Bharat Rakshak

shiv wrote:One reads articles about why Indians (except maybe residents of Delhi??) display little road rage. The main reason is because Indians do not set themselves rigid time schedules. Time is never rigid except auspicious events which are strictly time bound.

There is a book written by a German author I highly recommend: The Secret Pulse of Time: Making Sense of Life's Scarcest Commodity. The author first begins by examining the psychological basis of time and then goes on to explain the physical meaning (general/special relativity) of time.

Among the many things I found fascinating in that book was the fact that the Human Brain does not have a central clock, there is no mechanism in the brain that keeps a count of time. The Brain only has a large ensemble of "preset-timers" in it, i.e. neuronal subsystems that fire at different intervals. When one has to time something, the brain picks one of the timers and latches on to it. So most people are very good at timing the duration of an event, for example they will instinctively know when a light will turn green and will get impatient if it stays red for even a second longer than its supposed to. However, if you ask them to give the duration in seconds they will almost always miss the exact number.

We have not evolved to be ruled by the clock, but that is exactly how an industrialized society functions. In a fully industrialized society, quantification and measurement of time is extremely important, due to the fact that manufacturing and services need a lot of complex interacting entities to function together smoothly. Thus, there is an "inflation of time" so to speak. The example given in that book takes the example of sci-fi movies. The ones in the 60s are much slower than the ones today. People are more on the go today than ever before.

In India (and in Europe before industrialization) time was not of the essence. We never had an industrial revolution to begin with, but we inherited the time-keeping behavior of an industrialized society (UQstan), resulting in this conflicting jigsaw of behaviors.

Japan and Germany are known for their punctual habits. It was not always like that, it is just a result of egalitarian capitalism and also a result of a natural-selection process: Where people who are punctual are able to achieve more and move ahead faster.

shiv wrote:One habit in India is something that I value But I am supposed to curse that value (or non value?) and laugh at it.

One reads articles about why Indians (except maybe residents of Delhi??) display little road rage. The main reason is because Indians do not set themselves rigid time schedules. Time is never rigid except auspicious events which are strictly time bound.

What this means for me personally is that I need never worry about being in time for appointments. No one else worries. Everyone accepts that time is flexible. But what fascinates me is the way we educated Indians are supposed to pretend that his is bad and that we are all a faulty bunch of people. "Trains always late" etc.


One thing is absolutely certain. There is an Indian view of time, and in this Indian view minutes and seconds do not matter for non critical activity. All Indians are used to turning up on time for exams and for auspicious events like weddings. We know damn well that exam papers must be finished on time or no one would get anywhere near America. But Indians do have a non stressed view of time.

I disagree on the time. I agree to the extent that one should not be a slave to the clock. But in India it is not a question of rebelling against being slave to the clock. It is a question of being inconsiderate and not caring about the other person. If one does not want to be slave to time and one does not want come on time, one should clearly communicate to the other party, that they will show up when they will show up. To commit to show on time and not show is terribly inconsiderate and insensitive to others. You yourself said that there are certain values which are universal, things such as dont lie, dont cheat, be honest, work hard, be considerate of others etc. These values are not Western values, they are not Eastern Values, they are Universal Values. Any specific cultural norms, specific cultural values, specific cultural mores, sit on top of these basic human values. These basic values have to be and need to be followed, if humans have to live in a community. Then beyond these basic universal values, each culture and thought can and should create their own unique ethos. When one does not show up on time, after committing to do it, even if as you say, everyone knows that people will be late and are never really expected to come on time, it still is rude, inconsiderate and insensitive, and in some instances, even cruel. Doctors are notorious in India. Their patients keep waiting, either in the hospital or their homes, and the exalted Doc Saheb arrives four hours late, five hours late, sometimes does not show up at all and the message is sent at the last moment that Doc Saheb will arrive the next day now. Now, I dont want, at this point, to get distracted about the flaws in the medical systems in other cultures, of which there are many. But we are Indians, Dharmics, with a great civilization whose hallmark is love, affection, consideration, caring for others. Why cant we be more caring, regardless of what others are. Why should we look to others and compare ourselves to others and not go back to our own culture and reclaim our own ethos which is full of love and affection. I dont care a rat's ass what the British told us or what they think of us. The British can simmer in their own soup in the confined place with bad year around climate that they find themselves in right now. But I do care that someone shows up to meet me, when they said they would (remember, not when I say they should, but when they themselves commit, they would), particularly, when I am waiting for a doctor.

There has to be a distinction made between Western values and some actual universal principles, which have nothing to do with the West, no matter how hard the West tries to co-opt them as exclusively their own values. If we ourselves relinquish consideration and caring as not "our value" and therefore, "not adhere to them", then we ourselves have surrendered to the West those values and given the West the license to proclaim those as exclusively their own.

Not lying, keeping commitments, sacrifice, honesty etc are universal values. What are not universal but unique to our traditional Dharmic culture are things such as caring, love, affection, non-brutality, duty, non-materialism, moderation, balance, and yes, also order as opposed to disorder, stability and predictability in day to day life rather than chaos, adherence to law, being god fearing, having pride in ourselves, self respect, self reliance and most of all, respect for each other.

So, the question is, how would the nation which is rooted in the Dharmic values I enunciated above, be different from the nation we have today and how will we create it.

First, how would the nation rooted in Dharmic values be different from the Adharmic nation we have today. You had complained about a lack of vision for a Dharmic values based India, and I am here trying to articulate ONE vision that I have, for what a Dharmic India will look like. My vision for a Dharmic India would be where we as a people live in harmony, peace, caring for each other, having affection for each other, leading balanced lives of moderation, where we spend a good deal of time contributing to our nation by way of working and performing our work duties, but also have enough time left over to build the relationships, express the affection, enjoy each other's company, learn from each other and experience the different gifts that are bestowed upon us by our Bhagwan or Ishwar, such as music, art, dance, theater, other arts, literature, philosophy, thought and discourse. We also should be able to protect our territorial integrity from the barbarians and thieves and murderers who will take it away from us. None of these things exist in today's India. We have disharmony, chaos, lack of law and order, hatred for each other, divisiveness, highly ubalanced lives oriented almost exclusively towards materialism, no originality in our art and music, not even adherence to non-original but traditional art rooted in our own culture. And we cant defend our property either, whether it be or national territory or our personal property. Everything today is upside down. There is a lot more to my vision, but I will keep it short and manageable for people to read. We can discuss more of it in various other posts, in small chunks, if there is interest.

How would we bring about such a society ? Again, treatise after treatise can be written on it, but I will keep it very short. Let us start by diagnosing some fundamental issues we have in Indian society today, which cause the world here to be upside down and as a corollary prevent us from getting to the vision I articulated above. Fundamentally, the trauma caused over thousands of years of turmoil, cataclysms, shocks, brutality perpetrated on us, sudden and unexpected changes, and a n almost continuous run of ad hoc and whimsical governing structures imposed on us first by our invader rulers and then our colonialist masters, we have become a highly insecure people. We have no confidence as a people in the medium term, leave aside long term. And it is natural. Over the last 1000 years or so, we never had a ten year period in when we had stable set of laws and conditions, consistent, predictable, devoid of strife and peaceful. This is true even in the last 65 years, during which period, we have swerved abruptly from system to system, social engineering to social engineering and lots more upheaval.When you have this situation, people tend to internalize in their DNA short term thinking and act accordingly. How can they be expected to act with the long term in mind, as the long term is totally not known, anything can happen and no amount of planning for the long term actually holds or yields any results. So, in India there is actually a disincentive to plan and think long term, because unlike almost any other culture, in India, there is NO LONG TERM. So, I am not blaming our people, but this short term orientation of every individual has consequences. These consequences are that you cannot build anything durable and anything of value. Because nothing of value gets built in the short term. You need to keep building, on top of what the previous generations have built, and not start from scratch all the time. We start from scratch not in every generation, but in every 10 years. So, basically, we inherit nothing. We have to build from scratch, not once, but several times in one lifetime. So, the first thing we have to provide our people, if we have to reclaim our culture and restore some normalcy and emotional and mental health to our people, is to provide ourselves stability, breathing room, time, a semblance of confidence that we are not going to suffer from cataclysms every few years. There, of course, cannot be any 100% guarantees, but as a culture we have to buy that time, that room and that peace of mind for ourselves, as a starting point to building a dharmic society rooted in our culture. All this materialism, instant gratification, an orgy of grabbing everything we can lay our hands on, the mindless pollution of our air, water and other resources, to just get by today, as if there is no tomorrow, all can be attributed to this "short termness", which has infiltrated deep within our DNA, to where we are now unrecognizable as the same Indians that created the glorious civilization before the inhuman beaheaders, stoners and rapers started invading us.

So, how do we do that ? Well, it cannot be done with the present system of governance. Let me make a statement which may be controversial. Today, we have Modi as our leader. I think we have hit the lottery. No one ever thought, that a system of governance that we have today in India could ever elevate a person like Modi to the top leadership position. I also do not think that we will ever have a repeat of Modi, under our current system of governance. Let me go on to say that we will not even have someone 50% as capable and honest as Modi again, as long as the current system of governance exists. So, we are very fortunate, to have struck a lottery and to have a Modi as our leader today. But mark my words, and I have said it elsewhere in this forum too. The absolute best leader we could have hoped for under our system of governance, will also only be able to make some marginal improvements to our nation, and those too around the edges. Even Modi, will not be able to fundamentally alter the ethos of our nation, which is diseased, full of malaise to a point where I would say that we are on a deathbed as a nation and culture. And what I am saying is either going to be true or not true. It will all be there for everyone to see in five or ten years. But you can start gleaning signs of Modi's effectiveness and/or ineffectiveness starting now, on a continuous basis till he rules. And it is not because of Modi's shortcomings. It is because of the shortcomings of the rest of the one billion us and more importantly, the current system's nature and DNA, which relies on a large number of people to effect a change in direction and renders the leader, particularly a well intentioned and capable leader like Modi, pretty much helpless and hapless. The current system, by its very nature is meant to destroy us, not preserve us.

So, if a Modi is going to be ineffective in making fundamental changes, then what hope can we have in this system from anyone else who may follow? We absolutely have to change the system of governance. So, what kind of system of governance do we want, if not the type we have today ? Let us go back to our culture, to our roots, back to when things actually worked for us. I am not saying that we cannot have something totally new, but even if we have to have something new, we have to at least refer to those systems and governance models that actually worked for us. In this day and age, where nothing seems to work for us, not even clean drinking water and clean air, why would we absolutely refuse to even consult and refer to those dispensations that worked well for us in the past. Besides, if nothing else, the fact that those systems worked for us, at least proves that those systems were in sync with the very inner nature of us Dharmics and consistent with our temperament and emotions as a unique Indic people. You cant say the same about our current dispensation, which is alien to the extreme to our inner core, our inner beliefs and our emotions as a people.

Before we explore what worked for us in the past, let us start with what did not work for us in the past. I do not believe, contrary to some people on this forum, that we Indians ever had a great tradition of democracy, even of the good kind, ever in our glorious past. We had, at best, republics, which were nothing but aristocracies and oligarchies, controlled by a small number of people, and most people in that system were not enfranchised to participate in what were called "Sabhas". That is very different from the representative democracy that is practiced in places where it works reasonably well today, for them. And those republics, regardless, were not major contributors to our culture and civilization ( I am not saying, zero, I am saying, major). I bet you, other than a scholar, and before the Chanakya serial aired, no one in India would be able to even name a single republic or point to its location on the map. Moving on, then there certainly is in our culture, no tradition whatsoever of the kind of democracy that we have prevalent in India today, none.

So, what worked for us in the past ? Magadha Empire under various dynasties, including under MahapadmaNanda worked quite well. We all know, about the Maurya Dynasty and its administration, including economic system, law and order organization of lower administration units etc. There is a general consensus among historians, even the Western ones, that most of the Magadhan Ruling Dynasties did quite well. And it was not a trivial empire they were ruling. I believe, Chandra Gupta Murya too, but certainly, Ashoka ruled an empire which in territory was as big as the entire nation of India today. Then look at the Gupta Empire, from 400 AD to 600 AD. By all accounts that was the golden period of India. Again, the Guptas were not ruling a trivial empire. SamudraGupta was said to be the master and conqueror of territory from sea to sea (Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal). Then from 600 AD to almost 1000 AD, Gurjar Pratiharas, Palas, Rashtrakutas were all ruling large empires and by all accounts did well, in some cases did very well. Gurjar Pratiharas resisted the Islamic invasions for almost 400 years, stalling their momentum big time, before they let the Islamists make way to their Delhi Sultanate. Some say, if it were not for the resistance shown by Gurjar Pratiharas, India would be completely Islamic today, just like Afghanistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Then on a different timeline there were the South Indian dynasties of Pandyas, Cholas, Cheras, Stavahanas and your own, Vijayanagar empire, all of who are said to have glorious administrations. Were any of them democracies ? Being receptive and sensitive to people does not equate democracy. If you use that definition to define democracy, then anything non-democratic is by definition evil. You might as well simplistically say that Democracy = necessarily good, EVERYTHING else = necessarily BAD. It is a silly argument to claim that all these dynasties were democratic, just because they actually performed well and did good and were by and large responsive to the populations at large.

To correct course, and to even achieve a limited goal of providing our people certain amount of stability so that our population starts developing confidence in the long term, and then starts thinking long term, we need a system of governance which is benevolent, Dharmic, but firm and yes, in some instances, coercive. Coercion has to be an essential element of course correction. Does that not mean that there is a risk that we will have Adharmics at the helm, like Ravana, as opposed to a Rama. Yes, there is a risk. But there is absolutely no risk, but complete certainty in continuing with the current dispensation. You can be SURE to have millions of Sonia Gandhis ( I dont want to denigrate Ravana) and the worse, you are sure to have a billion Adharmis. Besides, when you have clear cut responsibility in a Rama or Ravana, then eventually it works itself out. You may get 10 Ravanas, but then you will also get a Rama, who WILL set things right. In the current dispensation, you will get nothing but filth, and even when you get someone like Modi in a lottery, he is rendered ineffective. If you do manage to get a Rama in the current dispensation, you will not even recognize him. He will fail and disappear.

Lastly, for all those die hard adherents of current dispensation that you all call democracy, let us look at who will lose what, if we do away with this dispensation. Who will be the losers ? Only the really really corrupt and the anti-nationals. Among normal people, the only thing we will lose is bragging rights over China, which are all very childish and stupid anyway. And yes, a bunch of us will be very embarrassed when we face our Western interlocutors or acquaintances, when they denigrate India for giving up on "democracy" and going for "hindu fundamentalist fascism". What else will we lose and who will lose it ? And imagine what we can gain, if we follow the models of governance that have worked well for us in the past, modernized for the present and actually succeed ?

Cross post and a question

anupmisra wrote:Muslims demand islamic state in Grønland Norway. So, it begins. Watch the reaction of liberals and politically correct Europeans. Watch how they will appease the islamists.

We do not want to be a part of norwegian society. And we do not consider it necessary either to move away from Norway, because we were born and grew up here. And Allah’s earth belongs to everybody. But let Grønland become ours. Bar this city quarter and let us control it the way we wish to do it. This is the best for both parts. We do not wish to live together with dirty beasts like you.’

The barbarians are no longer at the gate. They are within the walls, in the living rooms. Norway is going the way of Britain and France. From within.

Look at Norwegian society as a standard European society that had the usual biases about race till 100 years ago. Norway, after all, was part of the Denmark-Norway colonial empire.

Also like other European societies, the Norwegians have, after WW 2 brought in legislation that outlaws racism and color discrimination and have tried to create a more liberal egalitarian society by legislating out historic biases.

I have two questions that arise from this
1. Racism and colour discrimination clearly had some value at one phase of history when it could be used to justify conquest and looting. Why did it become better o legislate out racism and colour discrimination? The easy explanation is that societies became enlightened and liberal. But I put it to you that enlightenment and liberalism will not try and make radical changes in behavior unles the new behavior ha an advantage.

What advantage did the removal of racism and color discrimination?


2. If European liberalism and a falling birth rate has allowed these mad Muslims to migrate to Norway and entrench themselves taking advantage of "egalitarian" Norwegian law to create a society that discriminates Muslim versus non Muslims should we not expect a reactive rise in all the racist European tendencies (usually dubbed as Neo-nazi" - but that only blames Germans for a universal trait) that were legislated out?

One point I wish to make is that racist discrimination led to terrible wars and the new enlightenment may have been a way to try and avoid such conflict.. But with Islamists seeking conflict, I believe that we are actually going to see an increase in race/colour conflict. The "Universal" castle may be collapsing

So (my Full Moon summary of the discussion in this find thread) the new superior Eastern Universalism will be based on the timeless secret weapons:
1) Chalta hai: no sense of time needed
2) No potty places: fields are fine, if it's good enough for tigers and cows, why not for humans?
3) No need for learning from books etc: simple wisdom transfer through the "mind" is enough. Can learn during sleep, as most students do: if it was good enough for Einstein Singh Chowdhury Ramalingam, it's good enough for everyone.

^^^ Funny. Maybe I dont understand this thread, but AFAIK: No one is trying to define what Eastern Universalism is. No one is trying to define ANY universalism.

^^^^^ I just attempted to do it. Read my last post

shiv wrote:... deleted post that encapsulates what the soon-to-be-defunct Planning Commission should have done already.

A tip of the hat to you doctor, for your thoughtful and crystal-clear prescription.

shiv wrote:I commute about 6 km up and down every day (fate has gifted me with a relatively short ride) on one of Bangalore's busiest roads. Actually the police do a fantastic job of keeping traffic moving. But the ride takes 30 to 40 minutes, which translates to about 10-15 km per hour. Bullock carts do 5 -10 kmph depending on the load and road - so with all our vehicles, we are only just a little faster than bullock carts, and no faster than horse carts.

Given India's population, what exactly would be the problem in using bullock carts for non time-critical loads? For example the delivery of a refrigerator or washing machine from warehouse to residence can be done by bullock cart. OK maybe have a time slot for such deliveries - maybe even night time.

Funnily enough we show contempt for bullock carts, but Bangalore is now catering to an increasingly wealthy group of people who buy bicycles - including some that cost Rs 50,000. This is because bicycles have been made popular in the west and we are borrowing from them, as usual, despite the fact that Bangalore has no road space for bicycle lanes. But Bangalore now has "Cargo cult" bicycle lanes. Lanes are marked on the sides of some roads, and cars are always parked on these lanes.

As a people we habitually stoutly defend any value that we copy or borrow from the west because everyone insists that the the west is the best even though what we borrow cannot be implemented as it is in the west and it becomes a ludicrous parody - a cargo cult.

The depth to which western values have sunk into our psyche is illustrated by the Ferrari owner in India, the epitome of the cargo cult exponent. There is nothing that a Ferrari can do in India. It has a reputation in the west because its capability is designed for western road conditions. The Indian in his Ferrari travels at 15 kmph exactly like the Tata Nano next to him. Briefly, on short stretches of road the car can accelerate to 50% of its designed speed. But yet we import and buy them and curse that our roads are bad. But we are a democracy remember? Democracy is good. That means the roads are for everyone, and the Ferrari owner makes a one time payment for the roads when he buys his car - after that he is free to curse because the amounts that other pay are only good enough to fund roads for motorbikes and Marutis. Not Ferraris.

In Telugu we have a saying that translates to "the jackal brands itself to imitate the tiger's stripes". I am sure there is an equivalent in Kannada. When we think in English we lose touch with the earthy contempt our people always had for absurd choices.

shiv wrote:

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ It is only the secondary purpose of a Ferrari is to drive fast; the primary purpose, is well, e.g., to signal "alpha male", etc.

That is what makes it even more ironic and pathetic. 95% of Indians do not know why a Ferrari should symbolize alpha male. Alpha male is symbolized by Rajnikanth. It's him. Not what he owns.

The Indian Ferrari owner sits in India and does a cargo cult demonstration of his alpha maleness to a non existent western crowd who might have been wowed if they were present. Most western tourists I meet in India experience the roads and often wonder what the Ferrari owner might be doing with his car in India.

I sometimes wonder if Indians get a sense of satisfaction by having white people fawning over them or believing that white man would be impressed by them. Performance in front of white man has greater value than performance in front of others. White man's standards are higher. "World standards" to be met by us, as opposed to Indian standards. I suspect that many things that Indians do are driven by this need - which is itself an indicator of a deep inferiority complex.

Having contempt for using material things for display of alpha-maleness is probably a universal human value--the Ferrari-owning lawyer or hollywood moneybags with a sense of entitlement is a subject of parody and ridicule in movies produced by, well, Hollywood. On the other hand, Superman, a character who embodies strength, benevolence and humility, is celebrated. So, Westerners engage in this tawdry materialistic alpha-male display, but in their fantasies, they know it to be nonsense. Indians are more advanced because both in their real life and fantasies (movies etc.) they ignore the material displays.

The overall takeaway is that universal values do, in fact, exist and ultimately, when we are done debunking the West's mendacious claims, we could find common ground with them, and everyone else, on the basis of those values.

Suppose I have 100% scientific, guaranteed way of training Indian athletes to win Olympic medals, it will still be a long journey, it won't happen overnight.

Even if our understanding is good, and even if we are effective in our actions, getting results will take time. And both ifs are big IFs.

LokeshC wrote:^^^ Funny. Maybe I dont understand this thread, but AFAIK: No one is trying to define what Eastern Universalism is. No one is trying to define ANY universalism.

In fact I did put down a list of universal values in an earlier post. Universal values cannot be "western or eastern". For the same reason universal values can only be values that are applicable to every single human being.

When you look at values that every single human being should be bound by, you come across a problem. That problem is caused by young children, pregnant women, young nursing mothers and rickety old codgers. There are values that cannot be applied to or implemented by these groups. So universal values need to have special dispensations for these people.

Looking at the issue strictly academically you find that "Let me grab everything that I can from anyone around me" could be a great universal value that can be applied to every single human being. It has a lot of advantages. First it eliminates your poverty and your personal hunger. if you choose to share loot with a band of goons you can call that "social responsibility". But it has drawbacks. This value of "Let me grab and enrich myself" cannot be "universally"applied because children, pregnant and nursing women and rickety old codgers cannot use it conveniently for themselves. There is yet another problem - that of me and you. I think i can grab from everyone. So do you. In a face off between you and me it's going to be a case of "This world ain't big enough for the both of us". One of us must be eliminated.

This leads us to two conclusions. First, universal values are best defined as being positive values that do not cause harm or distress to anyone. Second, individual values will have to subsume themselves to group values if you must make exceptions for women and rickety old codgers.

In fact universal values come under what is called as "morality" and exist under religions and outside of religion as well (for Hindus). Once you already have these universal values, any new values that you might add should not be a gross violation of "common good" espoused by existing universal values.

For example, is "democracy" a "universalism" or "universally applicable value"? Democracy is not a value that every human being can use. The universal right to vote could be a universalism, but not "democracy". Democracy is a group characteristic that simply allows each human to voice his opinion by means of a vote. His opinion can be totally selfish, but he gets only one vote to vote for a selfish cause. But if an entire democratic group is selfish and all agree that residents of "Darkieland" or "NonDemocracy-stan" need to be taught a lesson they won't forget, then democracy is simply a tool to further the narrow interests of a small group over another group. So democracy being pushed as a "universalism" comes with a healthy dose of snake oil. "Western democracies" promote democracy as a universalism because that is the only way they can sustain themselves politically and economically in the current era.

Are "human rights" a universalism? Awwww! Who can oppose poor ickle human rights? Only a fundamentalist or communist could be opposed to human rights. But what are rights? We already know that any human who is born is free to do any damn thing he likes. Why can't he do it then? That is because his rights to do any damn thing are already restricted by religious and social convention. Religious and social conventions are not universal. They vary from society to society and have developed within societies based on their resources and their beliefs. many societies such as Hindu society have "conventions" where adult children care for parents and this forms a social support system. "Rights" of the individual have been derived from the Christian concept of "Rights of a sovereign over his domain". Rights are a subject of legal definition and as such cannot be "universal" unless there are universal laws. Very often "western universal" views or rights end up applying western laws on India and other countries for this reason.

What about "Freedom" as a universalism. Freedom once again is a matter of definition and legislation. Tecnically I am free to to what the fug I want to do with my life. But it's the legislation and definition that are a problem. And those are hardly universal.

I don't think we have to define any "new universalism" in this thread.

If you look at the way Indians behave - you can say "This is probably an Indian characteristic" or a traditionally accepted Indian mode of behaviour.

Let me suggest a thought experiment: Let us define "Indianisms" good or bad based on what we observe of Indian behaviour. To make it easy - let us not curse. That means do not be judgemental and say 'This is an Indian tendency and its baaaad (or great)" Simply post what anyone thinks of as an "Indian tendency" without judging it against anyone else even if it is shitting in the middle of a busy highway.. Does not maater if your impression is right or wrong, fair or unfair.

This list would give us a "baseline" that actually lists Indian universal Indian traits (or universal biases against perceived Indian behaviour). Both would be useful lists to work with for any discussion regarding Indian versius Western behaviour.

Let me start with a few Indian characteristics

1. Never being exactly on time for appointments
2. Relieving oneself at any convenient spot
3. Never ever forming a straight line as a queue. Queues are always triangular in the manner of a herd of goats at a gate.
4. Indian children live with their parents well beyond 18 years
5. Indians need parental permission to marry
6. Indians are vegetarian
7. Indians employ "servants"
8. Indians honk on roads
9. Indians drive on the wrong side of the road, never stick to lanes
10. Cows and dogs can be found simply sitting in the middle of Indian roads with traffic going around them
11. Indians eat with their hands
12. Indians wash, rather than wipe their bottoms
13. Indians don't seem to be in a hurry to go anywhere
14. Indians perform better at individual sports than team sports
15. Indian homeowners hang clothes out to dry where they are an eyesore
16. Indians remove their footwear at the entrance of homes and other places and are horrified by the act of putting feet on a table especially with footwear.

It is another matter that we are taught to regard many items on this list with horror, disgust or shame. That is beside the point. Disgust and satisfaction are personal or cultural characteristics. I am disgusted by the idea of drinking Moose blood or eating octopus.

Shivji and rsangramji,

I understand your POV, and I will come to that. While reading what you wrote, I think I got an "aha" moment.

The question I asked myself was : Why do we need to industrialize? Is industrialization a "universalism"?

Industrialization does two things, it creates finished goods. Finished goods have more value than "raw materials" and as a corollary it does another thing: it increases the productivity of an average citizen. This makes an average person very conscious of time, since he can earn more if he keeps time. When he can earn more he can spend more thereby increasing demand. This is the Ford model-T style consumerism.

However, whether he gets the just fruits for his work or not depends on how "egalitarian" the economy is. If the elites are planning to keep most of the money by controlling the supply chain (like in the US of today), then the workers wage will stagnate while the inflation goes up. If not, the wages rise and so does demand. In the US productivity has risen very steeply but wage growth is stagnant. The money extracted out of the workers productivity is kept by the elites.

Most people in the US are in debt not because they are unproductive and morally depraved, it is because their wage increase is insufficient to compensate for inflation, resulting in them using credit to buy everyday stuff, resulting in even more inflation

The elites in any capitalist-free-market industrialist system will get disproportionately richer than the average person and over the years will result in extremely disproportionate power for the elites compared to the non-elites. In a sense, the US is colonizing its own people. It is extracting money out of them by reserving the value of increased productivity to just the elite. The elites have also become disconnected with the people and end up being delusional. The world should be thankful that the US has vast resources and a growing population. Had it fallen short of either of these, the US would have earnestly started colonizing the world.

Thus industrializing blindly has its own set of problems and it has to be carefully considered before its applied to India. Perhaps a different model of the same thing would suit it, instead of the supply choking method of Nehruvian economics that was tried in our early decades post independence, or the demand driven resource guzzling western style rapid industrialization.

The only argument I can come up as a case for western style rapid industrialization, is due to the nash equilibrium problem. If you do not industrialize at a close enough rate compared to a given country, then over time that country can and (will) screw you over. Because it will have accumulated enough wealth, power and weapons to easily conquer you. There is really no other solution, that I can think of, to this problem which makes it so that we can say "screw you" to western style industrialization and manage to keep a western style industrial power away from our natural resources.

LokeshC wrote:

The question I asked myself was : Why do we need to industrialize? Is industrialization a "universalism"?

<snip>

The only argument I can come up as a case for western style rapid industrialization, is due to the nash equilibrium problem. If you do not industrialize at a close enough rate compared to a given country, then over time that country can and (will) screw you over. Because it will have accumulated enough wealth, power and weapons to easily conquer you. There is really no other solution, that I can think of, to this problem which makes it so that we can say "screw you" to western style industrialization and manage to keep a western style industrial power away from our natural resources.

if you look at the economy of the world, whom does Indian industrialization benefit? India. Who is going to lose out? Some industrial nation.

Why should an industrial nation lose out and let some Indian industrialize? So what to do? Can't attack India directly. Target too big.

This is where western Universalism comes in: "Democracy and Human rights"

The west already has in place thousands of NGOs who monitor democracy and human rights in India as per western norms. And when any industry is due to be set up, it is the NGO who start howling about democracy and human rights - interminably delaying the setting up of industry.

Guess what China did? That explains why China industrialized faster.

Western universalism is a tool. It is not a "universal" thing at all. It is a tool to retain the current world order. That's all.

Shiv,

I get that. Its a common game played by bullies. Once the bully realizes that sooner or later his victims might drive a rod up his musharraf, the bully starts preaching peace and equality. What it means is "lets maingain status quo", I beat you up, stole your lunch and you are pissed off, but now we are all peaceful and we dont beat people up. Infact, you should be grateful to me, because I taught you the value of peace.

I am asking a tangential question here and that is: Why do we need western style industrialization. Is there a better solution than blindly copying a western model, and at the same time show WU and their sepoy network their righteous place?

EDIT: let me clarify:
Western style industrialization comes with heavy investment in infrastructure and also has a ton of side effect I outlined above. It will also result in inevitable urbanization. The end result is an imbalance in nature and sustainability. How do we make life easier for our people and at the same time bypass these pitfalls?

shiv wrote:I don't think we have to define any "new universalism" in this thread.

6. Indians are vegetarian

It is another matter that we are taught to regard many items on this list with horror, disgust or shame. That is beside the point. Disgust and satisfaction are personal or cultural characteristics. I am disgusted by the idea of drinking Moose blood or eating octopus.

I am not selectively picking on your list - please to explain what this declaration is supposed to achieve?

Feeling are irrelevant - one may be disgusted by tomato juice. What is the evidence for vegetarianism in India:

see: The food habits of a nation
The article is from 2006, I do not have more recent figures, but I strongly suspect it is more skewed towards non-vegetarianism today.
As per data here it says only 31% of India are vegetarian. It gets worse Brahmins are onlee 55% vegetarian!

Could all be a conspiracy of those WU peddling Hindu newspaper onlee!

There are spiritual movements from some mathas in some towns which propagate vegetarinism. I know of a BC family which became vegetarian. I know of many non-brahmin families which are vegetarian.

Also non veg of west =/ non veg of india.

Indians generally eat non-veg along with rice or an added taste. A chicken biryani genrally has 2-3 pieces of chicken. Even that is eaten only around once a week or so.

Pulikeshi wrote:I am not selectively picking on your list - please to explain what this declaration is supposed to achieve?

Feeling are irrelevant - one may be disgusted by tomato juice. What is the evidence for vegetarianism in India:

see: The food habits of a nation
The article is from 2006, I do not have more recent figures, but I strongly suspect it is more skewed towards non-vegetarianism today.
As per data here it says only 31% of India are vegetarian.

Could all be a conspiracy of those WU peddling Hindu newspaper onlee!

There are other surveys that put the vegetarian percentage at 40 - 45%. Irrespective, even at 31%, the Indian percentage is more than double that of any other country in the vegetarian rankings.

India is definitely the country most synonymous with vegetarianism globally.

It gets worse Brahmins are onlee 55% vegetarian!

Yes, whether it be education, income or vegetarianism - Jains are handily thulping Brahmins nowadays and the gap is only widening.

LokeshC wrote: I am asking a tangential question here and that is: Why do we need western style industrialization. Is there a better solution than blindly copying a western model, and at the same time show WU and their sepoy network their righteous place?

How do we make life easier for our people and at the same time bypass these pitfalls?

The question you ask is incorrect, even if the answer to your question is'nt.

Here is where I agree. Repeating western style industrialization is not going to work as most of manufacturing now employs even less
people than ever before. A better question that aligns with your intent I guess is ask, what sort of activities by humans (Indians) would
achieve the best results to improve their quality of life. The challenge is that it is easier to point to Industrialization or Knowledge
Economy as a problem, what is really needed, especially as these concepts do not scale in India, is alternate models. Consider for
example a cell phone company in India - a good percentage of the market share means as many customers (millions) as large as population of industrialized countries. This brings challenges and therefore opportunities for innovation that can make India hyper-
competitive around the world, but where are Indian companies in this space? Notice TCS and Bharathi signing up for taking care of toilets
in hundreds of schools - these and other solutions to the scaling problem have to be found. How many schools exist in India and how
many in most industrialized countries?

The previous government for all its ills had one idea to make India a consumer market - this aligns nicely with those countries already
industrialized. The new government is looking for models that will help it solve some of these scaling issues and at the same time avoid
the pitfalls - environmental and otherwise. If India succeeds, then those new solutions will define a new set of values, some of them
will become strong enough to claim 'Universalism.'

Ashoka took the universalism of Buddhism only after the defeat of Kalinga, but not because of it, even if it makes for good myth.
WU is a result of successful industrialization by the West, we can dispute the degree of success and the cost that was paid to achieve it.
Yet the West has the money and the leverage, given it came up with the solutions to dictate its solutions as universal to all others.
The Indian value system and universalism, if any, will only come, similar to Ashoka's finding of Buddism, after successful models are
arrived at to solve the scaling and other challenges unique to India.

Arjun wrote: India is definitely the country most synonymous with vegetarianism globally.

Yes, whether it be education, income or vegetarianism - Jains are handily thulping Brahmins nowadays and the gap is only widening.

Whose goat what goes? Good for the Jains onlee no, they could be teaching their values to the Brahmin sods!? 400% improvement onlee!

Yes, India is also a country most synonymous with an English News media that reaches 40 - 45% of the population.
Perhaps all the Jains are making a difference to the percentage!</sarc never off>

Virupaksha wrote: Indians generally eat non-veg along with rice or an added taste. A chicken biryani genrally has 2-3 pieces of chicken. Even that is eaten only around once a week or so.

The problem with all such statements is back to the scaling problem again. Have Indians been historically vegetarian, the evidence is
not the case. Did vegetarianism become more accepted culturally to adjust to the scaling problem of feeding larger and larger numbers
of people - I do not know, but would love someone to study these and see what new models can be arrived at...

Mind you I remain agnostic to meat or vegetable or tomato (no matter how disgusting I find the beast!) consumption by the people.
My question is different - in that what you declare as values are a product of the conventions you grew up with, and they in turn were
adaptations to the circumstances and the context in which we live in today. However, as those underlying substrates change, so will the
conventions and new declarations will be made eventually as new values and perhaps even universalism.

Pulikeshi wrote:Whose goat what goes?

Admirably halaal sentiment onlee

Good for the Jains onlee no, they could be teaching their values to the Brahmin sods!? 400% improvement onlee!

Oh yes, all for it. While at it, they could even teach the Hindu sods a thing or two about Hindutva - at least the super-efficient ones like Amit Shah or Praveen Togadia.

Perhaps all the Jains are making a difference to the percentage!</sarc never off>

No they don't substantially change the 31% percentage that in any case qualifies India to be termed the 'vegetarian capital' of the world.

But what they do is to add a dash of glamour to it (with their success) that the poor Brahmin sods could never manage. A bit like WU - in that sense.

Pulikeshi wrote:

shiv wrote:I don't think we have to define any "new universalism" in this thread.

6. Indians are vegetarian

It is another matter that we are taught to regard many items on this list with horror, disgust or shame. That is beside the point. Disgust and satisfaction are personal or cultural characteristics. I am disgusted by the idea of drinking Moose blood or eating octopus.

I am not selectively picking on your list - please to explain what this declaration is supposed to achieve?

The purpose of the entire list of declarations including this specific one is to collect up a list of descriptions of India and Indians that seem to stand out as memes in conversation and the media, to be subjected to scrutiny and validation just as you have asked about this particular declaration.

The idea is as follows - every description or meme of India made by Indians is either an honest reflection of what is unique to India or a "perception of India" coloured by biases. In fact all may be a mix of both, but collecting up the list for scrutiny and validation is important. No list no scrutiny.

As regards this particular meme ("Indians are vegetarian") - you have sparked off the scrutiny. As you rightly point out - I have also read that 60% of Indians eat meat. But that still leaves 40% and that has important economic consequences. A busload of Indians at a tourist destination - or a planeload taking off from India will have scores, if not hundreds demanding vegetarian food and not being ready for that will mean curtains for a particualr airline or tourism company. Food processing and food supplement manufacturers in India need to mark their packages with a green dot (vegetarian) or a red dot (non veg) or else the product will not move.

All this apart, the reason for Indians being vegetarian in some numbers has little to do with kindness to animals. The reason for vegetarianism in India and the profile of meat eating in India has been forgotten by many educated Indians. Indian food habits are dictated by Ayurveda and certain foods are considered good or bad at certain times or during certain illnesses. For example a man with vague belly symptoms will not pop in Pepto Bismol (does that stuff still exist?) or antacid. He will likely avoid "hot" foods and that often includes chicken. Ayurveda - or vestiges of it live among our people and that is steadily being crushed by the onslaught of modern medicine that does not have a clue about the little things that everyone suffers from while being able to address big things that people should be shit scared of when they get it. Diet is everything and the nuances of the vegetarian diet in Indian tradition are unknown to most of us Macaulayites and are being discarded by people with the sort of training I received. Meat eating in India is traditionally not done every day. meat eaters are often vegetarianon some days of the week.

I think Indian vegetarianism will tell us a lot more about health and disease if only the medical community were not so cocky and self assured that their western methods cannot be touched so help me God.

From today's Hindu, if anyone is interested
Your are what you eat

(sorry). Thread now full speed into OT.

At least this one I can negate, from my vast travels all over the duniya:

15. Indian homeowners hang clothes out to dry where they are an eyesore

This is a worldwide practice except in places where said clothes would promptly get stolen. For instance, i wouldn't recommend in in, say, Feruguson MO or NYC.

Not OT Magnolian. Not OT. Very T.

"Western Universalism" is a "you farted" premise. it is a declaration that comes out of nowhere which people assume are true. The premises of "universalism" are not universal at all, but once people are informed by a declaration that they have a list of "universally applicable" things to admire, they start judging everything through the lens of whether it is universally applicable or not.

So we have an increasing list of things that are western, and because they are western, they are universally applicable and if they are not present, it is unacceptable and below par.

Democracy
Freedom from discrimination
Human rights
Right to life
Right to practice religion
Right to employment
Right to healthcare
Sexual freedom
Right to physical safety
Right to clean surroundings
Right to peace and quiet/freedom from noise
Right to wholesome food
Right to leisure
Freedom from corruption
Right to happiness

The list can be made to go on - the list of "good" that stems from desirable universalisms. Indian habits and descriptions of India and Indians are an epic fail when seen from these universalist ideal goals. India will rank 179th out of 204 or some such thing overall.

i am saying think, if possible. Question. Do not accept blindly. If something is desirable and applicable to everyone everywhere, it starts looking like a "universalism". I have already stated my views on the level of universal applicability of democracy, human rights and freedom. I would be happy to debate the validity of any other universal trait anyone might care to name.

The real point is that if we go chasing after all the "universally" applicable things that someone else dictates to us - we are never going to do what we need to do. We are continuously accepting their views of our problems, modelling ourselves after their desires and copy their solutions - many of which are a waste of time for India. We have to think for ourselves. I don't get the feeling that we are doing that across the board.

Arjun wrote: But what they do is to add a dash of glamour to it (with their success) that the poor Brahmin sods could never manage. A bit like WU - in that sense.

I will not respond to your futile provocation, because you attack a premise that is incorrect, with a presumption that is even more so...
If you invented 'Jainatva' on this thread - you and the hindutva folks both deserve each other!

shiv wrote: From today's Hindu, if anyone is interested
Your are what you eat

Shiv, no disagreements - except in making vegetarianism a religion for Indians and neither is it the only way per Ayurveda.
What I find disgusting is the mushrooming of well known grease bucket fast food places all over India peddling carbs and fat.
Worse, when I see the next generation kids eating useless calories from these establishments without any thought into what they become.
Vegetarian or not, the ratio of calories to nutritional content is becoming a challenge esp. given Indian genetics and health propensities.

You have shown skepticism on my ability to understand gut bacteria (or microbes of any kind), but some of us have dabbled in the
micro-biome (humans carry more bacteria than human cells for example) and are quite familiar with the latest research in this space.
Ultimately it is a personal choice - just like I hate tomatoes and I do not need the Ayurveda to tell me so, etc.

shiv wrote: "Western Universalism" is a "you farted" premise. it is a declaration that comes out of nowhere which people assume are true.

You are free to disagree with the 'good' in WU, but if WU is a fart, the Eastern version is not even there... as it is not in existence.
One is welcome to assume that no such Eastern version should exist, but this view will cause takaleef to an increasing few... is my guess.

My small point - WU came to become WU because of the experiences of the West - bludgeoning and cussing - as it arrived at these final
conclusions. The experience they gained is as important to understand as the final declarations. Even if you disagree with all of it!

SD and any potential Eastern Universalism, will come only with a new set of experiences of the East - bludgeoning and cussing - as it
arrives at new conclusions that will become declarations. What I suspect to be the role of the present is to guide that experience and
help avoid the mistakes the West made and sketch out a framework for the new conventions to flourish. However, I can see the argument
that this should not be the case as well. Hence my original question on if SD was an universalism or a localized specialization?

This thread can therefore be only cathartic, but those that want a solution may have to hold their breaths too long!

Pulikeshi wrote: You have shown skepticism on my ability to understand gut bacteria (or microbes of any kind), but some of us have dabbled in the
micro-biome (humans carry more bacteria than human cells for example) and are quite familiar with the latest research in this space.
Ultimately it is a personal choice - just like I hate tomatoes and I do not need the Ayurveda to tell me so, etc.

In fact most of the world has managed perfectly well without Ayurveda. 6 billion humans live their lives without Ayurveda. But I estimate that 6 or 700 million Indians are, as a matter of convention, following and handing down as memes, Ayurvedic dietary and other advice.

If you were a planner tasked with developing India would you choose to try and wipe out all vestiges of Ayurvedic practice and knowledge among Indians and get them to "start afresh" with science. Or would you try and slot in what is demonstrably useful about Ayurveda in parallel with other health maintenance knowledge, and perhaps fund research that tries to find common ground between Ayurveda and what we call modern science.

It is my contention that Ayurvedic practice is still so deeply ingrained among Indian memes that it makes sense to work in parallel rather than wiping out everything. But this is not happening in India. Indian scientific/medical education dismisses Ayurveda just as surely as you state that you do not need Ayurveda to tell you what to eat. That means in India we are making things more difficult for ourselves. We are simply discarding what there is and the existing memes and imposing a completely new structure. And we are, as usual, doing a "cargo cult job" to catch up in an environment where the challenge is huge.

If you ask my opinion, we are discarding existing wooden wheel technology and trying to reinvent plastic wheel tech over a whole lot of areas in India. So to speak.

Pulikeshi wrote:

shiv wrote: "Western Universalism" is a "you farted" premise. it is a declaration that comes out of nowhere which people assume are true.

You are free to disagree with the 'good' in WU, but if WU is a fart, the Eastern version is not even there... as it is not in existence.

Correct on both counts. Both do not exist . But you speak of WU as if it actually exists as a "universally applicable" phenomenon. It does not. It remains a declaration of a false premise. So we have a fundamental disagreement in any case. You have your view and I have mine. The rest of the stuff, breath holding, catharsis, is all unnecessary fluff. Your rhetoric does not make your viewpoint or my viewpoint any stronger or weaker.

shiv wrote: If you were a planner tasked with developing India would you choose to try and wipe out all vestiges of Ayurvedic practice and knowledge among Indians and get them to "start afresh" with science. Or would you try and slot in what is demonstrably useful about Ayurveda in parallel with other health maintenance knowledge, and perhaps fund research that tries to find common ground between Ayurveda and what we call modern science.

Ironically, many hospitals in the West and personal physicians are incorporating Ayurveda and its principles as well as good eating from
Greek, Mediterranean, etc. So totally agree with you - the idea of eating a bit of fat (ghee in rice) at the start of a meal is followed
without knowing why it is important to do so. Also, important is if ghee itself is not good for you because we understand lipids profiles
better today, then how can we update Ayurveda.

My point is simply that Ayurveda and other Indian systems are not final conclusions, they never meant to be...
I was talking about this to an Ayurveda teacher one or two years ago... and he agreed that we have not thought of updates...
WU has forced us to see the sciences (as it were in India) and law (Smriti, etc.) as finalities... all I am saying is
'the times they are changing' - Indian doctors, dietitians, economist, planner will have to not just incorporate ancient wisdoms -
but will have to enhance them and encourage more research in this space. As Lokesh or someone else pointed out how to create
journals, etc. in these spaces to help encourage new research and spreading of knowledge?

All that said, back to my tomato - people will still do what they want to do, but at least the framework provides them guidelines.

shiv wrote:But you speak of WU as if it actually exists as a "universally applicable" phenomenon. It does not.

Shiv,

If WU were really non existent then this thread would be as well.
I am sticking with WU exists but it is not Universal, but some day EU will exists but I am not sure if it will be a Universal or not.
My blinders for now, willing to correct as I learn more...

The future of India, in my view is best guided by the culture and ethos that is already present within India.

Unfortunately what has happened within India is that certain systems and a certain manner of problem solving were introduced by the British that Indians learned. But once the British left the went back to Britain and started solving their problems in their way based on their culture and their resources and arrived at some results.

We in India have been trained to follow the west so closely that we automatically look for solutions from the west for problems that seem similar but are not comparable in scale or detail. So we end up applying meaningless solutions.

Too many Indians, upon seeing the vehemence with which I am critical of certain western memes imagine that i harbour some deep resentment or am indulging in "catharsis'. It happens time and again.

The point is not catharsis. My words are aimed at Indians to tell them that they must use their heads and apply solutions that are relevant to India that Indians will follow. In India I am absolutely surrounded by symbols of "cargo cult" that have no hope of being followed in India and I would love to see Indians think for themselves and ask why they do it. For 50 years i have seen "No Horn" signs outside hospitals. But the overcrowded roads are full of people who find it so difficult to use the road that they simply walk in and rely on the driver's kindness to slow down. Today I saw a man with a load on his head. He could not turn his head but he still had to cross a road - a busy road across from St Martha's hospital


The police exhort you to use "lane discipline". But a three lane road can accommodate 3 buses side by side, or 4 cars, or 7 autos, or 25 scooters or some combination of those. Does it mak sense for only 3 scooters to pass a traffic signal at a time from a 3 lane road, or does it make sense to allow 25 of them to pass in the same time? We need to think like Indians in India.

A 500 rupee fine is being mooted for urination in public. A good move. But where are the toilets for those who have to hold back their piss? There should be signs that say "Toilets - 100 meters away". Instead we have signs that say "No Horn", "Follow Lane discipline".

What I see as "dangerous" about Western dictates is that Indians follow them blindly. They may be good for the west but we must not take them unthinkingly. But we do.

Pulikeshi wrote: I am sticking with WU exists but it is not Universal,

This is exactly what I have been saying over 10,000 posts.

I have only tried to point out that if something is not universal, the declaration of universality is fake, like calling 1,000 white roses as being a beautiful red colour. Indians should be able to recognize that and understand that it is not universal. They need to think and not accept blindly.

Pulikeshi wrote:I will not respond to your futile provocation, because you attack a premise that is incorrect, with a presumption that is even more so...If you invented 'Jainatva' on this thread - you and the hindutva folks both deserve each other!

You brought up the 31% vegetarian percentage in India, not realizing how remarkably distinctive that statistic is relative to global norms.

No doubt you find my stressing on this inconvenient fact to be a provocation.

Pulikeshi wrote: What I find disgusting is the mushrooming of well known grease bucket fast food places all over India peddling carbs and fat.
Worse, when I see the next generation kids eating useless calories from these establishments without any thought into what they become.
Vegetarian or not, the ratio of calories to nutritional content is becoming a challenge esp. given Indian genetics and health propensities.

Pulikeshi, even the west which comes up with these clever sounding names like "carbs and fat" has no clue what it is doing and what exactly is happening with populations. Nothing is working.

In the 1970s we were told "eat first class protein -i.e animal protein.

Later we were told "Dont eat saturated fat. Don't eat cholesterol."

Now they say "Beef causes cancer. Animal protein eaters are at higher risk of cancer. Cholesterol and saturated fat are not all bad for all people. Very slim people are at high risk of heart attack. Some obese people are not"

Left hand does not know what right hand is doing. The hand hygeine epiphany has extended to "don't shake hands because you will pick up bacteria from someone" and at the other end gastroenterologists are doing "fecal transplants" where a healthy person's shit is given to a person with disease via a tube up his rear end.

Science simply does not have a clue. They are simply buggering about picking up this, discarding that. But Indians who can see this are no wiser. They are not looking at existing memes for new information. They are simply swaying with western winds.

Indian history & language:

Question -- can we map out what the language of knowledge, the language of power and the language of the people was in each era and area in India?

I have a vague glimmering of a notion that as the language of the people diverged from the language of knowledge and the language used in the courts, Indian kingdoms/states weakened; and when the language was that of the people, they were strengthened.

So, e.g., in ancient times, Sanskrit was both the language of knowledge as well as a spoken language (though some dispute that). Indian culture was at its most vigorous.

Then the spoken language began to diverge from Sanskrit; and India's downhill slide began. Persian at some time became the court language and that did not promote political vigor either. Then English.

By this theory, the successful places/times, like the Marathas, the Sikhs, etc., would have grown closer to the ordinary people's language.

If this idea bears out, then perhaps one of India's problems is again that peoples' mothertongues are not the languages of knowledge or power.

shiv wrote: Science simply does not have a clue. They are simply buggering about picking up this, discarding that. But Indians who can see this are no wiser. They are not looking at existing memes for new information. They are simply swaying with western winds.

The silliness is on both sides - if WU people claims it has all the answers,
the Eastern people make claims that the Ayurveda/East system had all the answers!

If a loved one (god forbid) has cancer or heart disease or ebola - which system has solutions today?
It is definitely valid that one can use the knowledge in Ayurveda to help avoid these in the first place...
Now if you can make the claim that these systems know everything and they also found the way to cure it, I would love to get educated.

Please see, we were recently having an informal conversation on funding/policy choices for solving diseases such as ebola.
The scientific claim went like this: patient zero is a 2 year old child, but the cause of ebola is eating bush meat
(ok contact with infected blood or tissue) - why was a 2 year old coming in contact with bush meat? Damn dirty Africans of course!
The media in the West did not even care about all this till a couple of White Americans were infected - this is the sad fact.

More importantly, what solution can the East - Ayurveda etc. provide for this disease? It has all answers onlee no?
I do not want to make it personal, but all the folks practicing medicine, engineering, law, etc. today are practicing what system?

Better to be wrong and alive, then to be right and dead!

Pulikeshi wrote:
More importantly, what solution can the East - Ayurveda etc. provide for this disease? It has all answers onlee no?
I do not want to make it personal, but all the folks practicing medicine, engineering, law, etc. today are practicing what system?

Pulikeshi I don't want to make it personal either but I must point out that you choose to display both sophistry and ignorance with startling confidence. You are asking me to answer a question about a claim about Ayurveda that I did not make - and this is the second time you have done it in two posts. Not sure why you do this but I think you have digressed from the issue and you will succeed in getting me off topic if I answer a nonsensical question on the lines of "What profession are trained whores following today?". Trained whores will always follow their dharma no? The will stick to their training. They will not be vaids or soldiers

What I find interesting is that for all your talk about shruti smriti bla bla - you are a loyal exponent of Western Universalism. Getting that into my head makes it easier to see your viewpoint and not be deluded by your veneer awareness of Indian ethos by the Sanskrit jargon that you use. You are a man who lives by the west and your views are your right.

Pulikeshi wrote: all the folks practicing medicine, engineering, law, etc. today are practicing what system?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 654932.cms

Of the seven lakh doctors who register on an average in India every year, only 3-4% are allopaths. Ayurveds and homeopaths make up the largest chunk.

There were nearly 13 Ayurveds and seven homeopaths registered in the country for every allopath who signed up with their respective medical councils in 2011, reveals an analysis of the latest data from the ministry of health and family welfare. In other words, there were over four lakh Ayurveds and two lakh homeopaths registered in India for 33,000-odd allopaths across the country.