Know Your India

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 09 Feb 2010 01:05

Looks more like lipstick on a pig. What conditions will a MBBS be able to treat over and above a BRMS doctor? And wouldn't they get the same results by reserving MBBS seats for rural students?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Feb 2010 02:37

Taslima’s plea to India

New Delhi: Bangladesh writer Taslima Nasrin on Wednesday asked India to reconsider its decision not to renew her residence permit beyond August, saying if she was not allowed to stay India she had “nowhere else to go.”

The writer said she was conveyed in writing by the Home Ministry that her residence permit would not be renewed after her current visa expired. “This is shocking to me. If I can’t stay in India, where else do I go?”
...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2010 15:00

Austin wrote:No I am just wondering if a single 5th gen figher costs 400 - 500 Cr then its really very expensive bird compare that to how much we spend on vital needs of social sector.
It amazes me for a country with so much of poverty that one can sees daily on street we can actually afford a 500 Cr for single fighter.

this is OT but, our continuing levels of poverty is a systemic problem with wealth distribution, not a lack of resources. even if we spend another 100,000 cr per year on poverty with the same system there will be no discernible change in levels of poverty.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Feb 2010 17:40

Austin_> Further, India is poor country today not because it attacked others and over spent on defense, but historically underspent on defense and developing a miltary Industrial complex. Example, south Indian Kings always importing Horses from the middle east rather than breeding them. All the countries today which are rich are countries which are agressive and have invaded other nations.

Western Europe- Britain, France , Germany- attacking and colonizing countries which never declared war on them

USA- last 50 years they have been involved in wars which have nothing to do with an invasion thier homeland

CHina- invading Tibet, attcking India, Vietnam

Japan- WWII

Arabia- Whenever they could they invaded thier neighbours

We spent virtually nothing on Defense between 1947-62. Did we reduce poverty during that period???

You cannot reduce poverty by being nice to neighbours.

Anyway OT

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 18 Feb 2010 19:39

On the very negative side of "Know your India", there have been a few very distressing incidents in AP in the last one year, 2 of them in the last month. Just yesterday, a girl killed herself, because she was tired of being stalked and hassled by some lowlife. But an additional disturbing feature of this incident, is that the lowlife's two sisters and mother tried to make it look like the victim was harassing their brother! And it was the resulting confrontation between the two families, that caused the girl to take the drastic step.

In another disgusting incident, a small girl was kidnapped for the *second* time. But this time, the kidnappers killed their prey, causing the father to have a fatal heart attack. The scumbags were at least arrested.

There was also an 'encounter' killing which was cheered by the general public( can't blame them), where a bunch of eve-teasers and repeat hasslers were gunned down in AP last year.

At the 'lower' end of Indian society, you wonder how frequently these very unpleasant events take place. At the more educated level, it's rare, thankfully.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 18 Feb 2010 19:54

Continuing with the negative side- there were news items about the suicides of more than a dozen students(unconnected to one another) in Maharashtra last month, over exams.They succumbed to the pressure of not quite measuring up to their expected standards, or felt they simply couldn't succeed. So they took the easy way out.

One has to wonder, if there is a widespread culture or mentality in India, that simply says do your best, but if you fail, there are other things you can do. Not everyone has to be, or is cut out to be, a professional. Life is too rich and too diverse to kill oneself over a failed exam or a less than absolutely stellar exam performance.

Reports of these suicides are too frequent in the media. It shows a lack of culture from the family( that they would pressure the kids so much) and/or from peers that causes such shame about not getting the 90%( or whatever) desired result.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Feb 2010 07:38

Aditya_V wrote:Austin_> Further, India is poor country today not because it attacked others and over spent on defense, but historically underspent on defense and developing a miltary Industrial complex. Example, south Indian Kings always importing Horses from the middle east rather than breeding them. All the countries today which are rich are countries which are agressive and have invaded other nations.

Western Europe- Britain, France , Germany- attacking and colonizing countries which never declared war on them

USA- last 50 years they have been involved in wars which have nothing to do with an invasion thier homeland

CHina- invading Tibet, attcking India, Vietnam

Japan- WWII

Arabia- Whenever they could they invaded thier neighbours

We spent virtually nothing on Defense between 1947-62. Did we reduce poverty during that period???

You cannot reduce poverty by being nice to neighbours.

Anyway OT

So some of the richest and most developed countries like...say Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are so rich because they are so aggressive and constantly keeps invading their neighbors?

Sorry to reply to an OT subject but that post has to been one of the funniest thing I have read when trying to explain poverty.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 19 Feb 2010 08:01

Wickberg wrote: So some of the richest and most developed countries like...say Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are so rich because they are so aggressive and constantly keeps invading their neighbors?

Nope they are rich because their neighbors let them live in peace....

!

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 19 Feb 2010 12:29

Aditya_V wrote:Austin_> Further, India is poor country today not because it attacked others and over spent on defense, but historically underspent on defense and developing a miltary Industrial complex. Example, south Indian Kings always importing Horses from the middle east rather than breeding them. All the countries today which are rich are countries which are agressive and have invaded other nations.

Western Europe- Britain, France , Germany- attacking and colonizing countries which never declared war on them

USA- last 50 years they have been involved in wars which have nothing to do with an invasion thier homeland

CHina- invading Tibet, attcking India, Vietnam

Japan- WWII

Arabia- Whenever they could they invaded thier neighbours

We spent virtually nothing on Defense between 1947-62. Did we reduce poverty during that period???

You cannot reduce poverty by being nice to neighbours.

Anyway OT

Western Europe became rich because of the industrial revolution - not because they colonized the world - that was done to secure natural resources for their industries - so partially right.

The US became wealthy becasue of its manufacturing expertise and went to war all over the world to prevent the spread of communism - which it saw as a threat to its "ideal" way of life - the wars certainly didn't enrich it - on the contrary - they seriously weakened its economic strength as is being seen now.

China was a poor country when all the invasions you listed took place - its current economic strength stems from having embraced the capitalist model to replace its centrally planned economy

Japan was completely devastated as a consequence of WW2 - its post war economic receovery is a consequence of the Marshall Plan - no cause / effect there!

The period of Arab history you refer to saw a collection of tribes constantly at war with each other for reasons of tribal supremacy and they could in no way be described as rich then - their wealth came from the discovery of oil.

I'm not sure how you saw cause and effect in your analysis?

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 19 Feb 2010 12:30

quote="Aditya_V"]Austin_> Further, India is poor country today not because it attacked others and over spent on defense, but historically underspent on defense and developing a miltary Industrial complex. Example, south Indian Kings always importing Horses from the middle east rather than breeding them. All the countries today which are rich are countries which are agressive and have invaded other nations.

Western Europe- Britain, France , Germany- attacking and colonizing countries which never declared war on them

USA- last 50 years they have been involved in wars which have nothing to do with an invasion thier homeland

CHina- invading Tibet, attcking India, Vietnam

Japan- WWII

Arabia- Whenever they could they invaded thier neighbours

We spent virtually nothing on Defense between 1947-62. Did we reduce poverty during that period???

You cannot reduce poverty by being nice to neighbours.

Anyway OT[/quote]

Western Europe became rich because of the industrial revolution - not because they colonized the world - that was done to secure natural resources for their industries - so partially right.

The US became wealthy becasue of its manufacturing expertise and went to war all over the world to prevent the spread of communism - which it saw as a threat to its "ideal" way of life - the wars certainly didn't enrich it - on the contrary - they seriously weakened its economic strength as is being seen now.

China was a poor country when all the invasions you listed took place - its current economic strength stems from having embraced the capitalist model to replace its centrally planned economy - and then became the world's factory

Japan was completely devastated as a consequence of WW2 - its post war economic receovery is a consequence of the Marshall Plan - no cause / effect there!

The period of Arab history you refer to saw a collection of tribes constantly at war with each other for reasons of tribal supremacy and they could in no way be described as rich then - their wealth came from the discovery of oil.

I'm not sure how you saw cause and effect in your analysis?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 12:39

Perhaps these arguments don't work in the era of modern nation states.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Feb 2010 12:52

Carl_T wrote:Perhaps these arguments don't work in the era of modern nation states.

No it does, but folks are butchering this thread. Can the mods please move the discussion to a relevant thread and I will be happy to jump in too.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 19 Feb 2010 13:42

Sanku-> Agreed I will defend my position in the appropriate thread.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 24 Feb 2010 11:24

The government's lackluster reform efforts

Too much urea has ruined the soil in much of Punjab and Haryana, the breadbasket of India, causing stagnant of declining yields of rice and wheat. And paying for this wrong-headed subsidy cost the government more than $20 billion in the fiscal year ending March 2009.

India's defence budget rises, but problems remain

India raised its defence spending on Friday by 10 percent to $26.5 billion for 2008/09

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 04 Mar 2010 19:53

True color image of India from space

These spectacular images of the Earth are the most true-colour images of the entire world released to date, according to Nasa scientists.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 09:59

How the Chorki ka Maal (stolen material) is sold as Genuine English

The picture shows Brahmi Numbers. On close observation you will realize that these numbers 1 to 9 are used today with very little modification as english numerals:

1) Brahmi Number 1 is horizontal single line - Modern English Number is adjusted to vertical

2) Brahmi Number 2 two horizontal lines - join these two lines drawing a diagonal line from top right end of top line to left end of the bottom line you have english number two

3) No. 3 three horizontal lines - join these lines drawing a verticle linke connecting right ends and you have no 3

4) Just draw a small line diagonally starting from left end of the curved line with the left of the middle line

5) draw a small loop below the brahmi number 5 and you have english 5

6) Ditto usage - copy paste

7) Ditto copy - and draw a horizontal stroke thrue the middle and u have 7

mirror the brahmi image and join them to gether

9) almost copied

Know your India Know Your Numbers

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 05 Mar 2010 10:17

I don't think it has ever been claimed as "genuine english", it is sometimes called "arabic" or occasionally "hindu-arabic".

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 10:49

you are right - but the people at large do not know this fact. the above is truer again because there is no arab connection to brahmi numbers. ironically the english numbers do not resemble to perso-arabic numerals. (i have specifically mentioned = 'sold' as genuine english, and not 'claimed')

it is constantly fed to the new generation that indians only copy while the world copy and claims its own. the numbers above are just the example.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 05 Mar 2010 11:09

Certainly, IMO it is because of the marginalization of indigenous knowledge systems during colonial rule that led to the mentality that Indians copy and subconsciously devalues opinions of various things Indian.

At the same time, (not saying you said this at all) but I've also seen the reverse mentality that "India is the source of everything". I don't think that is healthy either.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 11:20

Genetically speaking - everything in worlds is african via India

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Mar 2010 11:32

Carl_T wrote:Certainly, IMO it is because of the marginalization of indigenous knowledge systems during colonial rule that led to the mentality that Indians copy and subconsciously devalues opinions of things Indian.

At the same time, (not saying you said this) but I've also seen the reverse mentality that "India is the source of everything". I don't think that is healthy either.

And yet others, view all things considered to be of Indian origin as incorrectly attributed to Indians, since they see it as another manifestation of "India is the source of everything" syndrome.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 05 Mar 2010 11:52

viv wrote:
And yet others, view all things considered to be of Indian origin as incorrectly attributed to Indians, since they see it as another manifestation of "India is the source of everything" syndrome.

oookay...

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 11:56

viv makes a good point

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 05 Mar 2010 11:57

He wouldn't if he's heard some of the things I have. I am from a true Hindootvawadi background so I have probably internalized a lot of this over the years!

I recently heard quantum mechanics comes from vedanta.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 12:09

Quantum Mechanics indeed has roots in vedant philosophy.

google and you will know many references

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 12:14

Know that your india has ingressed daily lives of millions across the world

www.yogajournal.com

is slated to be the worlds best website conceptualised and run by non-indians.

Ironically, the best and widely read yog magazine is published in US run by firangs.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 05 Mar 2010 12:20

Murugan wrote:Quantum Mechanics indeed has roots in vedant philosophy.

google and you will know many references

I have read those! Back in my hindutva days I proudly showed them to my friend who works in that stuff...who quickly shredded it.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Mar 2010 13:09

Carl_T wrote:He wouldn't if he's heard some of the things I have. I am from a true Hindootvawadi background so I have probably internalized a lot of this over the years!

I recently heard quantum mechanics comes from vedanta.

Hindutva to Doningeritva -- you really swing wide

.

There are extremes that you should be easily able to ignore, some reject outright, others verify and still others accept.

That Kanada talked of anu/parmanu ie. atomic substances is true but it is not the same as modern atomic theory. He did not state the 92/105 elements but 4 conceptual ones - air, water, fire, earth etc. Similarly, his school had the concept of light as some particle that impinges on the eye - a corpuscular theory of light. Is it the same as what we understand now - photons? No. Possibly those making claims of quantum mechanics neither know the past nor the present state of physics.

The point is that there are elements of good physics but not how we understand it now. It is not always Democritus or Archimides; it sometimes is also Kanada or Aryabhatta.
One is not off by claiming a level of physics in Vedanta - afterall the above is from one of the schools of Indian philosophy called Vaisheshika claiming inspiration from the Vedas.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 13:56

Murugan wrote:Quantum Mechanics indeed has roots in vedant philosophy.

google and you will know many references

that's not correct, google notwithstanding. at a stretch there are certain similarities in the philosophies if we take some 'interpretations' for granted (which again are not at all obvious or certain.)

what is true however is that the upanishads reasoning structure is very very similar to how modern scientific laws are postulated and expounded. in fact this is the only religious philosophy I've read for which one can say that. that however doesn't make it science.

edit : viv ji, while religion/spirituality and science were not two orthogonal subjects back in India of those days, being influenced by and originating from are not the same.

I'm not surprised if many scientists of those days were influenced by vedanta, many still are. after all the gist of vedanta is to encourage people to 'know for yourself' and not believe blindly.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Mar 2010 14:26

Rahul M wrote: viv ji, while religion/spirituality and science were not two orthogonal subjects back in India of those days, being influenced by and originating from are not the same.

I'm not surprised if many scientists of those days were influenced by vedanta, many still are. after all the gist of vedanta is to encourage people to 'know for yourself' and not believe blindly.

Rahulji, it is true of even near-term scientists of middle and modern age. The link to Veda/Vedanta is only that these schools of philosophy claim to be aligned to Vedas and by definition are only finding the truth/God/reality derived from Vedic thought. Therefore, folks may refer to the scientific thought as being present/derived from Vedas - that is all. It is the same as many gurus claim 'Vedon mein likha hai..' - for all thought derived from the upanishads/later philosophies nominally owes allegience to the Vedas. In practice one might not find the text or detail being claimed in the original Vedas. At least that is what I've derived over time as the reason for such statements.

Removed from the spirtitual angle, the little of KAnada I've read reads like an extract from a physics text .

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 14:29

Development of Quantum Mechanics [Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics and Schrödingers's Wave Mechanics]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger

The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.

Walter J. Moore in Schrödinger: Life and Thought (1989) ISBN 0521437679

Indian influences on Quantum Dynamicsby Dr. C. P. Girija Vallabhan International School of Photonics at Cochin
University of Science and Technology

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Mar 2010 14:53

Murugan wrote:Development of Quantum Mechanics [Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics and Schrödingers's Wave Mechanics]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger

The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.

Walter J. Moore in Schrödinger: Life and Thought (1989) ISBN 0521437679

Indian influences on Quantum Dynamicsby Dr. C. P. Girija Vallabhan International School of Photonics at Cochin
University of Science and Technology

Concepts of 'all in one' or such is not actual science. As Rahul said the reasoning structure is similar but it is not the actual content of modern physics.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 15:08

pray tell me what is actual science (and not so actual science)

my post was that the theory in question has roots in Vedant. Now the very reliable links actually at least points to at least the influence on the theory.

i rephrase : Quantum Mechanic theory and theorists have been ifluenced by Vedant.

i also want to know why vedant is a religious philosophy? which religion it promotes? is vedant a religion or a philosophy? enlighten me.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 15:17

actual content of modern physics

the sentence should be... actual content of modern western physics... - whatever is propogated by west is our benchmark and final truth. western = some rich european and north american nations. remaining west is wa...

all the other stupid non-western theories should be compared with west, western science, western management, western ettiquettes, western languages - western are the only actual sciences and lifestyle all other are religious or ineffective/useless pieces.

if a vendatist proposes a theory it automatically gets religious connotations and discarded as no modern science.

even definition of science is what a westerner will propose and happily accepted by non- westerners.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 15:30

murugan ji, no need to go off the handle. my own thoughts are not that different from the ones you posted later and not what you are alluding to.

I agreed to this :

i rephrase : Quantum Mechanic theory and theorists have been ifluenced by Vedant.

but not to

Quantum Mechanics indeed has roots in vedant philosophy.

I can explain if you want.

I daresay you will find the first page of our physics thread very interesting. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &sk=t&sd=a

we continue further discussions there if you want.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 05 Mar 2010 15:35

Rahulji

point taken

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 05 Mar 2010 21:28

viv wrote:
Hindutva to Doningeritva -- you really swing wide .

There are extremes that you should be easily able to ignore, some reject outright, others verify and still others accept.

I am not a follower of "Donigeritva", I don't agree with her on many things, but she makes very good arguments about others. But yes, I do swing wide! My point is that from my experience Hindutva has been obsessed with showing how Hinduism and Sanskrit is "scientific". I have had a good time deconstructing that.

viv wrote: That Kanada talked of anu/parmanu ie. atomic substances is true but it is not the same as modern atomic theory. He did not state the 92/105 elements but 4 conceptual ones - air, water, fire, earth etc. Similarly, his school had the concept of light as some particle that impinges on the eye - a corpuscular theory of light. Is it the same as what we understand now - photons? No. Possibly those making claims of quantum mechanics neither know the past nor the present state of physics.

Yes, there is a big leap between saying a conception of the atom or photons existed to linking it to the modern conception. There have been many different theorists who suggested light consisted of discrete particles. Of course they are not the modern theory.

viv wrote: The point is that there are elements of good physics but not how we understand it now. It is not always Democritus or Archimides; it sometimes is also Kanada or Aryabhatta.
One is not off by claiming a level of physics in Vedanta - afterall the above is from one of the schools of Indian philosophy called Vaisheshika claiming inspiration from the Vedas.

I agree with the bolded that different ideas in the development of knowledge have to be acknowledged including non-Western ones that are usually ignored, but that does not mean that one can truthfully assert "Quantum mech. comes from vedanta".Why does a inspiration from the Vedas imply there is a level of physics in Vedanta?

What is certain is that in the late 19th century to the early 20th century there was a surge in Orientalist scholarship (the same one that Said targeted) in Germany and the US along with Britain, when people such as Muller and later Whitney and Lanman made Sanskrit works available to westerners. At that time, among some of the intelligentsia there was a surge in interest in Hinduism and Sanskrit, and scientists from Mendeleev to Oppenheimer (who I believe learned Sanskrit from Lanman) were quite likely influenced or inspired by Indic values, including Vedanta. That is where I believe this idea originates. But of course, that is not true for all scientists in that period.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 06 Mar 2010 00:35

"OK.
Just a back of the envelope calculation (very back of the envelope )

Indias suicide rate is 11 per 100K and murder rate is 2.82 per 100K."

Any idea how this compares with other countries? Is it above or below the average. We do hear in the media of many suicides by students cracking under the pressure to get very high marks.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Mar 2010 00:51

reading back on previous posts :
(1) before claiming only "industrialization' and "industrial revolution" as the source of foundational wealth for the Europeans - do please look up the alternative theories of primary capital accummulation based on the profits of the slave trade, the triangular Atlantic trade and its role financially as well as as innovation-wise in the development of the iron-industry, the financing and circulation of profits in continental Europe through Dutch and other banking networks, etc. Investigate intensive exploitation of domestic labour including child labour in the initial capital formation stage.
(2) Before going onto "technological" innovative genius from the European side - think of why all the major technological innovations that laid the groundwork for the so-called "industrial revolution" only really took off after the beginning of "colonization" of South asia and the East. Investigate the type of "looms" and weaving technologies available before in Europe, and where the innovations came in from.
(3) Any "capitalist leap" require stwo fundamental starting points - even the funding to research innovation - comes from an "assured/captive" market, and startoff capital. Investigate where these came form, and exactly at what period of time they really took off for Europe.
(4) As for science, part of the conceptual paradigm shifts happened because new experimental findings had to be explained. But most of these "paradigm shifters" appear to have arrived after the translation of science/maths and philosophical works of the east into European languages as well as strangely - especially those involved in "physics" - seem to have quite a good exposure to Indian ideas.
(5) As to why the Indians themselves failed to build upon their earlier advances in understanding, just plot the geographical vicinities of known innovators in time. You will see a steady shift towards the south. Earlier centurioes have them evenly distributed all over the subcontinent. The further you go in time, the less and less you hear about them from the north. Is it any coincidence that innovators appear to "die" out as Islam spreads in rashtryia power from the north (not mere presence as in Kerala)?

How far do we have to sink to whitewash the real criminals?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Mar 2010 12:22

brihaspati wrote:reading back on previous posts :
(1) before claiming only "industrialization' and "industrial revolution" as the source of foundational wealth for the Europeans -
(2) Before going onto "technological" innovative genius from the European side - think of why all the major technological innovations that laid the groundwork for the so-called "industrial revolution"
(3) Any "capitalist leap" require stwo fundamental starting points -
(4) As for science, part of the conceptual paradigm shifts happened because new experimental findings had to be explained. m\
(5) As to why the Indians themselves failed to build upon their earlier advances in understanding, just plot the geographical vicinities of known innovators in time.

How far do we have to sink to whitewash the real criminals?

Good post