General Discussion

Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for July 2010

What is the race of the ‘Aryans’?

leave a comment »


The western thinkers, thought of the race of the ‘Aryans’, perhaps keeping in mind, India. If the Aryans were European,(and later became Indianised, for that matter), then where has the culture of the Aryan’s, disappeared in Europe? The Aryan’s are not supposed to be Aryan’s on account of their origins in Europe. Then, all of Europe would be united, and call themselves Aryan’s. There is a culture in India, which calls India, ‘Aryavarta’, which means, land of the Aryan’s, perhaps. (That is what we were taught in school). Why are the light skinned people of India, supposed to be the decendants of those of European origin? Kashmiri people in the north of India, perhaps, were not supposed to be descended from Europeans. What is the secret of the differing demography of India? Can it be possible, that the Indian sub-continent, had dark skinned, and light skinned people from the earliest times? Why not so?

If one looks at the African sub-continent, then all African people are not alike. There are many not so subtle differences between the people hailing from the different regions of Africa. The Egyptians do not, perhaps, belong to the heartland of Africa. Why was there no mass migration in ancient times, into Africa? I mean, before the Egyptian Empire? Now, the Jewish tribes, belonged to the Middle East. They were weak, in comparison to the Egyptian Empire, hence, the Jewish tribes speak of persecution endured. In the Middle East, and in Europe, people tried to gain influence, by inviting people into their fold. The greater the identification in numbers, the more security, there is. The ancient Egyptians did not need to follow this method of identification. Perhaps, they tried to stop the Jewish tribes, from propagating their culture, and making the Egyptians assimilate their culture. Perhaps, the Egyptians, had a strong cultural identity, which the Jewish tribes, saw as undermining their identity. The Jews, during the times of Egypt, were not known for their cultural achievements, then. The Egyptians had a larger sense of identity,  than did the Jewish tribes, in terms of numbers. When there is a feeling of weakness, then one acts for survival. When there is a feeling of security, then one acts for progress. The Jewish tribes, too, developed a sense of identity,  later,  which enhanced their cultural achievements. Once the Jewish Tribes developed a sense of identity, then they developed their culture, even when they were not in touch with other elements of the diaspora. The culture of the Middle East, was developed in a manner, which was considered. If one looks at the Muslim culture, then that too, is a culture, which originated from a consideration, of what culture should be. I am presuming all that I have surmised.

In India, what is presumed to be ‘culture’, was a result entirely, of spirituality(I presume). Later, people identified who they were, by the culture they practiced. This happened, after the invasion’s of the Mohammadan’s, and the British. I mean, people called themselves ‘Hindu’s after the Muslims, and Europeans made their presence felt.  Also, the Hindu’s, had a peculiar attitude to culture. The Jews of the Malabar, did not want to propagate their religion, and the ‘Hindu’s also, made the culture of the Jew’s welcome.  What then, of those the Hindu’s considered not to belong to their culture, also living in India? What is unfortunate is, that the attitude of the Hindu’s towards their own culture, did not encourage these ‘non-Hindu’s, from developing their own culture. In India, apparently, there was no need for security in numbers. the Brahmin’s were the smallest in number, in proportion to all the castes in Hinduism. Those whom they called non-Hindu’s, were perhaps, among the most sizeable number. Hinduism came to be identified, with rituals, and the higher castes identified their caste with the trappings of culture. The Hindu religion propagated, in the beginning, not perhaps, because of a need of identity, but because of like minded people associating. For some reason, those considered non-Hindu’s did not associate with the Hindu’s in the early stages of Hinduism.

Is Hinduism a religion, which developed, or develops? I prefer to think not. Hinduism is one of the most ancient cultures in the world, but I like to think of Hinduism, as not having changed, over the ages. Hinduism, in my opinion, remains eternally, the same, though I believe, that people are interpreting Hinduism, according to the moment, or according to the changing times. This leads to confusion, and I am glad, that these people who interpret their religion, according to their whims, do not represent the voices of those who practice Hinduism at large. Previously, in the West, the Holy Church was said  to be manipulating the people. I have nothing to say about the allegations.  Now, in the world, governments manipulate, whether the governments are democratic, or otherwise. The manipulations of the democratic governments are very transparent to the ordinary person, and so people just feel scorn for these manipulations, but let them be.

Advertisements

Written by discussionofviews

July 28, 2010 at 8:40 am

Posted in Uncategorized

The Kashmir Conundrum.

leave a comment »


The Vale of Kashmir, has seen unrest, over the past few days. Why is the conundrum over Kashmir, seeing periodic festering? The situation is such, that there is a period of calm, with an intersperse of violence. The perception is such, in Kashmir, and in the rest of India, that there needs to be a solution to the problems of Kashmir, apparently, a political solution, to a political problem. What exactly is the political problem of Kashmir? Under the rule of the British, Kashmir was seen to be a part of India. Kashmir is a natural part of India, south of the rest of Asia. How has the idea been conceived, in some quarters, that Kashmir needs to have independence? Why so? Because Kashmir is disputed between India, and Pakistan? Pakistan and India, were not formed, by the people of former Greater India. Pakistan, and India, were formed by the then British Government. I believe, that India, and Pakistan, should resolve the dispute. India, will not give Pakistan the vale of Kashmir. Nor will Pakistan give to India, North-West Kashmir. How did Pakistan come to have North-West Kashmir, and India, the vale of Kashmir? Perhaps, our leaders, when the valley was divided, when war was being engaged between India, and Pakistan, decided on the line of separation. This is the cause of great angst, of the people of Kashmir. They see their land, being divided, between enemies. Why not open the borders of Kashmir, for the people of Kashmir? It is true, that the Kashmiri’s did not want their homeland divided. But then, neither did the Pakistani’s, or Indian’s, want Punjab, or Bengal, divided. It is a tribute to the Kashmiri’s that they do not see their land divided. I also believe, that the Indian Government, and the Pakistan Government, should not let inter-state enmity, between India, and Pakistan, make the Kashmiri people feel, that their land has been divided between enemies, and not because the Kashmiri people want their land to be divided. Why cannot the Indian Government discuss the conundrum with Pakistan? I believe, that dialogue on Kashmir, will foster understanding, not loose India, her place in Kashmir. Why should India, be at  a disadvantage, with Pakistan, over discussions on Kashmir? After all, Pakistan is also in the region , much against India’s wishes. Why should Kashmir be an issue between India, and Pakistan, when the people across Kashmir are united? Why not allow the people of Kashmir complete freedom to ply between the demarcated regions? What has Pakistan, or India, got against the solution? India, must have transparent dialogue, with Pakistan, and put it across, that India is there to stay in Kashmir, but also to address the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, who are also Indians. The government cannot be a law unto itself, in a democracy. Why bring the precious lives of the Kashmiri’s the CRPF, and the Indian Army, into jeopardy, by making some misguided people feel that they are instigated into violence? Does the Indian Government care about her people, or is India, viewing the Congress Party’s ‘Indira Syndrome’, where the Congress Party decides for India what is good or bad, regardless of anything? Has the government of India, ever taken the ‘Aam Aadmi’, into confidence? The government always acts for the ‘Aam Aadmi’, but without taking into account, the ‘Aam Aadmi’s aspirations. Is the government powerless, to take the people into confidence? Because many people do not have educational qualifications, does it mean, that they are only voting, because India is a democracy, and not because they are fit to vote?

Written by discussionofviews

July 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

How is the Aam Aadmi connected to India?

leave a comment »


How is the common man in India, connected to India? How are the various political parties connected to India? Does the Indian, act in self-interest, or for the sake of common-interest, or for another cause? The opposition did not do itself any favours, by calling a bandh, and forcing their will on the common man. If this bandh had not been so vehemently supported by the opposition political parties to the U P A, ruling coalition, and if the bandh was to be observed in a personal way by the individual, then the bandh would not have made an impact. Is the Indian Government responsible for the price rise,  of the rise in the prices of petroleum products,, or is the rise in the prices of petroleum products, because of  other reasons, which the government has made the common man bear? Perhaps the price rise of petroleum products could have been deferred to a later date, when the effect of the monsoon on essential perishable commodities was seen.

Who is the harbinger of inflation? The producer, and the consumer, in the market. If the consumer so wants, then he/she can bring down inflation. The consumer is the cause of the rise in demand. If the consumer consumes less, perhaps a little less, then the demand in the market will decrease, in proportion to the size of the market. The producer, will see the decrease in revenue, and the decrease in the consumption of the consumer. He will then, bring the prices down. Are those who are consuming, consuming more than before?

Can the market be more flexible in the distribution of goods and services? The poor man, or the Aam Aadmi, does not need a lot. He does not need fuel, to run cars. Can the public transport be further subsidized, with the rise in fuel prices? Because of the rise in fuel prices, can the fuel price, take it’s share of the burden, in its rise?

For example, in the distribution of perishable essential items, can an increase in the price of distribution, bring down the cost, of the item being distributed? How will the price of distribution, or fuel prices, be able to sustain, if the price cannot be borne by the common man? The common man is feeling the pinch, but where? If the prices of essential perishable commodities can be financed, or “serviced” by the rise of transportation costs, then prices will come down, across the board.

Why are prices rising? Because those who are earning more, are passing on the benefits to those with whom they have financial transactions, but they pass on the benefits in a certain manner. In what way, can the petroleum companies, be profitable, and bring their consumers “to the party”? Perhaps, by balancing their profits, between the large consumers of petroleum products, who are a few, and encouraging the spending of the common man, by making the needs of  the many, cost less.This will ease the pressure on the petroleum companies, and keep prices stable. Increase  in the volumes of the sales to the common man, of perishable essential commodities, will make the burden bearable.

Perhaps, the petroleum companies can give a concession on the volume of goods transported, on a proportionately increasing basis, and balance their profits accordingly.  After all, every consumer, including the Aam Aadmi, wants to pay less, where it matters the most.

Written by discussionofviews

July 5, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Should the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be revoked, or amended in India?

leave a comment »


In my humble opinion, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, remains as an act, because of the failure of the Indian Civilian Administration. People say, that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, (or, the A S F P Act), should be amended, to make the Army more accountable, but accountable to whom? The Army is accountable to the Constitution of India. The Indian Army is not a subservient appendage of the Indian Administrative machienery, but a part of the machienery. Why does the Indian Government allow the Indian Army to remain in Kashmir? Because, otherwise, Kashmir will not remain in India. Who is to account for the situation in Kashmir? The Indian Army, The Hurriat Conference, The elected Government of Jammu & Kashmir, The Indian Central Government , the people of India, and the people of Kashmir, who belong to India, are all equally accountable for the situation in Kashmir.

The Indian Army is given guide-lines by the powers-that-be, in the Indian Army, on how to act according to the A S F P Act. Why is it so, that the Indian Army is seen to have killed some people who are supposed to have engaged in a game of cricket? Perhaps, others are responsible, for the action initiated by the Army. Who gave the Indian Army intelligence, the information on these innocent people? If the Indian Army strongly suspects that they might come under attack, then how should they react?  Why is not the ordinary Kashmiri civilian not responsible if he/she pelts stones on the police, and the Indian Army? Is the Indian Army an irresponsible entity? Why is not the Indian Army not involved in counter-insurgency operations in Mumbai, or Kolkata? Why is the A F S P Act not envoked in New Delhi? Should trouble mongers, like Sayed Shah Geelani, just be asked to leave India, and Kashmir? Should the Hurriat Conference, who is partly responsible for the unrest in Kashmir, be allowed to undermine the lives and livihood of the people of Kashmir, and put the blame entirely on the Indian Government? Who is Sayed Shah Geelani, in India, or Kashmir? Is he the Emir of Kashmir? Why is he so important in Pakistan? If he sees himself as a Pakistani, then why does he foment trouble in India? Why do I need to think of a trouble monger, who covets the whole of Kashmir as his own, when he perhaps, owns a house in Kashmir, and who obviously doesn’t value the lives of Kashmiri’s, other than his own? He is to rule Kashmir, when Kashmir gets Aazadi, and others are supposed to give up their lives for Aazadi? Why does he not face a bullet, and end his life for Kashmir? Why does he want to create mischief, instead?

If Mr Geelani had his way, then Kashmir would not be a part of India. Why is he a part of Kashmir? He can gain asylum in the vales of Switzerland. All those, who do not want Kashmir to be a part of India, why are they a part of Kashmir?

I do not believe that the A F S P Act should be revoked, but that the act is a necessary requirement, anywhere, where people take the law into their hands, in the name of separating from India.

Written by discussionofviews

July 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Posted in Uncategorized