Skip navigation

Category Archives: emigrant issues

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.


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