Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: February 2010

For the intended readers of this blog, who belong to the same idealogical persuasion as mine, we mostly try to analyse the problems/issues our country is facing. I also subscribe to and participate ina nmber of other blogs, where people have a very good knowledge in the subject matter they are discussing and are more eloquent. Im just younger and more of a general spitting of whatever in my mind.These are serious subjects and most often leave us in a inspiring/angry/sober state. After all we have been persecuted and plundered for the last 1000 years or so and as of now we rank number 125 in human development index- which is very bad. And reading our history books- all we read is how we were defeted by the mughals and the british and huge chapters dedicated explaining how great our alien conquerers(lord a, Lord B, Mughal A , mughal B) were – putting us in a defeatist frame of mind.

we are insecure, lack pride becoz we feel like we are not better than or as good as some of the other – well races are although we are not the only ones who feel this way.

let me give a bit of pker theory here. In poker, there are good players(intelligent) and bad players. The intelligent players feel quite confident when playing the game becoz they know that they are right, highly likely to be successful and win a lot of chips,feel good about their understanding about the theory of the game.
How ever, luck is a part of this game – and sometimes the game is not fair as in – the good players are loosing chips.
when one becomes short stacked, his confidence is definitely shaken, and starts to doubt his abilities. If this is a tournament situation, the best player is not necessarily the winner most of the time, although his chances are high. But we play the game anyway – and the most important thing is to enjoy it especially if you understand that you are a good player and that you might not necessarily be the winner.

So we indians are good players, better players than others in the game of life- which is also abot survival just like a poker tournament. An we have to understand that we are the best and be proud of ourselves. and this is he aim of this blog.

Intellectually – do you have any idea how advanced our science, literature, philosophies were. I mean the vedas, kalri martial arts, classical music – carnatic, our food – we had a concept of food is medicine.
Actually im gonna stop here with all the cliche’s. You should do your own research on these.point is we were really very advanced and enjoyed a wonderful lifestyle.
we had not imposed imperialsm on any other nation thoughout significant part of our recorded history. – the reason we had what we wanted and we were happy people.
I’ll tell you what europe is the worst place to live in. Human body is not meant to live in such colder climate – and as a consequence, colder climate makes you feel so depressed all the time. even today with all their wealth and might, europeans suffer the highest rate of depression becoz of their climate and their lifestyle and social structure.
May be italy was a bi sunny but – if you think romans were great, you are mistaken. They had little morality, had a lot of barbaric and cruelty in their society. Infact the Average life span of the citizen of rome was 28 according to a couple of sources – think steven pinker mentioned that in his lecture as well. – It means they were getting into conflicts, getting killed quite often thats not good is it?
And england is even worse- ive already told you this but 85% of kids lbelow 5 died in lindon becoz of poverty in 1770. and check the book- ayn rand capitalism.

Europes history was war prone, the crusades are an example(big fight euros vs arabs). greeks – u know sparta-fighter.

I mean these guys hae been living well(referring to just being rich, not necessarily illuminated or happier)only for the past 200 yrs.

And like i said, IVC vedas and our gloy days were in BC, though we were the richest even from 1st centuy to 15th century AD. im just quoting facts again form m previous posts. you can also find links to these info in the blogroll.

idiots say caste system is very evil.- there is also a correct interpretation of caste system from a number of indian authors – find them.

We are poor at this point, and technologically not as advanced . but that really does not mean that they are smarter than us. Tak a hollywood movie and translate it- u will see how dumb/simple/unwitty they conversations and jokes are. we just have this fascination with people who speak in engilsh becoz of the macaulay education and english rule. but we’ll get over that hangover pretty soon.
Our literary work,vedas, philosophies are incomparable and they set us a level apart- although you think im just saying this – if u learn and understand these indians stuff u will also come to think this way.

The only thing is, europeans are physically stronger-more atheletic n stuff. like they have a better muscle tone, fair skin- and all the good things associated with living ina colder climate.- but they had suffered for that by living in this cold/harsh condition.

about fair skin.- cultures all across the world, eben ones with no exposure to european colonialism show a bias for fair skin. becoz, fair skin is associated with youth and less hardship in ths sun- all races feel this way. more over, fair skin means less melanin production- melanin – inhibits the production of oestrogen(in females) and other vital hormones required for healthy growth. and hence fair skin is associated with attractiveness. but ifyou ask me – eurpean pink, rough, juicelss skin isnt that great anyway.

so what else is there that makes to feel good about being a indian.

the mongols all of em have been worshipping ou for thousands of yrs- gautama buddha. europe was in the dark ages, enlightenment- renaissance was by defiition’ transfer of knowledge fron east to west’ and that was just a few hundread of years ago.

so we are better than them in all counts. just a temporary blot in our existence.
I mean the winners write history, and so when you read this history book it makes you feel sad and insecure, when other facts come out you will truely feel more happier and prouder.

My concern is just this one thing, if english and western culture takes over, 300 yrs from now all our languages/culture will be lost, people living in india then(may be lot of interacial mixing) will study that all the inventions of the world and the greatness is attributed to europeans, and that indians were static.It will also say how english is the best language( it did not have aproper grammatical structure untill shakespeare) these future indians will be having an inferiotiy complex becoz of what the history book tells them and hence becoz of this cultural imperialsm – they will be exploited as all the appreciation goes to the west and people look up to the west as the trend setters and arts and cultural leaders. – OH wait, this is whats happening today as well. we better come out of it – work ina direction to get out if this situation by appreciating our arts/culture/history /stuff . so think in the right direction.- but know that we are the best- the point i had tried to make so inarticulately. be proud of oyuself and dont kiss the foreigh guys ass(also includs over enthusiatically talking to a janitor-or a common man just becoz he is white) whenever you stumble across one whether here or abroad.


why cant indian suburbs be the poshest suburbs ? why cant indians be considered the most technologically advanced group of people? why cant indian be the best artists/philosophers and scientists? why cant indians be considered the most smartest, sophisticated and coolest people ?

you might find the above questions funny – but you probably are fooling yourself if you think people dont think the same way about their own race. every one wants to be at the top.

Anyway, we can be all that if only wealth permits. any country/society/group that has the resources naturally attracts the brightest, the most beautiful and the most sophisticated people.  so back to the point of we need money for us be calling ourselves the coolest people on earth and then we can start bashing up those immigrants who come to our country and who we can make to do -clean up our streets kinda jobs.

so lets try to get rich – or rather get back to being rich which we were throughout recorded and pre-history except for the last 300 yrs or so. Like i said remittance is veryimportant you guys. you – NRI take heed. Most of my posts are addressed at NRIs anyway. send money back home. make sure that the gates of immigration is not closed upon us. Help ur fellow countrymen( if ur a second gen- ur root country men) make some money and do well in that society.Help channel that back to india.

If ou were to choose between a) consuming more than you need but working for it and b) consuming less that what one needs to be healthy but not having to work hard what would you choose?

now which situation do you think the skinny little indians are in?(probably a third worse situation).  what should happen for us to be healthy and respected hence.

IF indians consume more (like george w claimed disappointedly), we will have to be buying more stuff from other countries – as in bringing in the consumable resources from other countries – it could be food, clothin anything that makes u feel like you belong to the 21st century and not some primitive ages. So we pay for it, and if the RBI prints more money , the rupee weakens. – this is not so bad , since the rupee is weak- we can still be a good market for out-sourcing and we can continue to try to dominate the I.T. industry.

How ever if we starve, to try and keep the rupee stronger, we will be losing the out sourcing marjet to banglades,philippines(already taken ahead of us is in cal centre support) and other emergin south asian countries.  and now u enter into a cycle of starving and being out of work. Well im not an economist and what im saying can be argued against with other explanations but – the main idea of mine is right.

So consume more and work more- dont worry about weakening rupee becoz we can consume more of world resource and also continue to dominate the I.T. and out exports become higher if the rupee is low. but hang on – exports become higher?? – doesnt that mean other countris will be taking away our resources(like food, cotton) for their consumption?- yes you are right.

When the british ruled india – The britsh government had to spend much more for developing and maintaining the infrastructue and it colonies, than what it collected as Tax(Lagaan- just so that u kids get excited). but they did that becoz, it facilitated trade. – they took the cotton(raw material) away from india, made clothes out of it from the achines in england- sold the same to us indians and got our money. coke, foreign cars etc today are doing something similar- use the indian resources- be it steel or water n chemicals or other raw materials  and use the indian labour to manufacture their product, but a bulk of the profit is going to a few people in maagerial level back in their own country – so all this talk of how its creating jobs is somehow irrelevant as in the end indian money id just going to foreign owners.

So do we consume or not consume? we have to consume -raw materials, but we shouldnt pay for the services of foreign managers. we can get cotton from other countries and set up industries to make our own clothes but not pay 10000 rs for a pair of levis jeans – which is althought made in india using indian raw materials, takes away most of your money to a foriegner.

As it is a waiter in australia is getting paid 25 dollars an hour compared to a brilliant I.T. guy in chennai who earns much much less.- If this is the situation why would we want to pay for their services-  even if their rate is 10 times cheaper than an Indian labourer’s, we shouldnt pay the foreigner as it is taking money out of india – which is supposed to circulate here.

apparantly idiot manmohan isnt doing that, we are exportin huge volumes of raw materials suh as chenicals to china and buying- huge volumes of fertilisers from them using the tax payers money – to subsidise the farmers. same with cotton- oh and we spend 30 billion dollars per year for pieces of steel. we export steel and we buy weapons. guess what after the 26/11 jewish house episode, -israel is now the biggest expoerter of weapons to india- so we are paying the jews also.

at the same time as 26/11 , manmohan sold the gold against a relatively stronger dollar and about 4 months back, bought back the gold from IMF when the dollar was very weak- ur a genius mr.manmohan. and why is sonia gandhi acting like she gives a damn aout indians- do you really care sonia- why?  So when you see foreigners like ford and honda, dont be too happy that they are here. JUST THINK IF THIS IS BRINGING IN MONEY INTO INDIA LIKE I.T. COMPANIES OR IS IT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM HERE ?

For any ideal to survive- be it religion or principles or even a scientific school of thought, it need extremists who can aggressive pursue its agenda while the majority under that group are blissfully innocent and just buy into the mainstream propaganda. BJP is not such a bad idea for the country.

This was one of the comments was posted on a blog in satyameva jeyate site on chomsky’s comments on kashmir. find the link to this very illuminating blog in the blogroll section of this site .

Rajiv Chandran said:

Unlike what many people believe, racism was the offshoot of european and christian imperial dynamics (there is no separating the two) not the other way around. European people went to other lands and claimed it as their own based on the doctrine of ‘christian discovery’ (in spite of not having any historical connections). This was also the rationale for the demonization and subjugation of the heathen and justification for economic exploitation, social dis-empowerment, co-option or subversion of traditions, and appropriation of resources and knowledge.

European historical grand narrative now states that the christian imperative gave way to ‘enlightened’ ideas. However despite liberal claims of finding colonialism abhorrent – it is surprising how fanatically attached most liberals are to the universality of their claims – even though these doctrines are located and born out of their own european, colonial and primarily christian experience. Liberal narrative obfuscates history, confuses issues, spreads blame and implicitly tries to downplay european colonial legacy.

For example a typically liberal enterprise – the current discourse on racism as color discrimination – is faulty, misleading and incomplete. Racism as a function of skin color arose relatively late in eighteenth century America, aiming to prevent newly converted christian blacks in eighteenth century America from escaping slavery. Yet this is the context in which racism is discussed amongst liberals even today – not the original christian religious context – which marginalizes and demonizes the ‘other’. These ideas about racism are then exported and implied to apply in all people – for example castes in India. Liberalism is a contrarian euro-centric narrative which is nevertheless co-opted into the western narrative framework. From this point of view their reluctance to fully deconstruct the Christian and Islamic impulse to convert and subjugate – is evident.

That brings us back to the topic of discussion. One of the important traits of the liberal / western secular narrative is to claim universality of european historical experience which is then used to spread blame. This is pretty evident in the western commentary on Indian society, culture and politics. This is why Chomsky, yourself and other liberals find automatic equivalence between what america did in iraq or what france did in algeria with what India is doing in Kashmir. The dishonesty, we claim is performed by historical sleight of hand and obfuscation of actual issues, use of skewed academic lenses and outright ignorance. It is alright for europeans ot continue with their beliefs but expecting us to believe, internalize and use european methods and worldviews, to condemn ourselves is to stretch things a bit too far.

American involvement in Iraq started in the 20st century, French involvement in Algeria in the 19th. Rest of India’s relationship with Kashmir (amongst many other Indian geographies) goes back ages – to her earliest literature. This is attested in the Puranas (which western historiographers have condemned to the realms of mythology) and the vedas. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (Kalhana was a kashmiri prince, pundit and historian) – listing all of Kashmir’s dynasties and Kings going back to before 3000 BC (but going back to just under a thousand years or so according to western historians) – listed extensive connections and interrelationships with the rest of India. Many otherwise pure Kashmiri dynasties (including Kalhana’s own) claim descent from the Indian hinterland. Kashmir has been a fount of Hindu Shaivite and Buddhist religious thought – going really far back into history. Even India’s first prime-minister was a Kashmiri pandit. Hence unlke in the case of america and france there is no historical reason to think of India as an colonial presence in kashmir.

We don’t go out of our way to define other people’s identity for them. Yet we see how westerners – of all persuasions – constantly falling over themselves to define the same for us – be it ideas about our faiths, morality, political constructs, economy, social categories, and political borders of our country. Implicit in Noam Chomsky’s articulation of the problem (and your support of it) are assumed definitions of India, Indianity, regional identity etc, ie what India should be according to westerners rather than what she is. These may have nothing to do with perceptions on the ground. Your own previous postings admit your lack of familiarity with details of the case. kashmiri separatists demand a separate kashmir on the basis of religious identity of Islam. If secessionist demands are granted what rationale allows mainland muslims to continue staying on in India ? What about Kashmir’s Hindus and Buddhists ? What about Jammu and ladakh ? What about those muslims who do not want a separate nation.

Mere sloganeering without understanding these issues is intellectually irresponsible and dishonest. And that is exactly what Noam Chomsky (or his ghostwriter) has been


BBC Accepts that the Aryan Invasion theory is flawed
By arisebharat
This is a very important article which calls the cloak off the most damaging theory concocted by the British and served to Indians. Most of the apparent differences that are seen in Indian society like the North-South Divide, Upper caste – Lower caste divides, language problems, can be related to the Aryan-Dravidian theory. I believe that this theory to be the most successful chapter of the British ‘Divide and Rule” policy. They employed Muller as part of Macaulay’s grand scheme to devalue Indian history. So much so, that today we have large sections of “educated Indians” who undermine their own heritage and consider that the British rule as a great chapter in India’s history.


One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

But many people argue that there is now evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Others, however, believe that the case against the Aryan invation theory is far from conclusive.

The matter remains very controversial and highly politicised. The article below sets out the case made by those who believe that the Aryan invasion theory is seriously flawed.

The case against the Aryan invasion theory
The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research, it is argued, has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Some historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It’s now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory
Opponents of the Aryan invasion theory claim that it denies the Indian origin of India’s predominant culture, and gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

They say that it even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India’s culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, some say, but included unacceptably racist ideas:

» it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
» it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
» it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
» it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
» it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
» it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
» it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
» it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
» it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
» it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture.


Monday, December 05, 2005
witzel and pals to target BBC next after CA textbook debacle
dec 5

here’s an earlier mail someone forwarded me from herr witzel, who is crowing — a little prematurely, perhaps. counting der chickens before zey are hatched?

i am so tempted to use all those comic-book words to demean him: schweinhund! achtung! alas, my german fails me: i only remember one sentence from my one-semester technical german at iit madras. “die chemische industrie produziert synthetische stoffe”. actually i remember one more: “gold und silber sind elemente”. i guess i actually know more yiddish than i do german: schmuck, schlemiel, shtik, schmooze, etc.

but it’s unfair to laugh at german for witzel being an ass. incidentally, vikram seth in his kqed forum interview said that he was so upset by nazi documents — he speaks fluent german — that he developed a visceral, if unreasoning, hatred for the language.

maybe witzel, poor fellow, was dropped on his head as a child. that might explain his hatred for hindus. especially considering that he’s supposed to be an expert on sanskrit. sort of kalidasa-ish, in kalidasa’s pre-enlightenment self : he was known for sawing off the branch he sat on. a rather dangerous occuption, of course.

anyway, here’s the rogues’ gallery. i am surprised to see kenoyer’s name in there. note in particular the indians. parpola is the leading ‘dravidianist’ around, and goldman, once upon a time rather a decent person, has turned coat as well, it appears.

oh, and witzel now has plans to attack the bbc website that i remarked on some time ago — it has actually said that the AIT is bunkum. expect the bbc to jump eagerly into witzel’s hot little embrace: they’re just waiting to do their usual india and hindu-bashing.

================= witzel mail ================================

Fra: Michael Witzel []
Sendt: 26. november 2005 17:26
Til: Peter Zoller; Garrett G. Fagan; Alexander Vovin; Patrick Olivelle; Boris Oguibenine; Phyllis K Herman; carendreyer Dreyer; Frederick Smith; Lars Martin Fosse; Rajesh Kochhar; Richard Meadow; Stanley Wolpert; Dwijendra Jha; Georg von Simson; Madhav Deshpande; Frank Southworth; Hiroshi Marui; Sudha Shenoy; Asko Parpola; Mohammad Mughal; Don Ringe; S. Palaniappan; Wim van Binsbergen; Homi Bhabha; huang9; David Stampe; Hideaki Nakatani; Jonathan Mark Kenoyer; Stefan Zimmer; Romila Thapar; Muneo Tokunaga; Shereen Ratnagar; Michael Witzel; Sheldon Pollock; Dominik Wujastyk; Parimal G. Patil; Steve Farmer; Robert Goldman; falk Falk; jkirk Kirkpatrick; agnes korn; Scharfe; Kalpana Desai; ; Patricia Donegan; Shingo Einoo
Kopi: Arlo Griffiths; Raka Ray; Leonard van der Kuijp; Michael Witzel; John Brockington
Emne: Next step: California Comm. vote on Hindutva changes

Dear friends,
success! It seems that we were successful; more details will follow as soon they become available. Here the initial, partial report from people present at the meeting of the California State Board of Education:
This afternoon the California Board of Education voted to approve the school books for adoption in California schools;
seven of eight publishers’ programs were approved (Including the initially rejected Oxford U.P. one, it seems without adding in any of the Hindutva material).
Below, I attach our joint letter for your reference. We had planned to send it to you earlier, but all the back and forth yesterday in preparing for today’s (Wednesday’s) meeting prevented me.
Luckily, we had a California historian of india, Prof. J. Heitzman (UC Davis), present at the meeting who also used a letter written by Prof. Wolpert.
Hence, some more detailed news about the meeting of the California State Board of Education:
The meeting was to decide whether to adopt the changes that have already been suggested, collected in a book containing the massive number of changes.
Comments from the audience: each one to speak for TWO MINUTES each.
The first cohort of speakers included representatives of the Vedic Foundation, who all urged adoption of the changes.
The next major group consisted of a number of Sikh speakers who urged non-adoption of the changes until after the insertion of additional material on Sikhism.
Prof. Heitzman, speaking for us all, then alluded to the “Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content,” section:” Religion; Indoctrination”, urging the Board not to “encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief.”
Pointing out that we represent thousands of high-level scholars from all religious backgrounds dedicated to the academic study of South Asian history and culture, he stated that we have two main objections to the current draft that cause us to oppose its adoption:
(1) the consulting base, i.e. Dr. Bajpai, is too narrow for a problem of this complexity; and (2) we “impugn the credentials” of the Vedic Foundation and other Hindu groups to speak competently on issues of South Asian history and religion.
These groups project, either overtly or subconsciously, policies known as Hindutva or “Hinduness” that portray South Asian and specifically Indian identity as Hindu. Their program has ravaged the social studies textbooks of India for the last ten years.
He urged the Board not to allow a religious chauvinism of India to become the policy of the State of California, which would provoke an academic and international uproar. He volunteered the services of the university community specializing in the analysis of South Asia for evaluating the edits and additions proposed for the California textbooks: “We are ready to earn our pay; let us help you.”
Sincere thanks to Prof. Heitzman and to all of you ! This shows how concerted action, even if it comes as late as ours, can be successful.
Incidentally, the next thing to tackle is the BBC website. Let us discuss how to go about it. Please see this:

Best wishes,

Michael Witzel
Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University
1 Bow Street , 3rd floor, Cambridge MA 02138
1-617-495 3295 Fax: 496 8571
direct line: 496 2990

Poker is not just about luck- there are good and bad players based upon their decision making capabilities. Some people can think things through and have an edge over other owing to their intelligence. Whereas some people are just “hyper-aggressive”. So often in casinos, these people play very random and aggressive poker WHEN THEY ARE SHORT STACKED. In turn these people affect the overall game in that – the more players at the table/game becomes more aggressive and now its more about luck than skill – the game becomes unfair becoz of the the actio of these aggressive players. Now of the 6 aggressive players in a table, 4 of them loose their chips and 2 of the remaining aggressive players become big stacked.When they become big stacked, they are no longer frustated and start playing normal with an big stack advantage.Meanwhile the skillfull players do not gain much in a chaotic and luck dependednt game. this is almost always the case at the casinos. This phenomenon is copmparable to the world history where the europeans wth their bloody history would be the aggressive players.

But the game is not over yet and there are still players left and chips to be won.The tournament goes on till there is one last man standing. So imagine if the idiot aggressive guy who became the big stack by luck says, we can stop competing now and call myself the winner now as i have the most chips. – thats non-sense right?, the good players have been chip leaders in the past at which point the frustrated idiots messed the game up. Now that they had become the chipleaders- they want to stop the game and call themselvs the winners.

Multi-culturalism in my view is something like that now. Now that the western countires are powerful, they want peace and stability in the world. History books are filled with chapters that say how these great white men conquered the world and invented every thing owing to their superiority. They want people to be content with the current situation where the english speaking white population is advantaged in most aspects of life. Now being the leaders in technology,arts,politics and culture, they can easily push their language ,culture and life-style to others. very one starts kissing their ass and becomes a coconut so that they could exploit them even more.

So this is what multi-culturalism means to me, end of competing and accepting the western culture as the winner. and that is why i would be against.

My cousins in sydney do not give a damn about the Indian identity. Infact many second genration indians ive spoken to are embarrased by the FOBs . They think that their own kind is naive, backward and they simply want to embrace all things western and integrate completely into the western society.

So if you are a NRI or a second-gen and if at all you get my point on this multi-cultural situation, advocate REVERSE-INTEGRATION. Do more to promote your your own culture and identity. reserach your history more and care about the future of your culture. understand how the indian history, attitudes and society are mis-interpreted and try to change that rather than blindly accepting the western interpretations and idealogies. ive seen second gens in sydney who are in a even more sorry state than fobs – just coz fobs are not confused abt their identity and agenda. so maintain more ties with your own culture and people. In my previous post, i have explained why i think why ones culture(way of thinking,language ,attitudes) is an important thing that represents the individual and why one has to try to preserve it.

I am certainly not against inter-racial relationships. every one says diversity and mixing is good- but to whom? it is good for the country which is the recepient of the benefits of mixing.

I wouldnt mind if the best minds come to india mix with the locals and have their child prodigies raised in india and adopt the indian culture and ways. But if the best and brightest of india leave us and end up marrying the whites and enrich the western culture – we obviously wud be loosing in that. I mean, so many forums discuss interracial dating and the stares of one race if their hot men/women are dating another race. It feels like they have lost one of them to a rival. Im just highlighting that feeling here again.

So all the valuable NRIs and second genrations, try to give a bit more preference to your own kind or may be you can even send back you mixed race kids to india( propbably unlikely – i know). On the other hand i also know of people, that have become more patriotic, with their experieces and exposure in the western world. They show more interest in their roots and identity than the one sitting back in inda without much exposure to these things.


When single celled life forms existed, the ones which possessed the chemical composition/properties that allowed them to do things like assimilate (consume other organic material) and move(by some sort of a chemical reaction or by other physical properties) which helped them move away from harmful conditions(heat) or enhanced chances of stumbling on organic material(food), had MORE LIFE TIME compared to others which weren’t able to do these things.
So did reproduction. the same mass(cell)-split into two(baby cells) had more chances of stumbling across food and if one of the (baby)cell was disintegrated under harmful conditions, the other was able to stay in optimum condition for a longer time , hence increasing the overall survival time of the mass. Hence organism which had the property of reproduction too had more life time. more life time over a longer period equates to increase in population of that species and survival.
These 3 properties (eat , move, reproduce) are the fundamental properties of life forms and every other features are derived from these.
Everything we do –we do it just to survive (preserve our MASS or FORM) – there is an irony here though. Sometimes we have to change our FORM to preserve our mass (since our form defines who we are, we are changing ourselves to preserve ourselves). For eg. Fishes which were prone to falling into land had to develop (over a period of time by giving birth to babies with) amphibian properties (mutation) to increase their life time in that terrain giving rise to frogs (evolution)[im just giving u rough, amateurish examples].
As life forms advance, during reproduction (the phase which allows for mutation) they don’t just pass on our genes for physical properties but also intellectual capabilities. And for humans it means that we are also trying to preserve not only skin colour but our language/ culture-morals (which suit our environment) and ideas and intellect.
That’s the reason people love their mother tongue and others possessing similar values. I mean u can understand motherly love but why do you like ur brother with whom u have to share ur resources – its because you and him are much similar forms (physically and intellectually).As in no one would share their wifes love(unless ur into swinging) happily with someone else.
Sometimes we have to change our FORM to preserve our mass: which means sometimes you have to change your personality,IDEAS,RELIGION,MORALS,learn other LANGUAGE for you to be more successful in this world and be accepted and become rich which into is going to help in surviving. This means that if you have to change yourself a lot – you are struggling with survival with your current FORM. But the more you have to change yourself, the more ironic your existence becomes.
This change can be because of environmental conditions for primitive forms[imagine the frog eg] or because of competition. It is bad when its because of competition, because in advanced life forms, your rivals are always trying to create a condition in which you have to adopt their properties to survive thus converting you into them. Eg- case of english linguistic and cultural imperialism. Even in my own country of India I am not respected if I don’t talk in English/look fair with sharp features or act like a westerner (with that attitude and arrogance and other qualities inherent in westerners) because English is associated with education/western-advanced societies which had RULED us (they have assumed technological advancement is the only for of intellectual advancement indicator).
So everyone is trying to impose their FORM (PROPRTIES,LANGUAGE,RELIGION,CULTURE/IDENTITY/MORALS) on others just so that their existence becomes less ironic or the fittest. Now that English is the language of the technology and education – its hard for a non-native speaker like me in so many ways. FOBs (fresh of the boat immigrants) are always funny aren’t they? They look so naïve (in the local system) and generally, can hardly crack jokes or put forth a witty sentence ( in the local language).
Watson(behaviourism school of psychology) said that “thought is sub-vocal speech”. Now my education being in english which I am not very articulate in, it hinders my creativity as in form thoughts- The words in english don’t appear in my mind easily( which actually makes it harder for me to construct technical/intellectual/logical ideas. And because the condition of my education system and society in which TV pograms and official language is English too – I don’t use TAMIL- my mother tongue to construct intellectual ideas in my mind.
So today, if you are not an native English speaking westerner – u will find it hard to live. I am in Australia on a study visa – its very hard for me to find a job or being a socially apt. so the Military, economic, cultural and linguistic imperialism imposed by the Europeans has worked for them. And here, history teaches a bad lesson which is- impose imperialsm and you will have a good future. Indians who had given up imperialsm a long time ago are now the laughing stock of the world- u realise that I have become a racist now.
ALTRUISM/MORALITY: two hungry primitive humans with an apple in the middle. They are selfish and fight for it they incur more damage than the strength the fruit would have given them. So over a period of time they evolve to understand that sharing is a much better option. So sharing is just – beginning of altruism in humans. This is also known as the dove-hawk theory in game theoretical modelling of animal behaviour.
Morality or good is the set of behaviour and rules that is going to increase the overall survival of the society, ethnicity , species ,family ,kingdom.
An implication of the dove-hawk theory is that, in a given biological environment – the population of doves is quite steady as they don’t fight. But for hawks it varies a lot like a sine wave. The hawks also have a tendency of over –consuming resources. When the population of hawks hits the bottom of the wave– they have to realise to stop fighting or they might go into extinction, or they might just go into extinction just due to other external/environment factors. But the steady population ofdoves is less prone to extinction because of these factors. Indians realising it abandoned imperialism thousands of years ago for the overall good of mankind. However history is telling us that go on imperialistic mode to get an advantage(current European advantage). Most of the civilisations have done that thoughout history and its quite understandable. And its quite understandable that intellectually better civilizations would conquer over primitive states. But Indians were not backward compared to Europeans- infact far more advanced in terms of ideas /morality /science and intellectually. I know that this now sounds like a racist ranting but there might be point to it. We are disadvantaged now, so atleast let us rant.

I now hope to get to the core of what makes me confused- the idea of a just system.
I actually don’t know if multiculturalism is a good thing or not.
Sydney is quite multi-cultural. But what is the ultimate aim of it?
As long as there are different set of rules /moralities/attitudes/ intellectual abilites within a region there will be problems and quarrels between the sects.
If I settle down in Sydney and marry a girl and have kids do I still to preserve my tamil heritage ? it will be hard for kids, ive seen my cousins they are not particulary proud of tamil heritage. They are just becoming another English/western person with brown skin and with inter-marriage will eventually loose all traces of my tamil heritage.

So when the gates of immigration are closed, we will be integrated and become western eventually.
I don’t believe in a equal fusion of all cultures into one single culture in the future, and even if it becomes that way , will develop differences from other countries over time and it goes around in cycles. After all we were all from Africa and the original changes to us came from our environments.
So globalisation in essence is another form of cultural imperialism- not a fusion but one culture taking over the world.
Compared to the Europeans,Lebanese- Indians are generall physically weaker,darker and posses less attractive features. These sort of inequalities are intrinsic because of the difference in environment. So how would it be fair for the Indians in a multi-ethnic system when we are obviously disadvantaged in such a way. Its like taking a dove and putting it in hawk territory. Even an environment with half and half population favours the hawk population.
I don’t particularly like being here in Sydney. First it was exotic to explore other cultures, but the ultimate reason im here is because India is poor. India was made poor. my preferred situation would be that no country is poor and bad for its people to emigrate other countries . Indians in India, Chinese in china and Europeans in Europe – its fair for every one as no one possesses any advantage over the others in the society.

But my preferred situation is also not ideal. As people from one region will always treasure something in someone else’s land and they will try and use their strengths to impose forms of imperialism or acquire it by unfair methods- that is competition and no matter how fair one tries to make the competition, at the end there are winners and loosers in the competiton. And competition in unavoidable – it is also a fundamental property of life forms.
So does your just system advocate globalistaion(in he sense of immigration and fusion) large scale immigration and multi cultural societies with differences and issues?
How does your just system try to address the issue of competition when competition is unavoidable? Isnt every one trying to secure maximum resources and wealth as possible from rivals and the means of doing it is coercion and imposing hawkish and aggressive policies?

I mean how peaceful can we get and how can we get there? Can we ever reduce of inequalities (inter country and intra country)?

So I consider a system more just – if that system is retainable for a very long time. To be able to do that the people must be quite satisfied with that system and there is no need for any revolution or too many changes every now and then. Which means, that system is peaceful helps in steady survival of the people for a longer time.

If we consider slavery ,it is not a just system but still people could be severely oppressed and the system could survive for a long time too. So hence my definition of the just system with those 2 criteria is not enough. Could you please define the criteria you think your just system should satisfy in a world that’s shrinking? And why do you think that the current world order is not a fair system?
Life forms change(physically/character wise)to develop corresponding properties. A good change/property is what allows them to survive longer which are inturn retained in the existing organism. But change/property can be useless or bad as well – which can contribute to reduction in life time. Eg. Of a useless property is the vestigial organs found in animals, eg .for a bad property is the grinding of the teeth of horse.
So my definition of a good system is one that can help its people survive longer with minimum changes/revolution to the system itself. Its just like developing standards for a software or any application in general – a better standard is the one that accounts for minimum discrepancies and the one that does not require frequent changes or upgrading.
So my impression, that a bad system will eventually fail according to the law of nature, might not always be the case, unless the individual agents are given freedom to bring about change if they feel is required- talking about a system that could be flexible and evolve versus one that is more rigid- imagine if any rebellion had been suppressed very hardly, there would still be apartheid and slavery.
So if longlife/survival is not the only fundamental criteria for good (not just for a social system but any system) what else is?

This is the reason why I am confused – thinking about what a just and possible system could be and how it can be achieved

Guys understand this – WE ARE BEHIND ENEMY LINES. That is why we are facing so many hardships in any country that we go to -oz,europe or US.

 We are negatively stereotyped, made to work hard jobs, dead-end shifts, lack of opportunity, lack of social acceptance,ridiculed and just exploited for our I.T. skills.

There is not much of a conceptual difference between what I.T. guys in the west are doing compared to what the construction workers in the middle east are going through. They are not  welcoming us to live in their country but using us for our skills and labour.

why is this happening to us? becoz we go there

why do we go there?  becoz india is comparitively poorer. some people dont entirely accept this and they just buy into this notion that western countries are culturally or morally just better. They like to complaint about india to every person they meet.

But the fact is any country that is poor, does not have enough funds to enforce a proper system or law, education and everything that are being complained about. so we cant blame india too much, if it is corruption prone and full of slums.

The thing is we didnt always live like this. our glory days were in BC. but even from 1st cntury AD to 15th century AD india’s GDP was around 35%(we were the richest-wiki ‘list of regions by past GDP’) of the worlds GDP compared to less than 2% in 1940s. even today american GDP constitues only about 23%.

In the 1770s 85% of children below 5yrs of age died becoz of poverty in London- read Ayn Rand “Capitalism”. 300 yrs ago the britsh came to india-they were “behind enemy lines”. They were ready to die fighting . for what?- to plunder the resources from india to take it back to their country. they did.

one needs more investigation on these topics”aryan Invasion theory” to see how they divided us and” cultural imperialism” – to understand how they made indians feel like english, and whites were superior to them.

so now we are the ones who are behind enemy lines as our country is poorer, just like the english 300 yrs ago. SO what do we have to do????

well the strategy of arabs is to have as many children as possible and change the population demographics of western nations to be predominatly arab race in the coming decades.Thats one way of ‘invasion’ – to change the demographics and spread your culture thereby. If we try to do the same, we will be competing with chinese,arabs, etc and who knows they might even close the doors in the future and this might not be possible – we inturn end up adopting and enriching the european culture.already the history books are teaching that the white man conquered and civilised the world – underming our achievements but thats a bigger topic to explore. so multi-culturalismand acceptance  might not be such a great idea.

  lebanon is is just a port – no natural resources and

been plagued with war for decades. but its still comparitively richer(per capita GDP) why?? – becoz 20 % of lebanese GDP comes from remittance by members living overseas.

every dolar that you guys send back counts- its simply like taking the money out that was supposed to be circulating in australia, and placing in the indian economy. this strenghtens the indian economy so much.  dont pay an australian waitress 25 dollars an hour for just carriying the food to your table with an attitude.  Stop spending your money there and send it home, buy a land, invest it – buy anything in india – even if you are planning to raise you family there, send a significanr amount back to your relatives here and invest here. inject it into the indian economy and take it out of their system. When we become rich/powerful – the whole world will look to us and we can kick their asses then.  SO whatever difficulty you are going through,you can find redemption for it by REMTTING MONEY.

because you will know that you are cerainly making an impact on the things to come when you do that

some guys dont think this way, just becoz a white person talks to them every now and then they feel happy, feel like they are special. but overall- you are regarded as someone who is weak,insignificant and someone who is from a third world country. Now please post this message to people you know, in forums and blogs. INFORMATION PROPGATION matters, it guides people do the things you feel strongly about. if u pass it on it will be read and it will make an impact.