

Germany and Japan were late entrants into the battle to get colonies and they were opposed by other powers who had occupied all that there was. this eventually led to the wars that ravaged Europe. It was only after WW@ that Secular Christian nations of Europe started recognizing concepts like equality of all humans and the need to remove racism.

Eventually, science replaced the Church and even Christian m,orality has been thrown into the bin by western societies. western societies are no longer practicing Christianity, but the way they exert "ownership" and "rights" is exactly based on the concept of God and his rights over his domain. To a huge extent this behaviour is anti wildlife and anti-environment.

[symontk]

Please enlighten about "hindu way of life" contributing to increase the sex ratios?

This question was not directed at me, but can I ask you what is the "right" sex ratio and what data exists even in that last 2000 years of recorded history as to what the ratio should be. This of course is an unfair question. No data exists other than the last 100 years or so.

But then if data does not exist to describe all the possible social stresses (war, famine, genocide) that societies have been though how does anyone simply decide that some particular ratio is correct? I have asked this question earlier and I ask again.

Sex ratios in India are assumed to be skewed because of female infanticide and selective abortions. I say "assumed" because there is no robust evidence even today. It is a working hypothesis. It completely right to condemn female foeticide - but it is another thing altogether to damn a society using data that is only a working hypothesis, simply because it is, as you say, and "indicator" of something.

Societies and nations are smeared in this way by insinuations and observations that may not have a cause and effect relationship. Just a tool to say "You are defective. Set your house right".

I would agree with you if and only if India is smeared this way, but no whole lot of nations are. Even if there war, famine or genocide, it would impact both sexes equally. But if you really look, females survive war, famine and genocide (albeit in sad circumstances). In fact its females that survive more than men in normal like too (maybe that is why people wanted boys in first place)

Its a statistics to arrive at a conclusion over a data point but since there is data across at least from start of this century, some of the progress made can be understood. Even for Kerala, the sex ratio wasnt better at the start of earlier century, but it improved thru the years which is not seen for other states

[shiv]

One step is to get more people to understand that such an issue exists. Particularly significant is for people to realize that "individualism" and "freedom" as promoted in the west are not always what they are said to be, and often have effects that could be negative for a society in the long term

Please give examples how it will impact a society and what are the tradeoffs with collectivism?

Have you read this thread from page 1. That is what this thread is about

The individual needs to know that he has a responsibility to society

Really? isn't that individualism?

No. The individual needs to know where his individualism is to be restricted. He has to sacrifice his individualism for society. In societies where this is the norm,. The individual is taught these things as part of upbringing. This used to be the case even in Christian societies - and this is being systematically destroyed in the west

[ShauryaT]

Fully agree, I don't claim any other religious book would pass today's secular laws. But I referred to them since you mentioned "Hindu way of life", nothing more, nothing less

A well read Hindu would term these secular laws and its philosophy to be derived from Charvaka. Someone's who's philosophy was rejected by Indian society and did not garner any followers. I hate to equate Dharma and its works to religion but in that context, the goals of this Dharma based society are certainly not secular, as the term is to be understood in the classic traditions of the west. The goal is to be a spiritual society best described by Sri Aurobindo as a vision for the nation.

“India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken her last creative word; she lives and has still something to do for herself and the human peoples. And that which must seek now to awake is not an anglicised oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the occident's success and failure, but still the ancient immemorable Shakti recovering her deepest self, lifting her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and a vaster form of her Dharma”

[symontk]

1. Family responsibilities are not in just "Hindu texts" alone. they exist in Cheistianity and Islam. The west has discarded religion

I am not familiar with family responsibilities in Christianity, would like to get educated if they do exist

2. The "secular laws" of the west and colonial looting were built upon Christian concepts of rights. God is sovereign and He has right to do whatever he wants over His domain, which is the entire universe that he created. The church restricted human rights for centuries based on these Christian tenets until Christians broke free from the contradictions of such a law. For example, if God own everything, can a man own a tract of land? Can he own the produce? After the peace of Westphalia secular laws prevented the Church from ruling, but the old Christian concepts of rights remained. Christian laws were diluted and modified to allow man ownership rights over his domain. It was these "ownership rights" that came into play in the colonies that were occupied with the full backing of the Church.

Germany and Japan were late entrants into the battle to get colonies and they were opposed by other powers who had occupied all that there was. this eventually led to the wars that ravaged Europe. It was only after WW@ that Secular Christian nations of Europe started recognizing concepts like equality of all humans and the need to remove racism.

Eventually, science replaced the Church and even Christian m,orality has been thrown into the bin by western societies. western societies are no longer practicing Christianity, but the way they exert "ownership" and "rights" is exactly based on the concept of God and his rights over his domain. To a huge extent this behaviour is anti wildlife and anti-environment.

You are slipping, what it has to do with sex ratios or individualism? How are you going to replace ownership and rights of an individual with collectivism? Will it work? If yes how? What are the risk areas? What prevented societies to go in that route? Anything which Hitler, Stalin or Tojo did which precipitated that?

[symontk]

Fully agree, I don't claim any other religious book would pass today's secular laws. But I referred to them since you mentioned "Hindu way of life", nothing more, nothing less

A well read Hindu would term these secular laws and its philosophy to be derived from Charvaka. Someone's who's philosophy was rejected by Indian society and did not garner any followers. I hate to equate Dharma and its works to religion but in that context, the goals of this Dharma based society are certainly not secular, as the term is to be understood in the classic traditions of the west. The goal is to be a spiritual society best described by Sri Aurobindo as a vision for the nation.

“India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken her last creative word; she lives and has still something to do for herself and the human peoples. And that which must seek now to awake is not an anglicised oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the occident's success and failure, but still the ancient immemorable Shakti recovering her deepest self, lifting her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and a vaster form of her Dharma”

What does it (philosophy derived from Charvaka) say about individualism? or does it even discuss that?

[symontk]

He has to sacrifice his individualism for society.

How is the "individual sacrifice" handled when it impacts society, family? But if it only individual that is sacrificing, then it is individualism. Isn't that so? The correct way would be society sacrificing for an individual, right?

Getting confused?

[shiv]

I would agree with you if and only if India is smeared this way, but no whole lot of nations are. Even if there war, famine or genocide, it would impact both sexes equally. But if you really look, females survive war, famine and genocide (albeit in sad circumstances). In fact its females that survive more than men in normal like too (maybe that is why people wanted boys in first place)

Its a statistics to arrive at a conclusion over a data point but since there is data across at least from start of this century, some of the progress made can be understood. Even for Kerala, the sex ratio wasnt better at the start of earlier century, but it improved thru the years which is not seen for other states

Boss I don't give a damn if every nation is smeared. I do not want India to be smeared just because someone invents a convenient metric to smear India. And I will smear every other nation using the same tactic.

War never affects everyone equally. Neither do famine or genocide

In war, men are killed disproportionately. In genocide - it is often mainly men. The fact that people wanted boys for these reasons has already been mentioned by RajeshA in his post above. Even today Islam asks for sons. The men are supposed to protect women in many societies and in India many women see sons as their future protectors. One of the duties of Hindu dharma is for the son to look after his parents. So a son who chooses to follow his dharma would do that. That does not mean that female foetuses should be aborted or that female infants should be killed. But there are many ways to skin a cat and when children suffer from diarrheas and malnuttrition from poor water supply a little less care for the girl and a little more care for the boy can cause the girl to die. Cruel as it may seem - this is a function of social reality. But this is not a function of Hinduism and any linking of this as something Hindus do needs to be called out as the lie that it is.

Call me paranoid but even you instantly jumped to the conclusion that I was peddling Hindu stuff.