Bharat Rakshak

udaym wrote:Rsangram -- thanks for sharing yr experience, but I'm bit puzzled by the challenge you have presented at the beginning, conclusion drawn, and WU. So, please apologize if I fell short in understanding. How is the challenge of finding a solution to trash pickup related to you feeling content about end solution, you getting used to that solution, and WU? From what you are saying, it looks like for a small sum the trash stopping being your problem and it became someone else's problem (whether they recognize it or not). How did it make your community better? If the trash rots in hot & humid climate and leads to dangerous deceases, are those deceases going to stop spreading in your neighborhood, because it is no longer your trash? And, when did the pursuit of finding better solutions to improve life become authority of the west?

Garbage and India is always a good topic for discussion. Let me make a completely off topic post

It is my right to get rid of the garbage I generate and dispose of it in a place that does not bother me. I would be quite happy to put it in front of my neighbour's yard, but he will pick a fight with me. So I put it in front of my yard. If my neighbour is bothered about the garbage in front of my yard, it is not aimed at him and being in front of my yard, my garbage is geographically as far away from him as I can put it. In fact his own garbage and the garbage generated by every home is in front of the respective home from where it originates.

Does the garbage actually cause a problem? Not that I can see. No one seems to be falling sick in the neighbourhood. Anyway, birds crap, dog crap and cow crap, dry leaves and rotting leftovers carried into every yard by crows are there in every house and it all dries up and rots away in the hot Indian weather and only the plastic is left. Maybe we just get rid of plastic. But wait - plastic is collected by ragpickers. They make a living out of it - so leaving my plastic out for them is altruistic.

If you don't like the garbage in front of your house - please keep it inside, or get rid of it somewhere else. The government is not going to do anything. The government is for revenues. The government (for example in Bangalore) pays a private contractor to take 2000 lorry loads of garbage a day and dump it in a landfill in a village outside Bangalore. The private contractor actually takes only 1000 lorry loads per day and the money paid for the extra 1000 loads (from tax revenues) is shared between the private garbage contractor and the city corporation government officials who awarded him the contract.

Complaining about my neighbours and garbage does not help. Complaining that the government official is corrupt invites the accusation that I am a Congress party or AAP worker who is making fake accusations against the local BJP corporator. The local BJP corporator has been specially selected by the BJP because he represents the local scheduled caste community and gets their votes. The garbage is collected from that neighbourhood (among the 1000 lorry loads that are actually cleared every day). It is only not collected from my area which consists of a mix of wealthy people who will not vote for the current corporator. Why the local corporation elections should involve national political parties is a mystery. The same party that fails to clear my garbage and steals my tax money is guarding my country's frontiers. I will ignore my garbage and pollution and vote for the frontiers. Let the inside rot - the frontiers should be guarded.

In my next post I will tell you what is happening at the village that sits next to the garbage dump that gets 1000 lorry loads of garbage a day (less than the 2000 lorry loads that it is supposed to get)

udaym wrote:Rsangram -- thanks for sharing yr experience, but I'm bit puzzled by the challenge you have presented at the beginning, conclusion drawn, and WU. So, please apologize if I fell short in understanding. How is the challenge of finding a solution to trash pickup related to you feeling content about end solution, you getting used to that solution, and WU? From what you are saying, it looks like for a small sum the trash stopping being your problem and it became someone else's problem (whether they recognize it or not). How did it make your community better? If the trash rots in hot & humid climate and leads to dangerous deceases, are those deceases going to stop spreading in your neighborhood, because it is no longer your trash? And, when did the pursuit of finding better solutions to improve life become authority of the west?

Read Shiv's post, immediately preceding this one. He answered your question. I could not have said it better.

Time to sit out toilets, garbage, gutters, etc.
Simbly a matter of happily successful or successfully happy
What is the big deal about Western Universalism when Indians can argue Eternally and Universally onlee!

shivji,
I know I am yet to write out the remaining arguments: but I couldnt help noting a curious but perhaps not unexpected thing.

Much of the arguments about the "universal applicability" of western ideas, concepts, models, norms seems to be deliberately argued on biological and physiological similarities of the human species.

Somehow, medical and physiology related issues, even public health issues, being broadly similar across all subgroups of humans (but of course serious differences have to be papered over for arguments sake) out of shared genetics - and responds similarly to the same medical/public health procedures - is thereby extended as an automatic basis of universally applicable ideas on broader social features, arising out of apparent success of the biological/medical aspects of the "west".

That in itself is a relic of Victorian determinism - biology determines society and ideology. Ironically those who are touting this, are likely very very aware that the origins of western universalism lie in their efforts to deny universality of social norms. Biology/physiology and medicine was used with great enthusiasm to find differences rather than similarities between groups of humans and more to distinguish and separate out the European from the rest. It was an unintended consequence of that aspiration as research led to contradiction of that aspiration, but such contradiction needed the breakdown and exhaustion of older colonialism to finally emerge as a viable candidate for universalism. Even then, the very nature of the IE language origins debate, AIT theories, disputing paleogenetic indicators - goes on even now - hotly even under cover of "universal" academic norms.

From biology and genetics to ideology, social structure, ideas about society and human imagination, thought, philosophy, is a huge jump - which is being made here rather dishonestly.

Bji,
Awesome insight. Please tweet.

Please pardon me for the digression that I made above, but I will try and make amends - and try and speak of the connection between garbage, Indians, rights (animal rights and human rights), culture and localism/universalism

I will start with a few philosophical questions.

Are human rights a "top down" affair where rights are imposed by an authority above you (i.e. the rights can also be restricted by that authority above you)?

Or are human rights the rights that an individual takes for himself as a free born human, with no regard for, and an intention to fight against any "authority" who tries to impose a different version of "rights" upon the individual?

I will only say that "individual rights" that an individual arrogates for himself are always the primary rights that all humans take. A child will grab things that "belong" to someone else and mess up what someone else has done until he is taught that everything does not belong to him. Animals also do that. Squirrels and birds do not give a rats ass that you have spent time and effort looking after your fruit trees at home. But human rights are restricted by laws that can be called a "moral code"

Most humans are taught a moral code in which his own rights are restricted for the larger good of society. A moral code is mostly restrictions of rights. They are laws that tell you where your rights end. "Respect your parents and elders" (You are not free to kick them in the ass and throw them out). "Do not covet your neighbour's wife" (You are not free to lust after her and try and get yourself up there).

Whatever the moral code/restriction of rights may be, the rights and restrictions differ from society to society. You cannot simply pick up the rights and moral code of one society and declare them as "universal" without taking into account how another society may have become accustomed to thinking over thousands of years. It is totally wrong to impose a moral code and say that these are rights. Moral codes are never rights. They are restrictions of rights. Rights are what the human chooses for himself. Morality is what stops him from taking (or doing) what he wants.

For Hindus, the only moral code is dharma. Dharma is the only restriction of rights that Hindus have. As long as a Hindu follows the rules of dharma he is free to do anything for himself. But this is a very simplistic "Dharma for idiots" description. Dharma demands that Hindus must do their duty. But duties were divided up among humans. It is the duty of some people to be soldiers. Others will be priests or teachers. Others will be potters, carpenters, workmen. Still others will be cleaners.

In the idealized (imagined or real) Hindu society, everyone will do his duty. The soldier will so his job, the teacher teaches, the priest worships, the carpenter carpents the potter pots and the cleaner cleans. The priest is not trained to be a soldier, nor is the potter going to make metal tools. None of them are going to do the cleaning. "Cleaning" a.k.a. garbage and sewage disposal among Hindus was given to a particular community of humans. It was the duty of that community of humans to do the garbage collection in Hindu society. As long as everyone in Hindu society did his duty, he had some personal freedoms. Both the priest and the garbage man could lust after his neighbour's wife, or for that matter each others' wives. These was no restriction on that. The onus of chastity was not a demand placed on the man not to covet another woman. The onus was on the woman not to take on another partner.

There was no such thing as "western society" for most of human history. What we call western society today - until very recently was Christian society. What Chrsitianity did was to deprive all humans of all rights other than that dictated by an imagined super-human called "God" Human's nominally had rights as long as they were not tripped up by God's laws. In practice the presence of large numbers of unbelievers or different Christian sects allowed looting, pillage etc so that individual desires could be fulfilled while still keeping within God's laws. Christian societies, in about 2000 years got accustomed to following a Christian moral code. Christian and Islamic codes, translated into Hindu terms would be: For Christians and Muslims it was allowable to do everything to the unbelievers that Hindus did only to people from the outside (outcastes) or the lowest castes.

A Christian looking at Hindu society would have seen 100% unbelievers. 100% outcastes. 100% people who were destined for eternal damnation. When he looked more closely at this pagan society he found that some pagans were treated worse than others. That rang alarm bells. How can all unbelievers not be equal? That is how the Hindu "religion" was codified as not respecting human rights. It was always OK for believers to treat unbelievers as inferior. But among the upper caste believers (or among the lower caste unbelievers) everyone ought to be equal. All the slaves taken from other lands, the wealth looted and the famines provoked by western Christian (and Islamic) expansionism were never human rights problems. The global inequality that still exists as a consequence of that are also not human rights issues. But western morality is supposed to be universal.

This is not to say that Indian society got it all right. India just did things differently. Indians do not like garbage. They throw it as far from themselves as they can. Further disposal is dependent of the garbage disposal system. The traditional garbage disposal system in Hindu India was a set of people whose job it was to do that. Hindus did not specifically try to make the lives of garbage disposal people any better. They rationalized that it was the karma of those people to be born into such a life to pay some karmic dues. if they did their duty (of garbage disp[osal) right, their next life (if any) would be better. In fact there are animal societies that operate like this. But there is no known animal moral code that "feels sorry" for one type of worker and accuses another type of worker as being racist or casteist.

It was the western system that came via Christian morality that disrupted the garbage collection social system of India. That has not been replaced yet by a government run system. Indians are partly at fault. A very large percentage of Indians feel that it is not their duty to clean up garbage or rubbish. That has to be done by someone else. That "someone else" system is not working well. AIIMS students, medical students who see themselves at the apex of the social tree demonstrate against reservation by holding brooms - imagining that they are "reducing themselves" to the level of sweeper. It is a Freudian indicator of the social perceptions of Indians.

More and more educated and urban Indians do their own garbage disposal. It was this group that the Aam Aadmi party appealed to with their "jhaadu" (broom) symbol. It is no coincidence that the AAP was targeting urban rot and was accused of not being nationalistic. The nationalistic national parties (BJP and INC) have never got local government right and depend on religion or caste vote banks. But Indians vote as groups, as castes, as Yadavs, as Brahmins. Not as individual. So are INC and BJP "Indian" parties. Or are they universal because they stand for democracy?

Daaktar saaheb, wonderful diagnoses, let me see if I got it right -
Groups follow Dharma in India and do their duty per their Ashrama/Varna/Jati affiliations.
In this they find their happiness and their success.

WU and adherents of it are the ones that have takleef with the situation above - correct?
So, whose father what goes of WU onlee!

Pulikeshi wrote:Daaktar saaheb, wonderful diagnoses, let me see if I got it right -
Groups follow Dharma in India and do their duty per their Ashrama/Varna/Jati affiliations.
In this they find their happiness and their success.

WU and adherents of it are the ones that have takleef with the situation above - correct?
So, whose father what goes of WU onlee!

Pulikeshi your interpretation of my posts is all balls - frequently specious - couched in what is disguised as wise brevity. It often sounds like trolling to me. If you really want me to answer anything you will have to attempt more clarity. If you don't want an answer and are posing comments as questions - you are trolling. You do not spend time explaining yourself but ask cryptic questions. I believe you need to spend more time framing what you mean by questions. Use less jargon or explain the jargon you use. But you are not showing any inclination to do that, unless gravely provoked, which usually pushes you into a sulking lurk mode.

I don't know what the fuk "duty per their Ashrama/Varna/Jati affiliations" means. Your words. YOU have to explain them. Please don't claim that I said that. You say "In this they find their happiness and their success." Would you be able to show me where I said that or else please accept my critique that you are making up bunkum. Trolling in my view.

Your 2 sentence summaries of long posts seems to me like you are telling me in 5 words what I wrote in 1000 words. That makes me feel you are mocking me. I am OK with trolling except that I have generally tried not to treat your posts as trolling. But I might learn, as time passes. I just stop paying attention to trolls. I will be myself. i realise that you too will be yourself. I just have to figure out what you are trying to be.

You ask

WU and adherents of it are the ones that have takleef with the situation above - correct?

Not correct.

shiv wrote:

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: I will also recommend the works of T.N. Madan. He is an Indian academic and his works are well respected even amongst the defenders of Indian Secularism - but strictly in the academic domain and not political. Most of his works are off line and in old fashioned books. Attached are some that I have read and have liked. For a counter part to him defending the secularist narrative, recommend Rajeev Bhargava.

http://www.flipkart.com/religion-india- ... fb4c163851

http://www.flipkart.com/modern-myths-lo ... 74a7148890

Still going through this one...

http://www.flipkart.com/family-kinship- ... e8cbf40e9f

I already have a huge list of books available with me physically or electronically to read and you are adding to that list!

T. N. Madan, Sociological Traditions: Methods and Perspectives in the Sociology of India 2011 is available from the usual shady places

^^ This is the second time you seem to have taken my response rather incorrectly and lectured me.
All I was attempting to do was a quick purva pasksha understanding of what you were saying before posting my thoughts.
If you really think I am trolling, please feel free to put me on your ignore list... or report my post!

Just like you are not understanding my questions, I am not understanding your answers!

Very briefly - the nature and behavior of human and groups in resource rich environment is very different from that in conditions of scarcity. I see behaviors of humans, groups and their actions changing accordingly, this is true irrespective of the type of contract that exists in the social, national, company or any other fabric.
That is the contract could be between citizen and state, individual/group and among themselves, individuals and family, professional and their corporation, etc. My question was to understand if you were saying that in India, Dharma somehow changes human behavior?

Saraswathi Sindhu civilization also had notions of keeping urban areas clean, that too was in India.
In the old Mysore state and even into the early part of Independent India, there existed a rather interesting system of a conservancy street between every row of houses. This was used primarily for sewage and removal of refuse and garbage. Today none of these by-lanes have survived the pressures of population, etc. They have been taken over for regular traffic in many cases. In a low population density India, there is no way to know if people had different personal space expectations. etc.

Another digression, if and when I get a chance to go running, I have to walk through some of the same neighborhoods that have lost their conservancy streets. The city workers and others meticulously sweep the streets clean every morning without a complaint, and the city dwellers throw their refuse on the same street completely ignoring the said workers hard effort. One such trip after some rains, there was a large branch from a tree on the street. We noticed it on the way to the park... on the way back, later that morning as more people were on the street, we noticed them moving around the fallen branch, the autos and cars went around the people, and the buses around them and so on and so forth... A friend who was with me that morning said, lets move it... as we got to it, a city worker came to help, next came two kids going to a nearby school and the said branch was transported some distance to garbage truck pick up spot (it was promptly removed by the next day)... all this does not mean much to me in terms of WU or SD... There are Brahmins running toilets in India today and lowly Shudras running the government, to me it is just human actions (Karma) under conditions of plenty or scarcity...

Like I have said repeatedly, imho, all schools of SD nastika or astika are really expositions of Karma and its consequences and in this there is no conclusion, only various states of argumentation. Notice in the Purushartha (Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha) Karma is never mentioned, but for me it is intentional.
This right and duty based discussion is interesting, but I have a hard time translating those two words into anything meaningful in terms of Karma in the Indian languages that I know. Duty perhaps, as Kartavya - what should be done.

Dharma for me is not based on either of those two words as they are tied to consequences.
Hope that explains my view better...

Pulikeshi I am not surprised that you did not understand my answer. There was no answer there because i wasn't answering anyone's questions. I was simply posting my thoughts. I usually take the trouble to quote the question if I believe I have an answer.

However you have posted a question:

My question was to understand if you were saying that in India, Dharma somehow changes human behavior?

I do not recall saying anything that would make anyone reach that conclusion. The thought did not even cross my mind. If you would take the trouble to post a quote from what I said that made you think that I may have said something of the sort, I might be able to clarify further.

As it happens I don't understand the following quote from you at all and do not know what connection it might have with anything I have written. I would be grateful if you could take the trouble to state what you mean.

Like I have said repeatedly, imho, all schools of SD nastika or astika are really expositions of Karma and its consequences and in this there is no conclusion, only various states of argumentation. Notice in the Purushartha (Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha) Karma is never mentioned, but for me it is intentional.

As for this:

This right and duty based discussion is interesting, but I have a hard time translating those two words into anything meaningful in terms of Karma in the Indian languages that I know. Duty perhaps, as Kartavya - what should be done.

I may not be able to help you here. I am simply going to post my thoughts here.

As far as I am concerned, rights are "all possible actions that a human can take" and duties are "righteous actions that a human should ideally undertake". The latter is a subset of the former. But my viewpoint assumes that a human is born with the right to do anything he pleases - even be a bigot, murderer or rapist if he wants. He can choose to do that or perform righteous actions.

One time the point about rights came up in my posts was in connection with traffic in India. India has had roads for at least 5000 years. Some form of vehicular transport has been there for at least that long. It cannot be claimed that Indians are new to the concept of roads and traffic. A system of traffic movement that demands that everyone going in one direction should move on one side of the road and people going in the opposite direction should move on the other side of the road has not existed in India. The idea might be a good one, but it is still an idea that has been imposed on Indians who already have ways of dealing with their unique traffic where the motor vehicle is simply one among many other road users, including human and animal carts and animals themselves. Indians see it as common sense to move left or right as necessary and see it as a restriction of rights if something absurd is imposed. It simply may not be possible to herd all goats to exactly the left side of the road every time. If it is easier to move them right, it is common sense to do that and let others move around. Insisting that goats should be on the left and traffic overtake them on the right is plain stupid. It is one of the rights in India to own a herd of goats and take them along a road of course. I will leave out the cows and rights discussion for a later date.

The second time I brought up rights was the question of right to dispose of garbage or sewage. It is a universal right to be allowed to defecate, urinate and dispose of garbage. It is only a question of where the material is to be released or disposed that is debatable. If you look at the fundamental and universal right to life, the right to breathe, eat and defecate come bundled with the right to life. Urinating exactly at the spot that one feels the urge is practised by most animals. Humans are taught not to do that. That is in fact an example of a moral code imposed by humans on each other that restricts one's rights. After holding back what is their right to release, humans have to find an appropriate time and place to release it.

if one is alone in a jungle or somewhere in the countryside, the release time may be flexible, but one's choices are limited to "somewhere out in the open". No built up toilets.

If one is in the city the right to defecate or urinate theoretically offers many more opportunities, but in practice one is restricted a lot more. In the city one could defecate or urinate anywhere - like dogs do, or one could choose a suitable toilet. In practice laws stop people from doing it anywhere and demand that people should find a toilet. That seems very civilized, but it means building toilets for everyone and providing water to flush. So the "universalism" of toilets for all comes with a restriction of freedom and financial + water resources baggage.

I am not suggesting that it is or right to crap anywhere morally or in any other sense, but restrictions on where one ought to crap need to come with opportunities for people to crap in the right places. If you cannot provide them with the facilities, people will do what is their right to do - which is take a crap anywhere they can. People crap outside in India not because they are dirty people. They are simply exercising a fundamental human right in presence of moral and physical restraints on their fundamental right to crap. It is a right to crap. It is a duty to crap hygienically in a toilet. But if the latter is unavailable, does that make one dirty? Is it a restriction of fundamental rights if one does not have access to a toilet?

The "rights" vs "morals" game:

This game is played between the individual and the group, and the complication is the fact that individual also belongs to the group, but an individuals perception of that belonging might not coincide with other individuals perception of belonging, or even their definitions of what characterizes the group.

My journey into game theory began with a rather innocent first year debate on why almost every society frowns morally on "coveting neighbour's partner" while there seems to a definite tendency in a large number of individuals towards getting attracted to the neighbour's partner. [Note I extend it also to wives on neighbour's husbands]

Without knowing anything of Von Neumann/Nash, I argued that if the individual had roughly equal desire to possess the neighbour's partner, while at the same time, to prevent possession similarly of his/her own partner by the neighbour - and an additive vote is taken to decide on society's attitude on this, then in a population of N individuals,

(a) if an individual votes for his/her own right to neighbour's partner, and against others right to his/her partner, then each individual faces N-1 votes in favour of other's rights to his/her partner, with only 1 vote against. Society's attitude becomes free rights by all to have their neighbours partner.

(b) if an individual votes against others right to his/her partner, then each individual faces N-1 votes against his/her rights to other's partners. Society's attitude becomes no rights by any to have their neighbours partner.

Of course these are highly idealized situations. Many escape routes possible. In fact if one explores these escape routes one can trace all the moral twists and dilemmas as they leave their track in religions.

One escape route is of course queering the voting procedure, so that not everyone has equal vote weight. This is what happens in the various exceptions found to the moral codes, and why no moral codes are universal in their scope or application. So a certain religions founder is given the right of exception to have 9 "wives" when others can have at most 4. Why did this have to happen, because morals are after all a manifestation of existing structures of power. The dilemma of "exceptions" arises because in trying to make very temporary, and power-equation based "rule" into a "universal" one, thereby having to make it equally applicable on all regardless of pre-existing power-equations, one has to provide "exceptions". If the very basis of legitimacy and acceptability of a rule is promoted on the claim of it being "universally applicable" then the departures from the "universality" will also have to be legitimized.

The convolutions, twists, flights of fancy (suprahuman authority ordered me to rape/abduct you before your husband after my momeen raided you as allies at night on a surprise attack- moi poor abdul, unable to deny authority), downright chicanery (not all races were created equal, so universally morally upright we Brits who make whores out of Vaishnavis and all sorts of women based on our soldiers claim of having contracted STD from girls not even let out of the house - simply by definition of the law - or we as commaders of Brit armies give formal written orders to find "fresh"==young enough not have chance of being raped and contracted STD from our morally upright boys, young girls from neighbouring villages by force to stock army brothels) - all come in because of this falsity of the "universal".

The fact that morals evolve as a temporary compromise between individuals and groups, depending on existing equations of power is often ignored in our analysis. Net result is a complete failure to see that the very fact that the "universal" is always broken, with exceptions always made in favour of the "powerful", shows that "universal" is nothing but a clever attempt at legitimizing both the disempowerment of the powerless, as well as empowering the powerful.

What pre-Abrahamic incursion Hindu society appears to have done is recognize this dynamic of individual versus group and allowed a flexibility in both direction where what largely works for the large majority of a society is held on, while individual innovation is also recognized as essential ingredient of the very process of formation of a social consensus, and necessary course corrections as and when they arise.

The whole of Mahabharata is in one sense an attempt to figure out the dynamic between individual rights, innovation and collective/group and hence pre-existing morality. Note that neither Krishna, the innovator, nor the conservatives - Bheesma and even Pandavas to an extent or the Kuru clan in general, are lambasted one-sidedly or without sympathetic understanding even if rejected. By allowing for a concept of periodic accumulation of departures from reality and necessity out of holding onto rules evolved at a past point of time, so that course corrections are needed - this allows for a stable equilibrium for long periods of time where collective rules, but also allows for radical innovation and new interpretations of old principles through individuals or visionaries.

Bji, Did you read Schopenhauer's essay on opposites attracting?

On Abrahamic justification of rape and pillage of non Convenanted folks its about empowering the subalterns and the repressed. IOW the cults allow all that is not permitted by Sanathan Dharma.

After collapse of Christianity, these are re-packaged as Western Universalism which is oxymoron. If its Universalism then why does it have a direction!

Minor tangential nitpick:
In India the following rule holds true in general:

In the cities there is a scarcity of useful things and abundance of useless things. This phenomenon dies down as one goes to villages and scales up as one goes to bigger and bigger cities. Useful things being: Roads, Water tanks, Infrastructure, Garbage collection. Useless things being: Garbage, Nehruvian Bureaucracy, Middlemen etc.

The answer to this riddle is: Almost all Indian cities were Kabila/Garrison cities that were expanded and/or built by invaders who had no long term interests in the nation. Mumbai, Dilli, Calcutta, Bengaluru etc. There was no natural and indic city left by the time the plunder of India was over. I read somewhere that between 1920s and 1940, the city of Manchester in the UK had more money poured into public works than the entire Indian subcontinent combined (I dont have the reference handy unfortunately).

When these garrison cities were turning into economic powerhouses people from villages end up moving into the cities and behave and expand the population of the city. Since the administration of the city is not bothered to accommodate these people, the city grows organically, and that entails violence, filth and everything we come to associate with as far as Indian cities go.

People who transplant themselves into cities behave in cities as they do in villages, there is nothing wrong with it, except that one needs a radically changed mindset when living in a dense region. In any remote village in India, one shits at a corner of a far away field. Thats the way it was for centuries. My grandfather did it, my father did it, I have done it as well. Indians never had to live in large concentrations for centuries either. When we did have to live in concentrations like Harappan cities, we did have a proper drainage systems that were appropriately designed for the population that was living in those places. There is limited research on the hygiene situation on Indic cities that were built entirely by Indians. The Briturds are quick to blame us for it, despite being the very reason the cities are where they are.

Invasions and garrisoning changed the face of Indic cities and this garrison mentality continues to this day. Example Bangalore and Hyderabad. Bangalore expands to atleast twice its size in summer because most youngsters in the central-north Karnataka have to stop working in agriculture due to hot weather and no water. Since they have to find work, they move to the city (Bangalore/Hyderabad) and take up odd jobs. This seasonal exodus is humongous (in millions), yet no one bothers to study it or make accommodations for it.

You can argue the same about pretty much any city in India. They were not built for people to live in. So when one argues about Indian attitudes in cities, one needs to keep in mind that they are looking at Indic life in a highly distorted and highly negative situation that was imposed externally and one that our post-independence leaders were dumb enough to keep propagating. This applies to cities that grew after independence too, since we used the same 'blueprints' that the briturds used to "develop" newer cities.

The fact that despite such a crushing situation and such destitution, Indians in these cities try and make the most of their lives is a great testament to our identity as Indics. Any other culture would have seen extremely violent clashes in the cities by now.

My friend a civil engineer went to T A&M in the 70s and got a degree in OR. came back to a job a ASCII, Hyderabad. TO keep him occupied his boss gave him a job to model the city water pipe network. As I was guru, he brought the detail of pipes, layout etc. We were shocked at the puny water pipe diameter used for such an important city!!!

Confirms your thesis about garrison cities. Most of North India is Cantonment stations in locations of 1857 war. As to earlier cities built/occupied by Muslim invaders same story. Only new cities were: Lucknow, Hyderabad and a few cities here and there.

LokeshC wrote:
The fact that despite such a crushing situation and such destitution, Indians in these cities try and make the most of their lives is a great testament to our identity as Indics. Any other culture would have seen extremely violent clashes in the cities by now.

These cities have to be made Bhratiya cities with Bharat facilitites. This needs the knowledge of the Bharat society.

REJUVENATION OF THE CITIES

http://arisebharat.com/2013/11/20/idea- ... tegration/

Based on the same principle, several places are recognized as suitable centers for political, commercial, educational pursuits. With those centers as capitals Bharata achieved the heights of civilization and remained at a high point for several centuries. Takshasila, Kashmira, Kasi for instance have served consistently as educational centers, regardless of political ups and downs the country went through. Delhi served as a ‘cakrasthAna’ or the place of emperor and remained so in the Hindu psyche ever since Yudhisthira’s times, regardless of how many consolidations subsequently happened with different capitals. Even in their highpoints, the capitals of Vijayanagara and Maratha empires could not dislodge Hastina-Indraprastha as the cakrasthAna from the collective psyche.

http://urbanplanningblog.com/2007/08/20 ... ban-india/

In fact, it could be argued that the overbearing influence of the state is responsible for many of the problems which plague urban India. State continues to remain the largest landowner—worse, there is little distinction its role as a property developer and as a regulator. In cities like Delhi, government bodies like the Delhi Development Authority have completely monopolized urban development. Their extremely tardy performance—people sometimes have to wait for as many as 25 years for their cherished flat or a piece of land—has led to the growth of slums and illegal colonies. Land needs to be freed of government control and private developers should take the center stage. Along with it, legislative reforms are essential. Laws like the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA) and Urban rent Control Act( URCA) are dinosaurs from another era that need to be scrapped immediately. Unfortunately, special interest groups like the trader bodies have continued to resist reform. Considering that they have harmed the poor the most by sending land prices to astronomical levels, a government which ostensibly speaks for the aam aadmi should have no hesitation in removing them from statue books.

svinayak wrote:In fact, it could be argued that the overbearing influence of the state is responsible for many of the problems which plague urban India. State continues to remain the largest landowner—worse, there is little distinction its role as a property developer and as a regulator. In cities like Delhi, government bodies like the Delhi Development Authority have completely monopolized urban development. Their extremely tardy performance—people sometimes have to wait for as many as 25 years for their cherished flat or a piece of land—has led to the growth of slums and illegal colonies.

This is what I meant by abundance of Middlemen and Nehruvian bureaucrats in the garrison cities of India. These are the legacies of the middlemen and bureaucrats who worked for the invaders, Macaulay's children so to speak. These guys had no genuine interest in how other Indians lived, they only had interest in how much they could fleece everyone around them. Many did serve their masters dutifully. Regardless of their faithfulness towards their master, it is obvious that they had no concern for the rest of the Indians who had moved to those cities in search for a better life.

Since our independence movement was "peaceful" these people were never ejected or terminated with prejudice, instead they were rewarded with govt. postings. Colonial legacies like "collector", "Tehesildar", "police-walla" etc are still doing pretty much the same things they during the briturd/mughal times. The middlemen are also doing the same business. As far as a poor Indian who is moving to a city is concerned, independence from the briturds is a non event. He will still suffer the same way his ancestors who moved to the city before him.

Other than some structural changes here and there, India has largely remained frozen from colonial times. City development is one of them. We still have to leave colonialism behind in our cities and only after that can we analyze them properly.

LokeshC wrote:
People who transplant themselves into cities behave in cities as they do in villages, there is nothing wrong with it, except that one needs a radically changed mindset when living in a dense region. In any remote village in India, one shits at a corner of a far away field. Thats the way it was for centuries. My grandfather did it, my father did it, I have done it as well. Indians never had to live in large concentrations for centuries either. When we did have to live in concentrations like Harappan cities, we did have a proper drainage systems that were appropriately designed for the population that was living in those places. There is limited research on the hygiene situation on Indic cities that were built entirely by Indians. The Briturds are quick to blame us for it, despite being the very reason the cities are where they are.

Lokesh the problem goes further than that because of "modernization".

In pockets of Bangalore (such as where I live) we have now been segregating garbage for over a decade. Since I use separate bins/bags I can see that by volume, 80% of the garbage generated is dry waste like plastics, tetrapaks and cardboard/metal foil Only 20% is biodegradable "wet waste" These clog up the drains

Just 50 years ago there were almost no plastics in India and 90% of garbage was biodegradable in cities. In the villages you can imagine that 100% was totally biodegradable. If a dog shits on the path outside - the shit has degraded and disappeared in 1 week. But plastic bags lie around for months and can be dug up after years.

As regards water and Bangalore - collusion between government and private developers has caused construction of high rises on 75% of Bangalore's lake beds leading to a drop in the water table. The rush to modernize and take up what is universal is screwing us equally surely. Parts of Bangalore actually fall in an arid zone and the founder of Bangalore himself, Kempegowda had founded a system of about 120 interconnected lakes, most of which now have people and the interconnecting canals choked with plastics.

Shivji, thanks for lengthy posts. It takes time to put thoughtful posts.

You have touched on many topics in your last 3 posts. It is very difficult to post views on all, so I'll pick up the "moral code". There are 2 aspects to "moral code" for my simple mind, and I'm not an expert. With respect to Indics being forced into accepting foreign moral code of white baboons from centuries ago, no disagreements. With respect to "moral code" being limiting individual rights established by the Indics for Indics, I do have disagreement, but we will start with some questions to make sure I understood your views correctly. By the way, west also implements "moral code" among themselves. EU is a perfect example, which implements "economic moral code" for member states. Doubt too many disciplineless member states like it....but I digress.

Most humans are taught a moral code in which his own rights are restricted for the larger good of society. A moral code is mostly restrictions of rights. They are laws that tell you where your rights end.

Reading your posts, I got a feeling that you are not big fan of "moral code". Wonder how you feel about speed limit on highways. And, why does adoption of such a limit is implementing WU? If we want to adopt modern transportation alternatives, while retaining the right of bicycle riders, animal riders and average pedestrians to use the same roads, why it should not be the right of the antique riders to ensure their safety from accidentally getting killed from bigger and powerful modern transportation equipment; thus requiring govt. to enforce speed limits?

In the idealized (imagined or real) Hindu society, everyone will do his duty. The soldier will so his job, the teacher teaches, the priest worships, the carpenter carpents the potter pots and the cleaner cleans. The priest is not trained to be a soldier, nor is the potter going to make metal tools. None of them are going to do the cleaning. "Cleaning" a.k.a. garbage and sewage disposal among Hindus was given to a particular community of humans.

I recognize that it was how things were done in the past. Who decided that a job function is specific to a community? and why did they decide that? Who gave the job of cleaning human waste to a particular community? Is it because that once such norms were established it was one way other communities protected their competitive advantage by suppressing other community? If the next Ramanujan is born in that community that traditionally transported human waste, would it make sense for the child to carry ancestral duties?

Udaym

Reading your posts, I got a feeling that you are not big fan of "moral code". Wonder how you feel about speed limit on highways. And, why does adoption of such a limit is implementing WU? If we want to adopt modern transportation alternatives, while retaining the right of bicycle riders, animal riders and average pedestrians to use the same roads, why it should not be the right of the antique riders to ensure their safety from accidentally getting killed from bigger and powerful modern transportation equipment; thus requiring govt. to enforce speed limits?

No No. I have nothing against moral codes per se. They are, as brihaspati said, a balance between individual and group rights. All I have been trying to say is that the same moral code cannot be imposed on everyone as "universalism". The example of road indiscipline in India was simply an illustration of how even groups view the imposition of a code that seems to work well elsewhere as something that does not suit their situation. That makes "universalism" a buzz word that needs to be looked at critically.

I recognize that it was how things were done in the past. Who decided that a job function is specific to a community? and why did they decide that? Who gave the job of cleaning human waste to a particular community? Is it because that once such norms were established it was one way other communities protected their competitive advantage by suppressing other community? If the next Ramanujan is born in that community that traditionally transported human waste, would it make sense for the child to carry ancestral duties?

I don't know the answers here. If one believes what Naipaul said - Indian society was conquered because they had found all the answers that was suitable for them and had moved into a comfortable cocoon where nothing new was needed. I am not at all sure whether this is exactly right, partially right or wrong.

We tend to see ancient Indian society through a western lens. Even my post that you have quoted are the words of a man who is describing Indian society through a western lens.

I have found that anyone who tries to answer the questions you ask "through an Indian lens" has not always been convincing. I have some theories - they are in fact radical thoughts that are sure to cause dismay and anger if I write them out. I need to write them carefully if I do. I did put down a small hint in my post. Are worker ants "low caste". Do worker ants "aspire" to become something else? Is it a restriction of worker ants rights to keep them doing one job till death. The answer is simple - we are not ants. We are human. But what makes humans different from any other life form on earth?

Agree on the "moral code" being a balance. Do you think natural progression of human thought, logic, and eventual evolution of human being only a property of west? If that is not the case, why is reflecting on Indic ways of doing things necessarily a "reviewing using western lens"?

udaym wrote: Do you think natural progression of human thought, logic, and eventual evolution of human being only a property of west?

I have a problem with the part I have bolded and underlined.

In my view there is no exact answer. There is no guarantee that the Indian solutions for human society are or were the best. But I am increasingly beginning to feel that western concepts of human evolution in a particular way are a misguided idea.

Having grown up in India, the Indian way is "close to my heart" just as the Paki way would be close to a Paki's heart. It is easiest for me to take a stand that says "Oh the old Indian way was the perfect blend of individual human emancipation while maintaining a sustainable and environment friendly human society" But there can be no proof that this is correct. The old Indian way did not get us so many things that we find necessary and useful like air travel, computers, cellphones, reduced maternal and child mortality, general public health and an abundance of food and dominance of the human over the entire world and even over nature in a great many instances.

But the above "conquering of the earth and mastery over nature" is now extracting a price in terms of human and environmental health. Humans are healthier and better fed and longer lived than ever before, but there are also too many humans placing too much demand on the earth. Humans too are getting fatter and less fertile and generally moving towards a "universal" thought process that we rule the world and nature rather than "we are a part of nature". The examples from modern medicine are numerous but I will not go into that.

When I was young (1960s) I was completely sold on the idea that human endeavour would make humans evolve to conquer and dominate nature. It was thought that humans would be settling undersea and on the moon by the 1980s. We all believed that. Like ADA and our dear LCA Tejas, I think humans bit off more than they can chew. We are part of nature. We can only extract so much and no more. But how much can we extract? If we extract less, then all humans will not be able to reach certain "universal goals". If we extract too much as we are doing now - we are still not "winning".

Shivji, couple of follow up questions; and appreciate a thoughtful response for earlier posts.

Why does evolution must be dominated by the thought of "conquering", "winning", or "dominating" the nature? Who are human's winning against? Not sure I was try trying to win against something. If you get in pain, do you take a medicine to cure you pain or stay in pain because using modern medicine is "universalism"? If I'm in pain, why is it not my right to see a medicine that can cure me the best. And then, why is it not my right to pick from available medicine, seek the medicine that would work fast? Is that thinking "universalism"?

For example, in olden time, Rajas, if couldn't conceive a child, employed respected individuals, including Sadhus, to impregnate their wives, today it can be done using in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Today, if a couple is ever in need of such services, what do you think they would opt for? If affordable, would they have their own child using IVF or get the wife pregnant using your neighbor (or sadhu from temple) because the person hates IVF since it would imply looking at the problem/solution "universally"? The desire of the human being did not change over time, the available techniques changed.

If you think we are such a burden on nature and thinking universally, should we consider ending our life at age 60 (or whatever the avg. age was in olden times)? Because living beyond that would mean one is following western "universalism", because extended life enjoyed by modern humans would not have been possible without improved medicine and understanding of diseases. Why use "internet" and post on BRF? Lets use pigeons and shove a note up their ass. Isn't internet putting burden on nature and "biting off more than we can chew"?

When we speak of universalism and universal goals, there is almost nothing to argue. It's all good. At least that is what it seems for anyone who does not look deeper and "do the math". And those who look deeper and do the math do not have answers.

One needs to analyse, separately and individually, every single "universal" goal to see what effects it has on human populations on which it is applied.

For example, the right to life. This is such an obvious and universal right that no one should argue. Or so we think.

What does right to life actually mean, on the ground. It means that foetuses should not be lost during pregnancy, babies should survive childbirth and not die at all. Children should not die of infections and malnutrition. No one should be allowed to die as far as possible for any condition that has any treatment.

In practice what this does is put a huge demand on resources. For example, in India, a wealthy couple with a premature baby can see their child survive at a cost of several lakhs. The wealthy family with a 92 year old father will lose him only after they have spent several lakhs on medical treatment to keep him alive.

These facts throw up a moral dilemma. Should poor people have a lesser right to life than wealthier people? Should healthcare be paid for by someone else so that no individual has to bear the brunt and the whole of society is paying to keep premature children and children with some congenital defects alive, and to support elderly people to help them live till 92 and not let them die at 91? Or should wealth be declared universal? Make wealth a fundamental right. Everyone should be rich. Or should we make medical treatment to save life totally free. Doctors and nurses do not get paid. The high tech equipment and drugs come out of thin air. None of these solutions is either fair, satisfactory or implementable.

Does that mean that the universal goal "The right to life" is itself flawed because it cannot be applied to all? It might well be flawed in my view.

if anyone thinks he has an answer please post something.

udaym wrote:Shivji, couple of follow up questions; and appreciate a thoughtful response for earlier posts.

Why does evolution must be dominated by the thought of "conquering", "winning", or "dominating" the nature? Who are human's winning against? Not sure I was try trying to win against something. If you get in pain, do you take a medicine to cure you pain or stay in pain because using modern medicine is "universalism"? If I'm in pain, why is it not my right to see a medicine that can cure me the best. And then, why is it not my right to pick from available medicine, seek the medicine that would work fast? Is that thinking "universalism"?

For example, in olden time, Rajas, if couldn't conceive a child, employed respected individuals, including Sadhus, to impregnate their wives, today it can be done using in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Today, if a couple is ever in need of such services, what do you think they would opt for? If affordable, would they have their own child using IVF or get the wife pregnant using your neighbor (or sadhu from temple) because the person hates IVF since it would imply looking at the problem/solution "universally"? The desire of the human being did not change over time, the available techniques changed.

If you think we are such a burden on nature and thinking universally, should we consider ending our life at age 60 (or whatever the avg. age was in olden times)? Because living beyond that would mean one is following western "universalism", because extended life enjoyed by modern humans would not have been possible without improved medicine and understanding of diseases. Why use "internet" and post on BRF? Lets use pigeons and shove a note up their ass. Isn't internet putting burden on nature and "biting off more than we can chew"?

udaym - see my earlier post - just above this one.

You have posed the very questions that need to be posed when one argues against some aspects of universalism. I do not have any wholly satisfactory answers, but let me simply post some general thoughts and ideas I have had and leave it at that for now.

The philosophy of life followed by ancient Indian society left Indian society no better than animal society in its human condition, but every individual human was (in theory, if not in practice) equipped with the intellectual means to think beyond this world and this life and this existence.

From the western philosophical viewpoint this is all a whole cartload of bullshit - all this business of thinking beyond this life world blablabla. All that crap simply left India where it is today - a turd world nation with the world's highest levels of malnutrition, infant mortality etc. You get only one life. You must spend that life in great happiness. No hunger. No pain. No want. No cold. No excess heat. No drought. Safe water all the time. No death, if possible.

For that you have to do what it takes - and it takes a lot of intellectual effort and manual work. That is what has put the west where it is today. And that is the peak of human condition, and we can look forward to developed western societies going even higher - longer lives, even more wealth, even less causes to die from.

There is no serious argument against all this. Unless your own personal philosophy of life makes you think that living for one's own personal wealth, longevity and well being does not seem to be enough. You have to make your choice. IMO

I will just attempt a separate answer to this question from udaym

Who are human's winning against? Not sure I was try trying to win against something. If you get in pain, do you take a medicine to cure you pain or stay in pain because using modern medicine is "universalism"? If I'm in pain, why is it not my right to see a medicine that can cure me the best. And then, why is it not my right to pick from available medicine, seek the medicine that would work fast? Is that thinking "universalism"?

All of modern medicine is couched in words that indicate that it is all good. And it is, to a very large extent.

But modern "western" medicine has reached the following limits
1. It has "conquered and dominated" plants and bugs (bacteria and viruses) that cause disease that kill infants and children.
2. It prevents and delays death caused by mechanical complications (by advances in surgery). The mechanical block of a blood vessel that causes a stroke or a heart attack; the mechanical block of a baby's head stuck in the birth canal, relieved by Caesarean; the mechanical problems caused by expanding lumps of pus or cancer in the body, the mechanical problem of hernias causing death the mechanical issue caused by broken bones and many others
3. It is able to provide relief in acute situations of great pain and great danger to life.

Nothing in human history has ever come this far.

But modern medicine has one major problem. It is too expensive. If life is too precious to be lost, then no cost can be too high. This is a good philosophy for doctors and medical insurers. But modern medicine at its best will never be available to everyone on earth. It will never become "universal" in its current form.

shivji,

I can take your argument and turn it around:

I argue that Indic universalism (if there is such a thing), cannot be universal either. No philosophy can be universally applied to everyone. Not every would fit in a set structure. Now I may very well be making a mistake of looking at "What constitutes universalism?" in a very western way, so forgive me if I do.

I thought I understood where you were coming from but I see that I missed your point of view. I am now beginning to see that you are asking a much more fundamental paradigm shifting question, for which, like you, I have no answer.

LokeshC wrote:shivji,

I can take your argument and turn it around:

I argue that Indic universalism (if there is such a thing), cannot be universal either. No philosophy can be universally applied to everyone. Not every would fit in a set structure. Now I may very well be making a mistake of looking at "What constitutes universalism?" in a very western way, so forgive me if I do.

I thought I understood where you were coming from but I see that I missed your point of view. I am now beginning to see that you are asking a much more fundamental paradigm shifting question, for which, like you, I have no answer.

Let me make it worse.

Is it provable that the Indic view, that was worked on and which survived and maintained Indian society for about 5000 years is actually wrong in comparison to a set of "universalist" suggestions that have been made up in the last 100 years or so?

shiv wrote: Let me make it worse.

Is it provable that the Indic view, that was worked on and which survived and maintained Indian society for about 5000 years is actually wrong in comparison to a set of "universalist" suggestions that have been made up in the last 100 years or so?

You are making two assumptions here and I am not sure if you are aware of it or not.
1) You are assuming that anything that CAN evolve and has evolved is not universal, since it HAS to change.
2) In the last 5000 years Indic philosophies never evolved.

From the evidence that I know of (I am an absolute 0 in Indian history ). I think Indic philosophies were very dynamic and allowed dissent, Buddhism and Jainism for example. India turned Buddhist and back to Hindu in a matter of 800 years and all this happened before the advent of Islamic barbarians. The move to Buddhism was an act of defiance towards what passed for Sanatana Dharma at that point, until Adi Shankara was able to change the course of Hinduism in India.

So Indian society was indeed maintained in a very Indic framework which was constantly evolving. Only when there was an external civilizational shock through the waves of invasions did the evolution stop and everything got ossified and corrupted, a state from which to this day we have not recovered.

Now we dont even have a clean, consistent framework with historical continuity to evolve. We have a jigsaw of broken pieces some Indian stuff, Briturd stuff, Buddhist Stuff, Islamic Stuff all fighting for culture/mind space in India. Its everywhere and its fragmenting everything, the media, the news, the politicians, the artist, LokeshC, shiv etc. Its unfortunate, but thats the price we paid for getting colonized.

LokeshC wrote:

shiv wrote: Let me make it worse.

Is it provable that the Indic view, that was worked on and which survived and maintained Indian society for about 5000 years is actually wrong in comparison to a set of "universalist" suggestions that have been made up in the last 100 years or so?

You are making two assumptions here and I am not sure if you are aware of it or not.
1) You are assuming that anything that CAN evolve and has evolved is not universal, since it HAS to change.
2) In the last 5000 years Indic philosophies never evolved.

Actually it does not matter whether it evolved or not. "Something" survived and that something was diferent from what is being claimed to be universalism today.

So the argument goes as follows. Someone says "The west has given the world something that is new and unique, so its values need to be accepted as universal"

The Indian says, "Yes it has given much that is new, but is it sustainable and can it really be applied to all? We have a system that never reached all the heights of material glory of western civilization, but the values kept the society alive for 5000 years. I happen to think that is unique. What have you got for me in your universalism that can match that?"

The point is that Western universalism is no more universal than the Indian viewpoint. The material advancement of the west is not a consequence of western universal values. The promotion of those values as universal is a consequence of western success. That is all. You can have material success and push Indian values as universal if you like.

Caveat - following may sound like being targeted post, but I confirm it is not. The intent is generic. Other places I do not give the caveat may or may not be targeting .

...............

In the limited case of western medicine - I hope it is not contested that w.r.t. humans all it has done is give longer lives.

For healthier lives people still end up practicing yoga or some later day variant of it.

As an Indic, with the responsibility of maintaining my own heritage, I find it quite ok to share with the rest of the world things like counting and yoga, at least in the general sense. I special things I would still keep away from people I deem not fit to be shared with. So this whole construct that we should somehow be indebted to the west for the manna that it has showered on us is ab initio, crazy.

In any case, if we discount the JSF style management accounting that is going on the other threads then the basic rule of life is that debits and credits got to go together (Yo coconut - single entry too had the rights and obligations construct so do not even try arguing that line with me, instead be thankful that I am talking italian with you). Should you not, O coconut! in that case feel any sense of responsibility for the darker pestilence that your deeds have made the whole world suffer.

So perish the thought of being indebted to the west. Even in medicine they did what is characteristic of them.

A intersting plot of Dharma, Rights and Duty

What happened in 1934-35 that made Rights take off over Duty? Poor Dharma is not even a blip!

Totally OT:
The great Jack McCoy (TV show District Attorney in the show Law & Order) said in an episode,
"Man has only those rights he can defend".

I say, "Man has only those rights he can defend, and those duties he ought to deliver."

Do not know the the context of the above graph but instinctively, the slide downwards from 1870 for duty makes sense due to the education policy enacted, which essentially disbanded our traditional schools. For more on this read Dharampal. Also, the 1935 x-over makes sense to mark the introduction of the first constitution of India, post Morley-Minto, which introduced a formal rights based framework into the Indian polity, of course based on and by the British.

Added: The slide for duty started in 1820's and free fall from 1870's, also makes sense as it was about this time that the British had solidified their intrusions in Indian socio-economic, education and political institutions, especially in east and south India.

The whole constitution needs a change. We need to move towards a presidential system of governance with dharma (duties) as the focal point and not rights.

Pulikeshi wrote:A intersting plot of Dharma, Rights and Duty

What happened in 1934-35 that made Rights take off over Duty? Poor Dharma is not even a blip!

Artha Mulam Dharmyam. Since, there was no strong central Indic political power the question of Dharma's ascendancy in a socio-political sense would not arise? Does that explain the low marks to Dharma? Also, explains the slight ascendancy from Independence onwards?

Who made this graph and what was the context? --- OK - found the answer to my question. Interesting over lap of "works" out there, with what I posted.

Staying on "Western Universalism"

The West is now said to be the wealthiest and most powerful civilization known to man. Certain rights and guidelines, termed as "Universalism" have been widely implemented in the west and are sought to be spread around the world as a worthy example of what is right for all of mankind, as they are right for the west.

Let me make a list of a few examples of universalism to see the way in which these universal principles contributed to the great development of the west and learn how they may contribute to the development and enrichment of non western peoples.

Right to life
Right to equality of people of all colours and races
Freedom from slavery
Right to freedom
Rights over resources in one's land
Right to clean air and water

These are laudable principles, but you know what? None of these universal principles played any role whatsoever in making the west what it is. In fact the wealth and power of the west were augmented by abrogating and ignoring every single one of the hi falutin rights.

And after the west installed itself at the high table, these principles became easy to apply to their own societies. And having applied these principles in their own societies, other societies are now being judged on whether they do, or do not apply these principles.

If you (as I stated in an earlier post) examine each of these principles in detail, you will find that actually implemeting them is costly. Looting someone esle would be the easiest way of geting some things done, but guess what, looting has now been removed from the list of "universalisms"

To repeat a point I made, Western power and wealth were not created out of universalism. Adopting western principles of universalism is not necessarily going to make any country better, richer or more powerful. In fact it is going to keep a whole lot of countries down. If it comes to gaining national wealth and power, none of these universal principles are any good. The west too know damn well that these principles became applicable AFTER they all gained ascendancy.

Does all this mean that "Indian universalism" is the way to go? Not necessarily. It remains to be seen if the Indian model has value. I suspect it does - but only time will tell.

I don't know where you got the idea that these ideas created wealth and power. These ideas are a result of hundreds of years of strife and struggle, some of which is still going on today.

Pulikeshi wrote:A intersting plot of Dharma, Rights and Duty

What happened in 1934-35 that made Rights take off over Duty? Poor Dharma is not even a blip!

Totally OT:
The great Jack McCoy (TV show District Attorney in the show Law & Order) said in an episode,
"Man has only those rights he can defend".

I say, "Man has only those rights he can defend, and those duties he ought to deliver."

"Man has only those rights he can defend" - What a great and true saying. Need to remember that.

The graph is very interesting. The plot for "rights" remains relatively level from 1890 to 1960 after which it rises.

The plot for duty shows a steady decline from 1830.

Rights do not seem to have been particularly important until the colonies all gained independence. After that rights became important

TSJones wrote:I don't know where you got the idea that these ideas created wealth and power. These ideas are a result of hundreds of years of strife and struggle, some of which is still going on today.

Thank you. That is precisely the point I am trying to make, in case someone believes that these values will somehow translate into wealth/power.

A corollary of this is interesting. Perhaps wealth and power comes from suppressing these values and the maintenance of current global power structures will be threatened if these values are rejected?

ShauryaT wrote:Do not know the the context of the above graph but instinctively, the slide downwards from 1870 for duty makes sense due to the education policy enacted, which essentially disbanded our traditional schools. For more on this read Dharampal. Also, the 1935 x-over makes sense to mark the introduction of the first constitution of India, post Morley-Minto, which introduced a formal rights based framework into the Indian polity, of course based on and by the British.

Added: The slide for duty started in 1820's and free fall from 1870's, also makes sense as it was about this time that the British had solidified their intrusions in Indian socio-economic, education and political institutions, especially in east and south India.

Excellent post.

The slide for duty has not just been since 1870, to be fair, the rot started much earlier. Even before the Islamic invasions. Much before the Islamic invasions and the slide crossed the threshold into deadly, which then resulted in Islamic invasions and our relatively weak responses to it. By the time Islamic invasions started taking hold in India during Ghori's time, all the traditional, what you would call, "Dharmic" or "Established" Indic resistance had all but evaporated. It was not until the coming into prominence of a new warrior class called the Rajputs, that the resistance again came to fore. Although, some may argue that the Gurjar Pratiharas who resisted the Islamic invasions the hardest, and quite successfully for almost two hundred years, before they succumbed, were also Rajputs, but some evidence suggests that they were more Gurjars than Rajputs. But nevertheless, if you look at the period when the Sultanate was begining to take hold in Delhi, around 11th Century, all the traditional resistance and Indic institutions of resistance had pretty much dissipated. It then took time, a couple of centuries, for the Rajputs to emerge as a coherent resistance force and then the formation of the Sikh faith, revived the resistance and to a large extent the relative so called "moderation" of the Moghals compared to the Ghoris, the Tuglaqs or the Khiljis was due to this new resistance. If it werent for constant threat from this new resistance, the Moghuls too would have been even more active and brutal in converting us and we would have easily gone the Indonesian and the Malay way long ago. It is often said that at various times, the Rajputs mainly but even the Sikhs made accommodations with the Moghals and even accepted their overlordship, which is true, but the Rajputs and Sikhs sent enough of a message to the Moghals, that this truce or acceptance of overlordship is conditional and if the Moghals went too far in their atrocities or conversion, that there will always be a sword of resistance hanging over the Moghuls' heads. Not until Aurangzeb, did the Rajput resistance totally go to sleep, and when it did, Aurangzeb happened. Sikhs and Marathas then arose to fill the vaccum in resistance left by the Rajputs and confronted Aurangzeb, finally breaking the back of the Moghals right after Aurangzeb.

So, the Islamic invasions occurred DUE to and BECAUSE of the long slide in putting duty first in our culture, and was a culmination of when the sense of duty finally reached an abysmal low, as manifested by the likes of Jaichand and others. The very institutions and powers that held the reins of India and whose responsibility it was to resist and in whose greatest interest it was to resist, people such as Jaichand, whose DUTY it was to resist, themselves became the greatest "derilicters" of duty to themselves and their people and culture.

Nevertheless, I am glad, that this discussion has finally come around to "Duty". Critiquing Western Universalism, while may be interesting and fun, really has no long term effect on our destiny as Indians going forward. "Duty", or the sense of duty, on the other hand is hugely consequential. If we are able to re-introduce "Duty" in our culture and make it pre-eminent in OUR Indic thought, we may yet survive as a people.

But there is a huge practical problem in making "duty" pre-eminent in our thought, leave aside making it an integral part of our day to day life. The problem is that "Duty" goes hand in hand with "Sacrifice". And we have somehow made "Sacrifice" a dirty word deep inside our thought process. I dont know what it is or why, but just about every contemporary Indian I know, recoils at the sound of the word, "sacrifice". If I were to psychoanalyze, it may be because the general population of India has suffered a great deal, both physically, emotionally and economically over the last few centuries. This battering has somehow lead Indians to believe that they have made enough sacrifices in the form of "suffering" for centuries, now they emotionally recoil from not only the word "sacrifice", but also the idea of sacrifice. "It is now our time", seems to be the common theme in contemporary India and we should just enjoy ourselves, let "sacrifice" go to hell. Even thoughtful people, older people have this mentality. This is evident by the fact that every time I mention the word "sacrifice", on this forum. I get personally attacked by one or more "thoughtful" members.

But mistaking long standing, even centuries of suffering, for sacrifice and conflating "suffering" with "sacrifice" is a huge mistake. Suffering is involuntary, while sacrifice is voluntary. Just because we have involuntarily suffered, does not now make us exempt from "sacrifice", as if somehow, we have performed "enough sacrifices" for centuries. We have not performed sacrifices, we have simply suffered. And this is the cold truth. If we had performed sacrifices, we may still have suffered, but we would also have reaped rewards, although not immediate rewards. Suffering without sacrifice is a double whammy. Suffering with no rewards. Therefore, there is today, more need for sacrifice than every before and no amount of suffering in the past absolves us from making these sacrifices as we go forward.

As an example, in another thread, I had posted a couple of months ago, right after Modi's election, that we should not keep high hopes from Modi, because Modi is one man and no matter how good one man is, we are a nation of a billion, with two billion bad habits. And in our system of government, as it stands now, there are great limits to what one man can do. Modi will do, what one man can do, and in that sense there will be slight improvement, but only marginal and around the edges. But we cannot and should not expect any fundamental re-alignment or change. I said this because, even people who voted for Modi, voted as "aspirationals" and not "sacrifitials". In other words, the expectations from even people who voted for Modi was that Modi will give them something, maybe something for nothing, rather than that they as a people will do something for this country, which will now be lead by an honest and capable leader. So instead of taking inspiration from an honest and capable leader to sacrifice, the populace has its hand "out", expecting and aspiring for "handouts". This is the ultimate manifestation of "Rights" based thinking, as opposed to "Duty" based thinking. And until we revive "Duty" based thinking and yes, also the concept of "Sacrifice", which necessarily goes hand in hand with "Duties", we will not get anywhere.

From the responses I get when I talk about sacrifice, from Indians, including in this forum, I am not very optimistic. And I am an optimistic person by nature, only........