Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[KrishnaK]

For more than 5000 years India has had a climate that allows two crops a year. Almost the entire country is fertile (or at least used to be fertile). The country is warm enough that warm clothes or even fires to keep you warm are not needed anywhere in the country for most of the year and in southern parts fire to keep you warm is not necessary - so fuel requirements are lower in that sense. When I look a that map of cultivation all over the world - I find that the so called "fertile crescent" of the middle east is nothing compared to the fertile rhombus of India.

I believe that India has only had a net migration into India for thousands of years. Only that can explain the fact that India has probably been the most heavily populated region for thousands of years. People who come in don't go out.

Maybe the Indic philosophy of not going out developed because of a rich fertile land? People who came, found a great place to settle, and settled. And developed a philosophy that supported the idea of staying put and worshipping the fertile land and its plenitude.

Just a hypothesis..

Finally something we can agree on.

[KrishnaK]

No, the North had far more manufacturing capability. But the South was wealthy.
http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=251

Emphasis added:

The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high....

and

By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined.

From that very link

As both the North and the South mobilized for war, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the "free market" and the "slave labor" economic systems became increasingly clear - particularly in their ability to support and sustain a war economy. The Union's industrial and economic capacity soared during the war as the North continued its rapid industrialization to suppress the rebellion. In the South, a smaller industrial base, fewer rail lines, and an agricultural economy based upon slave labor made mobilization of resources more difficult. As the war dragged on, the Union's advantages in factories, railroads, and manpower put the Confederacy at a great disadvantage.

The US is not wealthy because of slavery. That is the point I'm trying to make. A free market economy and a secular, liberal democratic political system are great advantages. BTW I was not able to dig any definite information up, but I'm fairly positive, the north had a larger economy. No amount of slaves or rich fertile land can compete with an industrial economy. With a larger population and a much industrialized economy, the north would have to be bigger overall AND have a larger per capita.

[KrishnaK]

If a complex subject can be condensed accurately to a few words, this is it:

The original and most enduring source of Western power in Asia has been the capacity of Western states to disrupt the complex organization that linked Asian societies to one another within and across jurisdictional and civilizational divides. This capacity has been rooted in Western advances in military technology on the one side, and in the vulnerability of Asian societies to the military disruption of their mutual trade on the other side.

Please note, we're not talking about Africa or the Americas. The above is specific to Asia. It was true in 1600 and it is true today (perhaps a little less so).

http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/archive/gaht5.htm

The next sentences are:

Writing in 1688 during the war against the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, Sir Josiah Child, director of the East India Company and instigator of the war, captured the essence of this relationship. "The subjects of the Mogul," he noted, "cannot bear a war with the English for twelve months together, without starving and dying by the thousands for want of work to purchase rice; not singly for want of our trade, but because by our war, we obstruct their trade with all the Eastern nations which is ten times as much as ours and all the European nations put together" (quoted in Watson 197x, 348-5).

Why people like KrishnaK distress me is that the primary sources from the British side of what happened in India are in English and are typically available on Google Books, their copyright having expired; one doesn't have to take any modern writer on faith, one can go and examine the material; and yet the modern mythology continues unabated.

The simple fact is that even the early inventions of the industrial revolution could not compete with India's "unrivalled manufacturing skill", it took special and deliberate effort to destroy that. In an alternate universe, independent Indian states would have first seen wages go down or stay stagnant as the industrial revolution caught up; then they would have erected tariff barriers to protect domestic industry, and they would have sought to catch up. Not different from e.g., how the US reacted to the industrial revolution emanating from Great Britain.

Adding two of your posts together. Leave what the west or the british say or you'll stay fixated on it needlessly. You seem to have the impression that I do not believe that India did not have "unrivalled manufacturing skill". My question is simple. Why was it that a vastly richer and wealthier India fell ? Why did India not have advances in military technology ? My sole point, which I have been banging on post after post is simple - the west did something right for them to get into a position of strength. No amount of superior and unrivalled manufacturing skill, a peace loving dharmic philosophy will save you if you continue to let somebody else gain that sort of an advantage.

[shiv]

It would be much better, if rather than on a constant quest to justify, defend and may I say, even apologize for every problem that we do have and dismissing even the critique which may have some credibility, if you could start off by listing some problems, other than that we are all Western slaves in our thinking, that India and Indians do face at the moment and how you would propose to solve them, not using Western thought or prescriptions but using our own thought, traditions, cultures and civilizational mores as guides. This would take the discussion in a much more positive direction than a discussion which is purely based on "other" bashing and "self" justification, which is exactly what you are legitimately critical of the West of (creating an "other, then demonizing that "other" and then justifying "self" on everything).

Let us just take one major problem we Indians face today, for example. It is the same problem we have been facing for more than 1000 years now. The Islamic problem. We have consistently over the millennia lost to this menace and continue to lose ground as we speak. The situation now is critical because as you can well understand, the crisis is more severe after 1000 years of losing than it was when we had only lost for 500 years and it was more severe when we had only lost for 500 years, compared to when we had only lost for 200 years. And nothing has changed. Look at the Islamic State or ISIS or whatever the monster calls itself now. I call it Islam. Beheadings, kidnappings of women, stonings, crucifictions, rape, beheadings, slavery, sexual slavery, unspeakable brutality, domination, stealing of territory, of money, dehumanizing all humans, destruction of civilization and every civilized instinct in humans......all these are the hallmarks of Islam as ISIS has made it so clear that not even an idiot or the worst apologist for Islam can ignore or negate or justify.

How will we solve this problem, going forward, for example, in our own way, keeping in view our unique history, present, our unique culture, our thought, our civilization and our current capabilities ? How will we climb out of this hole ? And please, we are not going to climb out of it by merely bashing the West.

The people I bash are my problem - that should not worry anyone else - as long as I am not bashing anyone personally. I happen to feel some things and I say them. If you have anything valuable to add, please go ahead rather than making a rehash of what you think I have been saying.

The above post is a case in point. We have dealt with Islam by means of secularism. Then you tell me we still have a problem. Then you say that I should not criticize the west and should be positive. Finally you ask me for solutions that do not have elements that you personally dislike but include elements that you want to see included. You are not going to get anything of the sort from me. You have to do that yourself.

The forum is open and free for members to post. Please provide your own solutions. Please follow your own advice and do not say anything negative about secularism that we copy-pasted from the west, and yet say how India can "climb out of its hole" "keeping in view our unique history, present, our unique culture, our thought, our civilization and our current capabilities"

[member_23692]

It would be much better, if rather than on a constant quest to justify, defend and may I say, even apologize for every problem that we do have and dismissing even the critique which may have some credibility, if you could start off by listing some problems, other than that we are all Western slaves in our thinking, that India and Indians do face at the moment and how you would propose to solve them, not using Western thought or prescriptions but using our own thought, traditions, cultures and civilizational mores as guides. This would take the discussion in a much more positive direction than a discussion which is purely based on "other" bashing and "self" justification, which is exactly what you are legitimately critical of the West of (creating an "other, then demonizing that "other" and then justifying "self" on everything).

Let us just take one major problem we Indians face today, for example. It is the same problem we have been facing for more than 1000 years now. The Islamic problem. We have consistently over the millennia lost to this menace and continue to lose ground as we speak. The situation now is critical because as you can well understand, the crisis is more severe after 1000 years of losing than it was when we had only lost for 500 years and it was more severe when we had only lost for 500 years, compared to when we had only lost for 200 years. And nothing has changed. Look at the Islamic State or ISIS or whatever the monster calls itself now. I call it Islam. Beheadings, kidnappings of women, stonings, crucifictions, rape, beheadings, slavery, sexual slavery, unspeakable brutality, domination, stealing of territory, of money, dehumanizing all humans, destruction of civilization and every civilized instinct in humans......all these are the hallmarks of Islam as ISIS has made it so clear that not even an idiot or the worst apologist for Islam can ignore or negate or justify.

How will we solve this problem, going forward, for example, in our own way, keeping in view our unique history, present, our unique culture, our thought, our civilization and our current capabilities ? How will we climb out of this hole ? And please, we are not going to climb out of it by merely bashing the West.

The people I bash are my problem - that should not worry anyone else - as long as I am not bashing anyone personally. I happen to feel some things and I say them. If you have anything valuable to add, please go ahead rather than making a rehash of what you think I have been saying.

The above post is a case in point. We have dealt with Islam by means of secularism. Then you tell me we still have a problem. Then you say that I should not criticize the west and should be positive. Finally you ask me for solutions that do not have elements that you personally dislike but include elements that you want to see included. You are not going to get anything of the sort from me. You have to do that yourself.

The forum is open and free for members to post. Please provide your own solutions. Please follow your own advice and do not say anything negative about secularism that we copy-pasted from the west, and yet say how India can "climb out of its hole" "keeping in view our unique history, present, our unique culture, our thought, our civilization and our current capabilities"

You are entirely within your right to bash. But no matter how evil someone is, only bashing and not complementing it with ideas of what we ourselves can pro-actively do does not serve a useful practical purpose. Of course, if your purpose is merely to feel good and you are using the bashing as some kind of catharsis or therapy, I guess it is ok, at least it is serving the purpose of keeping you healthy. My hope was that all of our purpose is something more than just "me me me".

Anyway, you are incorrect in your assumption that I would not like your solution. You are also incorrect in your assumption that somehow I am a fan of secularism as we have come to practice in India. You presume too much. If you save the "venom" for the battlefield against our enemies and by battlefield I dont literally mean Panipat or some such physical field somewhere, and instead spew positivity among friends with the same intensity that you bash, I cant imagine it being a losing proposition in any way.

Try it sometime, who knows, you may find that generating intense positivity is even more of a catharsis and even more potent therapy, and with no negative side effects as a bonus.

[SBajwa]

Shiv!!! Sir!!!
Get all the people who are cool young thinking couple to reproduce because the next Ganga&&Indus delta is nowhere but Mississippi delta (water/land/food/density/etc)!! All Indians should have 10s of kids and make them migrate to U.S.A. at any cost!! and we can create temples/gurdwaras of our indian memes and let our views propagate!!!

[shiv]

As an aside - I find that after I cross some red lines of being critical of the west, a few people become uncomfortable with that.

So let me ask a few rhetorical questions based on facts about India

India is overpopulated, filthy, has the largest numbers of people who are poor and malnourished, has a terrible, almost racist caste system where high caste Hindus declare others as "untouchables". Untouchables are forced to clean up faecal matter in a country where 600 million people defaecate out in the open. The treatment of women is terrible in India with less than 500 women per 1000 population. Child labour is widespread. Human rights are flouted regularly. Drinking water is unavailable for millions. Despite all this Indians waste precious resources on a nuclear program to make nuclear weapons in an indolent rivalry between largely Hindu India with its neighbour Muslim Pakistan. Both countries test missiles and India even has a wasteful space program that has sent a probe to Mars even as thousands of children die every day from diarrhoeal diseases and malnutrition

If anyone thinks I have been unfair to India in the above paragraph, please tell me how and where I have been unfair or untruthful?

I acknowledge all of the above. I say it myself . and after acknowledging that I proceed to be critical of the west. In short, I am critical of the west and of India. Why would anyone want me to specifically stop being critical of the west and continue to be critical of India? Why would anyone want to "advise" me that I should look at India's problems alone and stop being fairly or unfairly critical of the west? Why exactly should I be that way? I did not cause India's problems. My sole efforts are not going to solve them. What exactly would be the reason for me to either be ashamed or concentrate solely on digging up and highlighting Indian problems? Why should anyone feel upset if I did that about the west. Are there people who feel that I have been fair to India but am being unfair in my criticism of the west? Or should I. as an Indian concentrate solely on India and keep my (cotton pickin') fingers off anything to do with the west?

[SBajwa]

We can immigrate to anywhere in the world!!! and make new Ganga/New Himalaya and settle down as our own!! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR SCRIPTURES TELL US TO DO!!

[SBajwa]

India is filthy because of our "Buddha", "Mahavira" , "Nanak","Gandhi"

We need to follow

"Krishna (today is janamashtami)", "Rama" and other warriors! in kalyug anybody who follows non-violence is a COWARD!!!!!

[KrishnaK]

Question:

If, as we are told , "Universal values" like democracy, human rights, religious freedom, equality for all were what created the wealthy developed societies of today I would like to know which of these values created the powerhouse economies of Germany and Japan?

Those powerhouse economies crashed and burnt. The Soviet Union that looked like an unstoppable titan is a pathetic little shell of what it once was. The mongols looted and raped the world too. Nobody believes that they're capable of fighting their way out of a paper bag now. One can certainly get rich and powerful without democracy and the like. It's just that it won't last. Someday the whole edifice will fall like the Indians did in the Battle of Buxar. And then will begin the myth making. We fell because we're dharmic onlee. We fell because the british fought unfairly onlee. We fell because we had way too many traitors onlee.

[shiv]

Question:

If, as we are told , "Universal values" like democracy, human rights, religious freedom, equality for all were what created the wealthy developed societies of today I would like to know which of these values created the powerhouse economies of Germany and Japan?

Those powerhouse economies crashed and burnt. The Soviet Union that looked like an unstoppable titan is a pathetic little shell of what it once was. The mongols looted and raped the world too. Nobody believes that they're capable of fighting their way out of a paper bag now. One can certainly get rich and powerful without democracy and the like. It's just that it won't last. Someday the whole edifice will fall like the Indians did in the Battle of Buxar. And then will begin the myth making. We fell because we're dharmic onlee. We fell because the british fought unfairly onlee. We fell because we had way too many traitors onlee.

Speaking of myth making - what is it about Germany and Japan that have fallen? They are still powerhouse economies. They simply lost a war and they ended up choosing the political system of the victors. Infact even the Soviet Union merely changed its political system. Russia is still very powerful and much better developed than India.

India too lost a lot of wars and ended up following the political system of the victors.

Why is India not like Japan and Germany despite embracing the political system of the victors?

One explanation could be that dharma and the Indian way is wrong. One needs adharma to progress.

[member_23692]

In short, I am critical of the west and of India. Why would anyone want me to specifically stop being critical of the west and continue to be critical of India? Why would anyone want to "advise" me that I should look at India's problems alone and stop being fairly or unfairly critical of the west? Why exactly should I be that way? I did not cause India's problems. My sole efforts are not going to solve them. What exactly would be the reason for me to either be ashamed or concentrate solely on digging up and highlighting Indian problems?

Because "self criticism" is a positive and criticizing others beyond a point, no matter how deserving they are of that, is a negative, and you well know it. It is not just a question of manners or etiquette, that is what our scriptures teach us. Look inside yourself. While both are criticisms, how can one be a positive and one be a negative ? Well, because we, even the weakest amongst us, has the power to change ourselves, while the strongest of us does not have the power to change others. Was Krishna able to change the Kauravas ? No. What did he advise Arjuna? You cant change them, so dont hesitate to use your perogative, and kill them. Arjuna and Krishna had the power to kill the Kauravas. We Indians today dont have the power to kill the Islamists (no disrespect meant for Kauravas by the implied comparison) or even the West. We need to "self criticize", look into ourselves, which will lead to empowering ourselves, such that we have the capabilities to kill the West and kill the Islamists. I suggest, we focus on doing that and then do what Arjuna and the Pandavas did to the "Adharmies", rather than just bash the "adharmies". You get my point ? Bashing others is a weakness, we need to strengthen ourselves and do what the strong do. I hope you are getting my drift.

Bashing others does not make us look strong, nor does it strengthen us. Yes, we have to bash to a point, just so everybody in the society clearly understands the evil of the adharmies, that there is no doubt left in anyone's mind of the monstrosity practiced by our enemies. So, to that extent I am with you. But at some point, we got to change gears into focussing on empowering ourselves. We can only do it, if we are "self critical".

By the way, you were a little disingenuous in your last post to me, where you said that we have tried to solve the Islamic problem by applying secularism. Less than half truth. 6.5% of the truth. You know better than me, that out of the last 1000 years of losing ground to the Islamists, we tried solving this problem for the last 65 years using secularism. And of course, that is the worst of all solutions. But it still leaves us Indians with 935 years of losing to the Islamists to account for and 735 years, if you also want to blame the West (British rule in India) for 200 years of defeat. Prior to the British arriving, 735 years of losing to the Islamists was entirely our own doing unless you think that the hidden hand of the Holy Roman Empire had something to do with Ghori's and Ghanznavi's invasions of India.

You probably dont think of solutions, because you may have given up hope, you may be so discouraged by our current state of affairs that deep inside your heart you dont think that we can ever come out of the hole that we are in, no matter how hard we try. As you know, I am vehemently critical of ourselves as a people, and I am under no illusions that we are not in BIG BIG trouble. However, I am more optimistic than you. I still think we can come out of this. I still think we can not only survive but thrive as a culture. I still dont think we are dead. And that is why I am so self critical, some might say to the extreme. Because self criticism is the starting point of coming out of this. And then I do think that we have to 1) Reclaim our hope, 2) Realize realistically, how bad off we are, 3) Come together as a people, 4) Give deep thought and develop a potent strategy to come out of the hole, 5) Execute that strategy over the long haul by creating institutions specifically geared towards successful execution of that strategy, 6) Consider this a work in progress, and keep repeating steps 1 to 6, over and over again, by making these part of our DNA, part of our value system and yes, as part of the execution of this strategy, we must kill all anti-human and anti-civilizational forces, over and over again, like Lord Rama did and like Lord Krishna did.

[member_23692]

We can immigrate to anywhere in the world!!! and make new Ganga/New Himalaya and settle down as our own!! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR SCRIPTURES TELL US TO DO!!

Yes, but we can never give up on the HOMELAND, while we migrate to other places. Except in extreme circumstances (which normally relate to climate changes or acts of Gods, not defeat by humans). If we make it a habit to cut and run, every time we face a bump in the road, we will never be able to retain new Gangas and Himalayas, no matter how many new ones we create.

[KrishnaK]

Speaking of myth making - what is it about Germany and Japan that have fallen? They are still powerhouse economies. They simply lost a war and they ended up choosing the political system of the victors.

I was under the assumption that you were talking of them before WWII.

Infact even the Soviet Union merely changed its political system. Russia is still very powerful and much better developed than India.

Slightly better than it's previous governance. Yes Russia is much better developed, there didn't start from where we did. Still hardly impressive. From offering an alternative to the imperialistic west, they come down to selling oil to make a living.

India too lost a lot of wars and ended up following the political system of the victors.

We followed the political system we *wanted* to. Out of conviction that it was the best option for us. Now that choice, imo, truly reflects India's philosophical sophistication. The ability to not let legitimate grievance and hatred blind and pick something up based solely on merit. It was an act of genius.

Why is India not like Japan and Germany despite embracing the political system of the victors?

Bad economics. Democracy is no guarantee that bad decisions won't be made. It only ensures political stability. My argument is that with political stability secured, eventual economic success is a certainty. If current brand of economics practiced is flawed, it can be junked and another one given the chance. This process of trial and error is how all humans have developed. We'll be just as prosperous as Japan, Germany and the rest.

[shiv]

By the way, you were a little disingenuous in your last post to me, where you said that we have tried to solve the Islamic problem by applying secularism. Less than half truth. 6.5% of the truth. You know better than me, that out of the last 1000 years of losing ground to the Islamists, we tried solving this problem for the last 65 years using secularism.

Your sense of historic accuracy leaves me spellbound, for a few seconds.

When I subtract 1000 from 1947 , I get 947

I don't know about you I come from a part of India that was relatively free from Islamic rule for a large part of the 1000 years that you speak of. Look at from my viewpoint and the percentage is well over 6.5%. You need to look at the extent and timelines of the Chola empire and the subsequent Vijaynagar empire. But yet you believe in the decimal point accuracy of your viewpoint.

Indian history is a lot more than the Islamic history that you may have been taught by sundry leftists and secularists that make you believe the 1000 year rule. While I thank you for your advice to me, I would advise you to inform yourself in a little bit more detail about the history of India outside of North and North west India. The other parts of India are India too.

[KrishnaK]

Any country that "rises" but behaves like Britain, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan or Germany as it rises will simply punish other powers. India is the only damn country that talks of peaceful rise - which is why India is a darpok pushover. That is why China is feared. India has a model - but not sure if the world will allow a peaceful rise at all. Rising powers are suspected by default and given the history of European powers and even the USA no country is willing to believe that a peaceful rise is even possible. People who talk of peaceful rise are laughed off as liars or weaklings.

And you talk of myth making and tripe . If nobody is willing to allow India to rise peacefully, why has it grown economically. Especially when the growth had to come on the backs of western consumption and capital ?

So blinded were Indian leaders after WW2 - they thought that peaceful states could rise. That is why they did not align - knowing that alliances were always against someone. No one liked it and India was punished for that.

Punished how ?

[shiv]

Bad economics. Democracy is no guarantee that bad decisions won't be made. It only ensures political stability. My argument is that with political stability secured, eventual economic success is a certainty. If current brand of economics practiced is flawed, it can be junked and another one given the chance. This process of trial and error is how all humans have developed. We'll be just as prosperous as Japan, Germany and the rest.

My point is that there is no long term proof that what you say is correct. It is a fond hope. A whole lot of empires simply became very rich and very powerful without democracy and they all fell. At this point in time a few democracies are very rich and powerful and at this very moment are being challenged by non democratic states.

There is no guarantee that any political system will survive or remain the most powerful. In fact democracy as a political system has been actively protected by military means by the USA. But in the past monarchies, oligarchies and despotic and genocidal regimes have also become rich by using military power to protect their system.

it is the development and use of military power that matters more than the political system when it comes to wealth. As for longevity of a political system, all bets are off. Political systems do not make wealth. It is raw power that helps create wealth. It also leads to wars - but that is a different issue.

With the above state of affairs representing world history for at least 1000 years, dharma, no matter how just and benevolent it may seem is useless and incompatible with the ability to generate rapacious military power, and subsequently wealth.

[member_23692]

By the way, you were a little disingenuous in your last post to me, where you said that we have tried to solve the Islamic problem by applying secularism. Less than half truth. 6.5% of the truth. You know better than me, that out of the last 1000 years of losing ground to the Islamists, we tried solving this problem for the last 65 years using secularism.

Your sense of historic accuracy leaves me spellbound, for a few seconds.

When I subtract 1000 from 1947 , I get 947

I don't know about you I come from a part of India that was relatively free from Islamic rule for a large part of the 1000 years that you speak of. Look at from my viewpoint and the percentage is well over 6.5%. You need to look at the extent and timelines of the Chola empire and the subsequent Vijaynagar empire. But yet you believe in the decimal point accuracy of your viewpoint.

Indian history is a lot more than the Islamic history that you may have been taught by sundry leftists and secularists that make you believe the 1000 year rule. While I thank you for your advice to me, I would advise you to inform yourself in a little bit more detail about the history of India outside of North and North west India. The other parts of India are India too.

Ok. I dont blame you for disowning the rest of us, after all, 90% of the rest of us Indian's history is far more shameful than yours. And by the way, I have nothing but awe and respect for the Vijaynagar empire. Sadly, it is the exception that proves the rule.

But ok, if you want to take the narrow view, fine.

I was talking about Dharmics as a civilization. As a civilization we have been collectively on the backfoot at least, since the Slave was installed in Delhi by Ghori. I think it extremely strange that a Vijaynagar person will not look at the rest of the civilization under pressure and losing without feeling the same sense of loss that a person, say in Punjab or Delhi would feel or that a Vijaynagari will not feel the same shame about losing Indonesia, Afghanistan, most of the sub continent and other parts of Asia, which originally were at least peripherally under the Dharmic sphere of influence.

You had to reach way, way deep for that one. But again, you know you are being disingenuous. You really think a Sindhi is more culpable than a Vijanagari ? Of course, Vijaynagaris did a lot of things right and they should be congratulated for that and we all Dharmics should be proud of them, but you think geography may also have been a factor ? If I recall my history correctly, the King of Sindh gave his life defending the Dharmic civilization against the Arabs (albeit, unsuccessfully). And you think that someone from Mewar now, should feel no responsibility for what happened in Delhi to Prithviraj, just because Mewar resisted much longer and should disown the rest of the people, implying that they are somehow lesser?

[shiv]

Any country that "rises" but behaves like Britain, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan or Germany as it rises will simply punish other powers. India is the only damn country that talks of peaceful rise - which is why India is a darpok pushover. That is why China is feared. India has a model - but not sure if the world will allow a peaceful rise at all. Rising powers are suspected by default and given the history of European powers and even the USA no country is willing to believe that a peaceful rise is even possible. People who talk of peaceful rise are laughed off as liars or weaklings.

And you talk of myth making and tripe . If nobody is willing to allow India to rise peacefully, why has it grown economically. Especially when the growth had to come on the backs of western consumption and capital ?

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

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

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

[shiv]

But ok, if you want to take the narrow view, fine.

Not narrow. The South are Indian too. Many people from the North under weak regimes moved south and helped make the south strong. Think positive. Remember the advice you gave me?

[member_23692]

But ok, if you want to take the narrow view, fine.

Not narrow. The South are Indian too. Many people from the North under weak regimes moved south and helped make the south strong. Think positive. Remember the advice you gave me?

Of course. We are all one. That is exactly my point.

For a moment I thought there, that you feel no sense of shame,responsibility, civilizational helplessness and rage, when the Pakis kidnap and forcibly convert a hapless Paki Hindu girl or the Bangladeshi muslims, rape, pillage, plunder Hindu life and property with impunity, while we as Hindus are having to standby like hijras doing nothing. After all, they are Pakis, a politically different country. So what if they are Hindus ? At least the Muslims cant do it to us in the erstwhile Vijaynagar empire, well, maybe some places in Andhra, but certainly not in Karnataka.....

[A_Gupta]

The US is not wealthy because of slavery. That is the point I'm trying to make. A free market economy and a secular, liberal democratic political system are great advantages. BTW I was not able to dig any definite information up, but I'm fairly positive, the north had a larger economy. No amount of slaves or rich fertile land can compete with an industrial economy. With a larger population and a much industrialized economy, the north would have to be bigger overall AND have a larger per capita.

In the long run, yes, an industrial economy has an advantage. But the situation as it was in 1860 was something different.

[shiv]

For a moment I thought there, that you feel no sense of shame,responsibility, civilizational helplessness and rage, when the Pakis kidnap and forcibly convert a hapless Paki Hindu girl or the Bangladeshi muslims, rape, pillage, plunder Hindu life and property with impunity, while we as Hindus are having to standby like hijras doing nothing. After all, they are Pakis, a politically different country. So what if they are Hindus ? At least the Muslims cant do it to us in the erstwhile Vijaynagar empire, well, maybe some places in Andhra, but certainly not in Karnataka.....

What I find interesting is that you are critical of Islam, Muslims and Pakistan, but it is my criticism of the west that you questioned.

It seems to me that you see islam as a threat and not the west. This thread is about western universalism. And I intend to keep talking on subjects that seem to be related to that. If you want to talk about Islam - this is not the thread for it unless you can link that up with western universalism.

I'm sorry that you have been a latecomer to BRF and have missed the dozens of threads and tens of thousands of posts on the Islam issue. But that is not my problem. This thread is on the topic of western universalism. I am truly sorry that i allowed myself to be diverted off the topic by you.

[A_Gupta]

My question is simple. Why was it that a vastly richer and wealthier India fell ? Why did India not have advances in military technology ? My sole point, which I have been banging on post after post is simple - the west did something right for them to get into a position of strength. No amount of superior and unrivalled manufacturing skill, a peace loving dharmic philosophy will save you if you continue to let somebody else gain that sort of an advantage.

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

Mongol conquests resulted in some of the most destructive wars in human history. In Iran, the Mongol invasion resulted in extermination, disease, and destruction of irrigation systems resulting in mass emigration, famine, and drastic population decline. Historian Steve Ward estimates that three quarters of the population, about 10 to 15 million people, died, and that Iran's population did not reach its pre-Mongol levels again until the 20th century.

So you see, Iran stinks too. Every Asian civilization fell before the Mongol onslaught. And I'm sure the KrishnaKs' of that era were saying everyone should emulate the Mongols. The fact is that no-holds-barred will almost always defeat civilization. Sad to see it, but Osama bin Laden's 9/11 -- a minor pinprick and hardly existential threat to the US -- has led the previously proud Americans from "give me liberty or give me death" to "i'll sign away all my civil liberties, just give me safety". They are reverting to no-holds-barred; but the values you so admire turned out to be skin-deep.

[A_Gupta]

Or should I. as an Indian concentrate solely on India and keep my (cotton pickin') fingers off anything to do with the west?

Exactly, Shiv, don't get uppity!

[A_Gupta]

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

Sorry you missed my post on how long it took Britain to get to universal male franchise. As pointed out earlier, before WWI, Germany had full universal male franchise; Britain didn't have it even at the end of WWI.

[Vayutuvan]

Are we forgetting Shivaji and Marathas who stood up to Aurangzeb and arguable instrumental in bringing the Mughals to their knees. They had 50% of the subcontinent under their or their satraps' rule. They are part of the Deccan plateau.

[member_23692]

For a moment I thought there, that you feel no sense of shame,responsibility, civilizational helplessness and rage, when the Pakis kidnap and forcibly convert a hapless Paki Hindu girl or the Bangladeshi muslims, rape, pillage, plunder Hindu life and property with impunity, while we as Hindus are having to standby like hijras doing nothing. After all, they are Pakis, a politically different country. So what if they are Hindus ? At least the Muslims cant do it to us in the erstwhile Vijaynagar empire, well, maybe some places in Andhra, but certainly not in Karnataka.....

What I find interesting is that you are critical of Islam, Muslims and Pakistan, but it is my criticism of the west that you questioned.

It seems to me that you see islam as a threat and not the west. This thread is about western universalism. And I intend to keep talking on subjects that seem to be related to that. If you want to talk about Islam - this is not the thread for it unless you can link that up with western universalism.

I'm sorry that you have been a latecomer to BRF and have missed the dozens of threads and tens of thousands of posts on the Islam issue. But that is not my problem. This thread is on the topic of western universalism. I am truly sorry that i allowed myself to be diverted off the topic by you.

Yes and no. Yes, in a narrow sense, I see Islam as a more immediate threat. But in a larger sense I see everyone that is non-Dharmic, whether it be the Hans or the West as as much of a threat, if we somehow survive the Islamists, that is. Therefore, in medical terms, if I have both a heart problem, that may kill me in a year and cancer, that may kill me next month, I will be more inclined to worry almost exclusively about cancer and would get a bit irritated if all the talk about how evil heart problems are will distract me from finding a solution to my cancer problem. That does not mean that intellectually I am not aware that heart issues are in abstract terms, as evil as cancer, but emotionally, I want that cancer licked first. And that thought process makes perfect logical sense as well.

Then to compound the problem, if people around me keep talking about how terrible and monstrous the effects of a bad heart are, and are brazenly opposed to at least exploring or even just discussing some possible positive treatments for the heart issues, I will get even more perplexed. I am even willing to entertain talk of heart issues, despite my immediate pre-occupation with cancer, provided at least we are talking treatment, not just how terrible these heart issues are.

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

[A_Gupta]

A united India would not exist if India had followed Western ideals. By all of Western theory, a united India should not have persisted for 68 independence days. I've previously posted sufficient material to show that. Multi-lingual Westphalian states, when they exist, are persist, are tiny. But India has held together pretty much; and it is not because you can accuse a majority of Indians of holding Western values.

Think about it, that bastion of democracy, the USA, shudders at the thought of a bilingual future.

Wouldn't we be better off identifying, understanding and strengthening the glue that holds India together rather than singing hosannas of the West?

[Vayutuvan]

In the very long run an industrial economy runs out of "steam" especially if the non-renewable "steam" is wasted on decadence - WU of today which warns to spend enormous amounts of "steam" on land score lighting and bluegrass lawns in AZ and S. CA. Lake mead has shrunk to 1/3 of what it was just a few decades back. Everybody and their uncle want to play golf in Vegas. There are ice skating rinks in Hollywood. Per capita water consumption in US is 150 gallons, Europe 75. The latter are loving in luxury compared to < 5 gallon bucket baths which is the norm in majority of the subcontinent households.

140 gallons of water per pound of grain which expands to 1000 gallons for pound of steak.

[A_Gupta]

To me, Islam is nothing to be scared of; it currently has zero creative energy. If it ever gets creative energy, then it would be worrisome. The only reason Pakistan is a worry is because it has nukes that it could use and set back India many generations. In any case, Islamics will not win many converts in India; they will not cause Indians to lose their culture. The real threats are more insidious. I would be much happier if Indians were more enamored of Singapore than they were of America -- not that I hold Singapore up as a role model.

[shiv]

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

Sorry you missed my post on how long it took Britain to get to universal male franchise. As pointed out earlier, before WWI, Germany had full universal male franchise; Britain didn't have it even at the end of WWI.

No I didn't.

When shiv endorses a post by A-Gupta on BRF it could devalue your post because of all the negative attention I attract by things I say combatively. So I let your post stand - everyone reads your posts without getting angry.

Here is a link to that post
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1702281

[shiv]

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

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

[KrishnaK]

My point is that there is no long term proof that what you say is correct. It is a fond hope.

Depends on what you mean by long term. Sure, not as much as we'll have in a 1000 years hence.

A whole lot of empires simply became very rich and very powerful without democracy and they all fell. At this point in time a few democracies are very rich and powerful and at this very moment are being challenged by non democratic states.

Agree.

There is no guarantee that any political system will survive or remain the most powerful. In fact democracy as a political system has been actively protected by military means by the USA. But in the past monarchies, oligarchies and despotic and genocidal regimes have also become rich by using military power to protect their system.

it is the development and use of military power that matters more than the political system when it comes to wealth.[/quote]
All states have to use military power to protect themselves. Those that are more egalitarian will find themselves better at the application of military power, just as they are in the sciences, arts or business. Because a 100 million people, whether in dharmic India or the rapcious west are equally likely to produce a military, scientific, artistic genius, all other things being the same. If that were not the case, then one and only one peoples would dominate for ever. At least against that, we have enough evidence.

As for longevity of a political system, all bets are off.

Fair enough.

Political systems do not make wealth. It is raw power that helps create wealth. It also leads to wars - but that is a different issue.

Human beings create wealth. Solely by their intelligence. This was so when humanity was agrarian. It is so now in the era of google. You made a statement on how India has some of the largest stock of arable land. Must have been the reason for India to have been the largest economy in the world for quite a while - in fact well over a 1000 years (from another thread and angus maddison). But animals can't sow and reap. Only humans can. It is only human intelligence that allows us to take advantage of land and convert it into wealth to machine learning to make a helicopter fly itself. Humans learning continuously, continuing where another human has left off, have created wealth. Military, political systems are only enablers or retard this phenomenon. Of course military and political systems themselves being human innovations. Saying military power has created wealth is exactly the sort of stuff I used to hear growing up - India is poor because we have too many people and too few resources. There's definitely enough proof against that.

[A_Gupta]

In the very long run an industrial economy runs out of "steam" especially if the non-renewable "steam" is wasted on decadence - WU of today which warns to spend enormous amounts of "steam" on land score lighting and bluegrass lawns in AZ and S. CA. Lake mead has shrunk to 1/3 of what it was just a few decades back. Everybody and their uncle want to play golf in Vegas. There are ice skating rinks in Hollywood. Per capita water consumption in US is 150 gallons, Europe 75. The latter are loving in luxury compared to < 5 gallon bucket baths which is the norm in majority of the subcontinent households.

140 gallons of water per pound of grain which expands to 1000 gallons for pound of steak.

Matrimc, no disagreement from me. The main reason why I think an industrial economy is better is that a people who have to live by using their mind and their own labor, I think, have more of the cultural values that are needed for long-term survival than a people who live by extracting wealth from other peoples or from the ground.

[shiv]

In the very long run an industrial economy runs out of "steam" especially if the non-renewable "steam" is wasted on decadence - WU of today which warns to spend enormous amounts of "steam" on land score lighting and bluegrass lawns in AZ and S. CA. Lake mead has shrunk to 1/3 of what it was just a few decades back. Everybody and their uncle want to play golf in Vegas. There are ice skating rinks in Hollywood. Per capita water consumption in US is 150 gallons, Europe 75. The latter are loving in luxury compared to < 5 gallon bucket baths which is the norm in majority of the subcontinent households.

140 gallons of water per pound of grain which expands to 1000 gallons for pound of steak.

Golf courses, which I love, are among the most environment unfriendly entities on earth.

I find the point you make about bucket baths interesting. The low pressure showers that I live with in India are actually even more frugal with water. One can comfortably have a shower within the time it takes to fill a bucket of water if that was placed under the shower head.

I remember being thrilled by some serious high pressure showers I used in the US and Canada. They reminded me of standing under a waterfall in Tenkasi. Urban Indians homes are being urged (by developers and architects) to install high pressure showers - and "all round" showers without a thought about water wastage. We are getting Americanized. The groundwater tapped for a wealthy household helps to dry up some farmer's borewell. But this dharma sharma business is bullshit. We live in a democracy and it is one's right to waste water. Anyone who does not like it has to go through the judicial system and prove that the water i draw for my showers is directly responsible for the drying of some farmer's borewell. That is justice, science and logic.

[shiv]

Human beings create wealth. Solely by their intelligence. This was so when humanity was agrarian. It is so now in the era of google. You made a statement on how India has some of the largest stock of arable land. Must have been the reason for India to have been the largest economy in the world for quite a while - in fact well over a 1000 years (from another thread and angus maddison). But animals can't sow and reap. Only humans can. It is only human intelligence that allows us to take advantage of land and convert it into wealth to machine learning to make a helicopter fly itself. Humans learning continuously, continuing where another human has left off, have created wealth. Military, political systems are only enablers or retard this phenomenon. Of course military and political systems themselves being human innovations. Saying military power has created wealth is exactly the sort of stuff I used to hear growing up - India is poor because we have too many people and too few resources. There's definitely enough proof against that.

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

[A_Gupta]

Just to point out, the opposite of "secular" in the West, is "sacred". Only in India the opposite is "communal". Which means we are using a word without really understanding its meaning. It is as though someone told us "secular" has great magical power, and so we cling on to it like an amulet, hoping it will exert its miraculous powers. "Cargo cult" is, I think what I'm looking for.

Notable examples of cargo cult activity include the setting up of mock airstrips, airports, offices, and dining rooms, as well as the fetishization and attempted construction of Western goods, such as radios made of coconuts and straw. Believers may stage "drills" and "marches" with sticks for rifles and use military-style insignia and national insignia painted on their bodies to make them look like soldiers, thereby treating the activities of Western military personnel as rituals to be performed for the purpose of attracting the cargo.

Why are the magical goods not showering on India? It could be because, in a somewhat more sophisticated way, we are following a cargo cult.

[shiv]

Why are the magical goods not showering on India? It could be because, in a somewhat more sophisticated way, we are following a cargo cult.

We definitely are!

[Pulikeshi]

To me, Islam is nothing to be scared of; it currently has zero creative energy. If it ever gets creative energy, then it would be worrisome. The only reason Pakistan is a worry is because it has nukes that it could use and set back India many generations. In any case, Islamics will not win many converts in India; they will not cause Indians to lose their culture. The real threats are more insidious. I would be much happier if Indians were more enamored of Singapore than they were of America -- not that I hold Singapore up as a role model.

India cannot have role models, if her path is that of a 'Jagat Guru' it is going to be a lonely and it already is...
I will repeat myself, India/SD has absorbed what she can from the West and may continue to do so for a while...
By all means absorb ideas from Singapore, China, Russia, Japan, Nigeria, whoever...
But the time has come for her to contribute ideas again and radiate them to the rest of the world.
In this, seeking approval and adopting ideas because they worked elsewhere is not going to work.

The real threat to India is the confusion between civilizational and nationalistic ideas.
SD survived fighting tooth and nail and radiating ideas, but only occasionally chose to have civilizational nation-state (not the Westphalian idea, etc)
The current time is one such time, it is for those setting the direction to screw it up again...