24 December 2009
Christian Missionaries in India
Here is an example of the activities of Christian missionaries in India.
23 December 2009
Alvin Toffler on the Modern World/Age
Alvin Toffler on the modern world/age in "The Third Wave" (1980):
Until now the human race has undergone two great waves of change, each one largely obliterating earlier cultures or civilisations and replacing them with ways of life inconceivable to those who came before. The First Wave of change – the agricultural revolution – took thousands of years to play itself out. The Second Wave – the rise of industrial civilisation – took a mere three hundred years.
(First chapter)
Some historians may take issue with the way this book divides civilisation into only three parts: a First Wave agricultural phase, a Second Wave industrial phase, and a Third Wave phase now beginning.
(Introduction)
A new civilisation is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it.
(First line of the book)
Until now the human race has undergone two great waves of change, each one largely obliterating earlier cultures or civilisations and replacing them with ways of life inconceivable to those who came before. The First Wave of change – the agricultural revolution – took thousands of years to play itself out. The Second Wave – the rise of industrial civilisation – took a mere three hundred years.
(First chapter)
Some historians may take issue with the way this book divides civilisation into only three parts: a First Wave agricultural phase, a Second Wave industrial phase, and a Third Wave phase now beginning.
(Introduction)
A new civilisation is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it.
(First line of the book)
22 December 2009
A Short Economic History of Modern India
Swaminathan Aiyar, in a brilliant article*, gives us a short economic history of modern India:
At last week's annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, many speakers spoke of the need for governments to reduce controls and trade barriers and let entrepreneurs get on with the job. They also stressed the vital roles that governments did indeed need to perform: ensuring law and order, the enforcement of contracts, honest governance and the creation of basic infrastructure.
Dissenters will say this sounds suspiciously close to the formula of the British Raj. The result then was not prosperity but poverty and stagnation. Now that we are in our 50th anniversary year of independence, many people will ask: why did liberal economics prove an economic failure during the British Raj? And why should it be any more successful today?
Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the second biggest industrial power in the world (next only to China). When the British Raj ended in 1947, India was a poverty-stricken nation with minimal modern industry. Nationalist leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru blamed this decline on colonial exploitation. The British did not see it that way. They thought they had brought peace to a subcontinent that was earlier riven with constant war; had created political stability and rule of law where there had been neither; created an efficient and impartial civil service and judiciary; built one of the biggest railway networks in the world.
However, GDP growth in the first half of this century was barely 1% per year, just keeping pace with population growth. Food availability per capita declined. Indian artisans, who once dominated world industry, were decimated by the Industrial Revolution. And while in Europe the Industrial Revolution replaced handloom weavers with local textile mills, in India it replaced them largely with Lancashire textiles. Jawaharlal Nehru complained that this de-industrialisation halved India's urban population and forced once-prosperous industrial workers back to the land. He felt free trade was a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and prevent Indian industry from growing.
So after independence Nehru went for rapid industrialisation through import substitution and by taxing agriculture through adverse terms of trade. He felt agriculture lacked the potential to reduce poverty or increase employment and could only be a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided additional jobs.
During the British Raj, India ran a persistent trade surplus. The ratio of India's exports to imports was 172.5% in 1840-69, 148% in 1870-1912, 133.4% in 1913-38. This persistent trade surplus, averaging 1.5% of GDP, was used to transfer wealth to Britain. So Nehru viewed export-orientation as a tool of colonial exploitation. He switched the emphasis from exports to import substitution. He viewed technical education as vital for industrialisation, but viewed primary education as less important and so did less for literacy than East Asian countries.
This strategy was initially hailed as a success. GDP growth rose to 3.5% per year, almost thrice the rate achieved in the last 50 years of the British Raj. Planning was high fashion at the time and Indian planning was at the very forefront of development economics. Only much later did East Asian countries demonstrate that 3.5% growth was slow, not fast, and that a different strategy – emphasising exports, agriculture and primary education and entrepreneurship – could produce much better results.
Nehru's biggest mistake related to agriculture. He failed to see, as Korea and Taiwan did, that with enough public investment and new technology, agriculture could be a dynamic sector that raised the living standards of the masses. The industrial sector was much too small to create much income or employment and so taxing agriculture to finance industrialisation did not reduce poverty in India during Nehru's rule or the Garibi Hatao phase of Indira Gandhi. It started declining only from the mid-1970s onwards, when the spread of the green revolution finally lowered real food prices and raised real rural wages. Higher rural incomes provided a firmer basis for rapid industrial growth than Nehru's earlier import substitution.
Nehru failed to see that the really big blow India suffered under the British was not in industry but agriculture. Ashok Desai estimates that grain yields in 1947 were one third of those in Mughal times. In the first half of this century, food production rose by only 0.5% per year, half the rate of population growth. This, not de-industrialisation, was the main cause of poverty in a country which was 85% rural.
The whole de-industrialisation thesis was flawed. Certainly the artisans of old suffered, but under the Raj a new breed of modern Indian entrepreneurs came up. The share of industry in India's GDP rose from 3.8 percent in 1913 to 7.5% by 1947 and the share of manufactures in India's exports rose from 22.4% in 1913 to 30% in the late 1930s. Modern industry employed fewer persons than the old artisan industry, but its output was more competitive.
Nehru's anti-export bias was mistaken. The British may have used trade exploitatively, but it had enormous possibilities with the end of empire. The East Asians saw this, but were regarded with contempt by Nehru as US puppets. They had the last laugh.
Let us return to where we started. Why did liberal economics and good governance not lead to prosperity during the British Raj? The main reasons are:
*"De-industrialisation Thesis Was Flawed", The Times of India (29 September 1996)
At last week's annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, many speakers spoke of the need for governments to reduce controls and trade barriers and let entrepreneurs get on with the job. They also stressed the vital roles that governments did indeed need to perform: ensuring law and order, the enforcement of contracts, honest governance and the creation of basic infrastructure.
Dissenters will say this sounds suspiciously close to the formula of the British Raj. The result then was not prosperity but poverty and stagnation. Now that we are in our 50th anniversary year of independence, many people will ask: why did liberal economics prove an economic failure during the British Raj? And why should it be any more successful today?
Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the second biggest industrial power in the world (next only to China). When the British Raj ended in 1947, India was a poverty-stricken nation with minimal modern industry. Nationalist leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru blamed this decline on colonial exploitation. The British did not see it that way. They thought they had brought peace to a subcontinent that was earlier riven with constant war; had created political stability and rule of law where there had been neither; created an efficient and impartial civil service and judiciary; built one of the biggest railway networks in the world.
However, GDP growth in the first half of this century was barely 1% per year, just keeping pace with population growth. Food availability per capita declined. Indian artisans, who once dominated world industry, were decimated by the Industrial Revolution. And while in Europe the Industrial Revolution replaced handloom weavers with local textile mills, in India it replaced them largely with Lancashire textiles. Jawaharlal Nehru complained that this de-industrialisation halved India's urban population and forced once-prosperous industrial workers back to the land. He felt free trade was a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and prevent Indian industry from growing.
So after independence Nehru went for rapid industrialisation through import substitution and by taxing agriculture through adverse terms of trade. He felt agriculture lacked the potential to reduce poverty or increase employment and could only be a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided additional jobs.
During the British Raj, India ran a persistent trade surplus. The ratio of India's exports to imports was 172.5% in 1840-69, 148% in 1870-1912, 133.4% in 1913-38. This persistent trade surplus, averaging 1.5% of GDP, was used to transfer wealth to Britain. So Nehru viewed export-orientation as a tool of colonial exploitation. He switched the emphasis from exports to import substitution. He viewed technical education as vital for industrialisation, but viewed primary education as less important and so did less for literacy than East Asian countries.
This strategy was initially hailed as a success. GDP growth rose to 3.5% per year, almost thrice the rate achieved in the last 50 years of the British Raj. Planning was high fashion at the time and Indian planning was at the very forefront of development economics. Only much later did East Asian countries demonstrate that 3.5% growth was slow, not fast, and that a different strategy – emphasising exports, agriculture and primary education and entrepreneurship – could produce much better results.
Nehru's biggest mistake related to agriculture. He failed to see, as Korea and Taiwan did, that with enough public investment and new technology, agriculture could be a dynamic sector that raised the living standards of the masses. The industrial sector was much too small to create much income or employment and so taxing agriculture to finance industrialisation did not reduce poverty in India during Nehru's rule or the Garibi Hatao phase of Indira Gandhi. It started declining only from the mid-1970s onwards, when the spread of the green revolution finally lowered real food prices and raised real rural wages. Higher rural incomes provided a firmer basis for rapid industrial growth than Nehru's earlier import substitution.
Nehru failed to see that the really big blow India suffered under the British was not in industry but agriculture. Ashok Desai estimates that grain yields in 1947 were one third of those in Mughal times. In the first half of this century, food production rose by only 0.5% per year, half the rate of population growth. This, not de-industrialisation, was the main cause of poverty in a country which was 85% rural.
The whole de-industrialisation thesis was flawed. Certainly the artisans of old suffered, but under the Raj a new breed of modern Indian entrepreneurs came up. The share of industry in India's GDP rose from 3.8 percent in 1913 to 7.5% by 1947 and the share of manufactures in India's exports rose from 22.4% in 1913 to 30% in the late 1930s. Modern industry employed fewer persons than the old artisan industry, but its output was more competitive.
Nehru's anti-export bias was mistaken. The British may have used trade exploitatively, but it had enormous possibilities with the end of empire. The East Asians saw this, but were regarded with contempt by Nehru as US puppets. They had the last laugh.
Let us return to where we started. Why did liberal economics and good governance not lead to prosperity during the British Raj? The main reasons are:
- The British sadly neglected agriculture and rural infrastructure, far more so than industry.
- The British Raj was racist, favouring British entrepreneurs and goods over Indian ones. This racism was probably important that the alleged lack of tariff encouragement to Indian manufacturers.
- The British sadly neglected primary education and literacy. By contrast, East Asian countries had high levels of literacy by 1950.
- The British used India's trade surpluses to remit capital to the UK instead of investing it in India's growth.
*"De-industrialisation Thesis Was Flawed", The Times of India (29 September 1996)
27 November 2009
Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture
Some points about the T-E-P-C concept mentioned in the previous post:
1. The four basic aspects of society are technology, economy, politics and culture. There are other aspects of society, but these are the most important.
2. These four aspects are not independent. They are inter-dependent. That is, each of the four aspects influences the other three.
3. The four aspects are not equal in the degree to which they influence the other aspects. Some aspects are "stronger" than others.
Example: Both X and Y influence each other. But X influences Y more than Y influences X. Then X is said to be stronger than Y.
4. The four aspects can be arranged in the ascending order of their strength (or importance/influence):
a) Technology
b) Economy
c) Politics
d) Culture
(Thus we have the T-E-P-C abbreviation)
5. The higher order aspects (culture and politics) influence or determine the lower order aspects (economy and technology) – normally.
6. But sometimes there can be a major change in a lower order aspect. Then the direction of influence is reversed. That is, it becomes possible for the lower order aspects to influence or determine the higher order aspects .
(The "fundamental change" discussed in the previous post)
7. Such a major change in the lower order aspects has happened only twice in human history:
a) The invention of agriculture (c10,000 BC)
b) The Industrial Revolution (c1800 AD)
8. On both these occasions, the initial changes were in technology and the economy. But they led to changes in politics and culture as well.
9. T-E-P-C is different for:
a) Different civilisations (ex: India vs China vs America)
b) Different Ages (ex: Agricultural Age vs Industrial Age)
10. Between two civilisations (belonging to the same Age), the differences between each of the four aspects are not of the same magnitude. The four aspects can be arranged in the ascending order of the magnitude of their difference between two civilisations (belonging to the same Age):
a) Technology
b) Economy
c) Politics
d) Culture
(Again we have the T-E-P-C abbreviation)
11. That is, between two civilisations (belonging to the same Age), differences in technology are nil to slight, in economy and politics are slight to significant, and in culture are significant to maximum.
Definitions:
1. Technology = how man makes and does things.
2. Economy = how man produces goods (and services), and distributes them.
3. Politics = how man makes collective decisions.
4. Culture = how man lives, i.e., his way of life – his customs, habits, beliefs, practices, values, norms, systems and institutions.
1. The four basic aspects of society are technology, economy, politics and culture. There are other aspects of society, but these are the most important.
2. These four aspects are not independent. They are inter-dependent. That is, each of the four aspects influences the other three.
3. The four aspects are not equal in the degree to which they influence the other aspects. Some aspects are "stronger" than others.
Example: Both X and Y influence each other. But X influences Y more than Y influences X. Then X is said to be stronger than Y.
4. The four aspects can be arranged in the ascending order of their strength (or importance/influence):
a) Technology
b) Economy
c) Politics
d) Culture
(Thus we have the T-E-P-C abbreviation)
5. The higher order aspects (culture and politics) influence or determine the lower order aspects (economy and technology) – normally.
6. But sometimes there can be a major change in a lower order aspect. Then the direction of influence is reversed. That is, it becomes possible for the lower order aspects to influence or determine the higher order aspects .
(The "fundamental change" discussed in the previous post)
7. Such a major change in the lower order aspects has happened only twice in human history:
a) The invention of agriculture (c10,000 BC)
b) The Industrial Revolution (c1800 AD)
8. On both these occasions, the initial changes were in technology and the economy. But they led to changes in politics and culture as well.
9. T-E-P-C is different for:
a) Different civilisations (ex: India vs China vs America)
b) Different Ages (ex: Agricultural Age vs Industrial Age)
10. Between two civilisations (belonging to the same Age), the differences between each of the four aspects are not of the same magnitude. The four aspects can be arranged in the ascending order of the magnitude of their difference between two civilisations (belonging to the same Age):
a) Technology
b) Economy
c) Politics
d) Culture
(Again we have the T-E-P-C abbreviation)
11. That is, between two civilisations (belonging to the same Age), differences in technology are nil to slight, in economy and politics are slight to significant, and in culture are significant to maximum.
Definitions:
1. Technology = how man makes and does things.
2. Economy = how man produces goods (and services), and distributes them.
3. Politics = how man makes collective decisions.
4. Culture = how man lives, i.e., his way of life – his customs, habits, beliefs, practices, values, norms, systems and institutions.
26 November 2009
Modernity: The Modern or Industrial Age
To understand modernity correctly, we must understand the implications of the Industrial Revolution (1775-1850):
1. The Industrial Revolution, which took place in 18th century England, gave birth to machines and factories (modern industry).
2. The Industrial Revolution was not merely a technological, or economic, change. It brought about political, and cultural, changes as well. Indeed, it changed society itself.
3. The Industrial Revolution was a fundamental change in how man produces goods, or satisfies his wants. The last time such a fundamental change occurred was when agriculture was invented – around 10,000 BC (12,000 years ago).
4. Whenever there is such a fundamental change in how man produces goods, it is not just technology or economy that changes, but also politics and culture. Indeed, society itself changes.
5. The Industrial Revolution was such a change. (That's why it's called "Revolution")
6. The Industrial Revolution marked the end of the Agricultural Age, which lasted for 12,000 years, and the beginning of a new Age in the history of mankind: the Industrial Age.
7. Each Age is defined by its own technology, economy, politics and culture (T-E-P-C) – in the broadest sense. Just as the Agricultural Age had a certain T-E-P-C, similarly the Industrial Age also has its own T-E-P-C.
8. The Industrial Revolution may have occurred first in the West, but it was not a Western development. It was a human development. That is, it concerns the whole of mankind, not just Europe.
9. Just as agriculture began first in Sumeria (around 10,000 BC) and then spread to other ancient civilisations (Egypt, India, China), similarly, modern industry began first in Europe and then spread/is spreading to other civilisations (first to America and Japan, now to China and India).
10. In modern industry, production is more. That is, wealth created is more. So an industrial society has more wealth than a non-industrialised society. Wealth means economic strength. Thus an industrialised society is stronger than a non-industrialised society. Therefore we have to industrialise.
Notes:
1. The term 'modern industry' is used to distinguish it from the earlier 'cottage industry' where manufacturing was done by artisans and craftsmen in their homes and workshops, using simple tools.
6. The terms 'Agricultural' and 'Industrial' are used in a relative sense – to denote which sector dominates the economy (in value of total output) and society (in population employed).
8. Due to certain geographical and historical factors, the Industrial Revolution happened to take place first in Europe, that's all.
1. The Industrial Revolution, which took place in 18th century England, gave birth to machines and factories (modern industry).
2. The Industrial Revolution was not merely a technological, or economic, change. It brought about political, and cultural, changes as well. Indeed, it changed society itself.
3. The Industrial Revolution was a fundamental change in how man produces goods, or satisfies his wants. The last time such a fundamental change occurred was when agriculture was invented – around 10,000 BC (12,000 years ago).
4. Whenever there is such a fundamental change in how man produces goods, it is not just technology or economy that changes, but also politics and culture. Indeed, society itself changes.
5. The Industrial Revolution was such a change. (That's why it's called "Revolution")
6. The Industrial Revolution marked the end of the Agricultural Age, which lasted for 12,000 years, and the beginning of a new Age in the history of mankind: the Industrial Age.
7. Each Age is defined by its own technology, economy, politics and culture (T-E-P-C) – in the broadest sense. Just as the Agricultural Age had a certain T-E-P-C, similarly the Industrial Age also has its own T-E-P-C.
8. The Industrial Revolution may have occurred first in the West, but it was not a Western development. It was a human development. That is, it concerns the whole of mankind, not just Europe.
9. Just as agriculture began first in Sumeria (around 10,000 BC) and then spread to other ancient civilisations (Egypt, India, China), similarly, modern industry began first in Europe and then spread/is spreading to other civilisations (first to America and Japan, now to China and India).
10. In modern industry, production is more. That is, wealth created is more. So an industrial society has more wealth than a non-industrialised society. Wealth means economic strength. Thus an industrialised society is stronger than a non-industrialised society. Therefore we have to industrialise.
Notes:
1. The term 'modern industry' is used to distinguish it from the earlier 'cottage industry' where manufacturing was done by artisans and craftsmen in their homes and workshops, using simple tools.
6. The terms 'Agricultural' and 'Industrial' are used in a relative sense – to denote which sector dominates the economy (in value of total output) and society (in population employed).
8. Due to certain geographical and historical factors, the Industrial Revolution happened to take place first in Europe, that's all.
25 November 2009
Turgot: The Idea of Economic Stages of History
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) was a French administrator and economist. He served as comptroller general of France from 1774 to 1776. In his work Plan of Two Discourses on Universal History (1750), he divided the history of the world into three (economic) stages:
1. Hunting
2. Pastoralism
3. Agriculture
(Remember - this was before the Industrial Revolution)
Later, Adam Smith made the idea famous in his Wealth of Nations (1776). He divided human history into four stages:
1. Age of hunters
2. Age of shepherds
3. Age of agriculture
4. Age of commerce
(This was also just before the Industrial Revolution)
In our own time, we divide history into these three stages:
1. Hunting-gathering (primitive)
2. Agricultural (traditional)
3. Industrial (modern)
Today this view of history is commonplace. The credit for originating the idea belongs to A R J Turgot.
Some thinkers like Alain Touraine, Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler divide history (implicitly or explicitly) into these stages:
1. Agricultural
2. Industrial
3. Post-Industrial
Even they are children walking in Turgot's footsteps.
1. Hunting
2. Pastoralism
3. Agriculture
(Remember - this was before the Industrial Revolution)
Later, Adam Smith made the idea famous in his Wealth of Nations (1776). He divided human history into four stages:
1. Age of hunters
2. Age of shepherds
3. Age of agriculture
4. Age of commerce
(This was also just before the Industrial Revolution)
In our own time, we divide history into these three stages:
1. Hunting-gathering (primitive)
2. Agricultural (traditional)
3. Industrial (modern)
Today this view of history is commonplace. The credit for originating the idea belongs to A R J Turgot.
Some thinkers like Alain Touraine, Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler divide history (implicitly or explicitly) into these stages:
1. Agricultural
2. Industrial
3. Post-Industrial
Even they are children walking in Turgot's footsteps.
24 November 2009
The Three Stages in the History of the World
Based on how man satisfies his needs, that is, based on how man produces goods, the history of the world can be divided into the following three stages:
1. Hunting-gathering (began 2,00,000 years ago)
2. Agricultural (began 12,000 years ago)
3. Industrial (began 200 years ago)
These stages can also be called, respectively:
1. Primitive
2. Traditional
3. Modern
The primitive stage of hunting-gathering corresponds to pre-history, while the traditional/agricultural and modern/industrial stages together correspond to history.
History is usually classified into three periods: ancient, medieval and modern. The periodisation, in the case of Europe and India, is like this:
So the 'Modern' period is different for different civilisations*. However, when speaking of the history of mankind as a whole, the Modern Age is the Industrial Age (and 'modernity' refers to industrial society). When did this Modern Age begin?
The Industrial Age began with the Industrial Revolution, which occurred from 1775 to 1850. However, most of the major developments happened between 1775 and 1800. Therefore, 1800 can be taken as a convenient year for the birth of the modern world.
Btw, the Ancient and Medieval periods together come under the Agricultural/ Traditional stage.
*The word 'modern' means 'present' or 'contemporary' (from Latin 'modo' = 'just now').
1. Hunting-gathering (began 2,00,000 years ago)
2. Agricultural (began 12,000 years ago)
3. Industrial (began 200 years ago)
These stages can also be called, respectively:
1. Primitive
2. Traditional
3. Modern
The primitive stage of hunting-gathering corresponds to pre-history, while the traditional/agricultural and modern/industrial stages together correspond to history.
History is usually classified into three periods: ancient, medieval and modern. The periodisation, in the case of Europe and India, is like this:
| Period | ||
| Ancient | Classical age of Greece and Rome (–500 AD) | The Hindu period (–712 AD) |
| Medieval | Christian age of the Catholic Church (500–1500 AD) | The Islamic period (712–1707 AD) |
| Modern | Secular/humanistic age after the Renaissance (1500 AD– ) | The European period (1707 AD– ) |
So the 'Modern' period is different for different civilisations*. However, when speaking of the history of mankind as a whole, the Modern Age is the Industrial Age (and 'modernity' refers to industrial society). When did this Modern Age begin?
The Industrial Age began with the Industrial Revolution, which occurred from 1775 to 1850. However, most of the major developments happened between 1775 and 1800. Therefore, 1800 can be taken as a convenient year for the birth of the modern world.
Btw, the Ancient and Medieval periods together come under the Agricultural/ Traditional stage.
*The word 'modern' means 'present' or 'contemporary' (from Latin 'modo' = 'just now').
23 November 2009
The Best Books about the Modern World
The best books to understand today's world:
Society, Technology, Economy
1. The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 – Eric Hobsbawm (1962)*
2. The Third Wave – Alvin Toffler (1980)
Culture, Religion
1. The Clash of Civilisations – Samuel Huntington (1996)
2. The Lexus and the Olive Tree – Thomas Friedman (1999)
Politics
1. The End of History – Francis Fukuyama (1992)
2. The Future of Freedom – Fareed Zakaria (2003)
Based on my limited reading, these are the definitive books about the modern world.
*I have not yet read this book.
Society, Technology, Economy
1. The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 – Eric Hobsbawm (1962)*
2. The Third Wave – Alvin Toffler (1980)
Culture, Religion
1. The Clash of Civilisations – Samuel Huntington (1996)
2. The Lexus and the Olive Tree – Thomas Friedman (1999)
Politics
1. The End of History – Francis Fukuyama (1992)
2. The Future of Freedom – Fareed Zakaria (2003)
Based on my limited reading, these are the definitive books about the modern world.
*I have not yet read this book.
14 November 2009
M Vishweshwarayya: Life and Achievements
M Vishweshwarayya (1860-1962) is the architect of modern Karnataka. A look at his life and achievements:
Early Life and Education (1860-1883)
Early Life and Education (1860-1883)
- 15 September 1860 - Born in Muddenahalli village near Chikkaballapur, Karnataka.
- The initial 'M' stands for Mokshagundam - his family's native village in Andhra Pradesh.
- Second son of Srinivas Shastri, a Sanskrit scholar, and Venkatalakshmamma.
- Attended primary school at Muddenahalli, middle school at Chikkaballapur and high school at Bangalore.
- In Bangalore, supported himself by giving tuitions to children. Studied at night under streetlights. (No, this is not a cliche)
- Lost his father at the age of 15. First rank in the matriculation exam in Mysore state.
- Did his BA at Central College, Bangalore. First rank in Madras University.
- Studied Civil Engineering at Science College, Poona. (Today's College of Engineering Pune - COEP)
- 1884 - Joined the PWD of Bombay Presidency as Assistant Engineer.
- Built automatic floodgates for Khadakvasla reservoir, near Poona.
- Built a system to supply drinking water at Aden, Egypt.
- 1906 - Awarded the "Kaiser-i-Hind" by the British government.
- 1908 - Resigned from the PWD. In spite of his many achievements he was not made Chief Engineer. The post was reserved for whites/Englishmen.
- At the request of the Nizam of Hyderabad, built dams for Moosi and Iyasi rivers near Hyderabad, to protect the city from floods.
- 1909 - Became Chief Engineer of Mysore state, then ruled by Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV (1902-40).
- 1913 - Founded the Mysore Bank (today's State Bank of Mysore). The British did not want India to industrialise. Indian entrepreneurs could not get capital to set up industries. So MV founded the Mysore Bank.
- 1916 - Founded the Mysore University. Mysore's higher education broke free of the British-run Madras University.
- 1916 - Founded the Government Soap Factory at Mysore. Today the Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd (KSDL) - maker of the world-famous Mysore Sandal Soap.
- 1917 - Founded the Government Engineering College at Bangalore. Today the University Vishweshwarayya College of Engineering (UVCE).
- Gave great importance to women's education. 1917 - Upgraded the Maharani's College at Mysore to a degree college.
- Revived the Mysore Iron and Steel Works (MISW) at Bhadravati. Today the Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant (VISL).
- Built the Krishnaraja Sagar dam (1911-31) on the Kaveri river near Mysore.
- Started the Sharavati Hydro-Electric Project at Jog Falls near Shimoga.
- Built the Bangalore-Mysore railroad.
- Built the Bhatkal harbour.
- Started the civil service exams in Mysore state.
- 1915 - Awarded the Knight Commander of the Indian Empire (KCIE) by the British government.
- 1940 - Persuaded industrialist Walchand Hirachand to found the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) at Bangalore.
- 1943 - Founded the Sri Jayachamarajendra Polytechnic Institute with his earnings from MISW.
- Consulting engineer for Karachi, Bombay, Nashik, Poona, Belgaum, Dharwad, Indore and Gwalior - mainly for water supply projects.
- 1955 - Awarded the Bharat Ratna by the Indian government.
- 14 April 1962 - Died at the age of 101.
21 October 2009
The Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution refers to a series of technological advancements in 18th century England:
Steam Engine
1776 - Separate condenser (James Watt)
1784 - Reciprocating to rotary motion (James Watt)
Iron Making
1784 - Puddling and rolling (Henry Cort)
Textile Industry
1765 - Spinning jenny (James Hargreaves)
1769 - Water frame (Richard Arkwright)
1779 - Spinning mule (Samuel Crompton)
1787 - Power loom (Edmund Cartwright)
Railways
1825 - Stockton-Darlington railway
1829 - Liverpool-Manchester railway
The Industrial Revolution spread from Britain to Europe and then to other countries. Industrialisation of different countries:
1775-1850 – Britain
1815-1870 – West Europe (Belgium, France, Germany)
1840-1900 – United States
1890-1915 – Japan
In a sense, the Industrial Revolution is still going on. 'Waves' of the Industrial Revolution:
1. First Wave (1775-1850)
a) Steam engine
b) Iron making
c) Textile industry
d) Railways
2. Second Wave (1830-1915)
a) Electricity
b) Internal combustion engine
c) Synthetic materials
3. Third Wave (1900-today)
a) Nuclear energy
b) Electronics
c) Computers
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
Steam Engine
1776 - Separate condenser (James Watt)
1784 - Reciprocating to rotary motion (James Watt)
Iron Making
1784 - Puddling and rolling (Henry Cort)
Textile Industry
1765 - Spinning jenny (James Hargreaves)
1769 - Water frame (Richard Arkwright)
1779 - Spinning mule (Samuel Crompton)
1787 - Power loom (Edmund Cartwright)
Railways
1825 - Stockton-Darlington railway
1829 - Liverpool-Manchester railway
The Industrial Revolution spread from Britain to Europe and then to other countries. Industrialisation of different countries:
1775-1850 – Britain
1815-1870 – West Europe (Belgium, France, Germany)
1840-1900 – United States
1890-1915 – Japan
In a sense, the Industrial Revolution is still going on. 'Waves' of the Industrial Revolution:
1. First Wave (1775-1850)
a) Steam engine
b) Iron making
c) Textile industry
d) Railways
2. Second Wave (1830-1915)
a) Electricity
b) Internal combustion engine
c) Synthetic materials
3. Third Wave (1900-today)
a) Nuclear energy
b) Electronics
c) Computers
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
03 October 2009
Swami Vivekananda at Chicago
11 September 1893, Chicago - The World Parliament of Religions:
Sisters and Brothers of America,
It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm and cordial welcome which you have given us.
I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world.
I thank you in the name of the mother of religions.
I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.
I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance.
We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true.
I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth.
It was not a speech. It was the roar of a lion.
The world would never see India the same way again.
Indians would never see themselves the same way again.
All because of one man.
Narendranath Dutta, aka Swami Vivekananda.
A proud representative of a 5000-year-old civilisation (India).
A proud representative of a 5000-year-old way of life (Hinduism).
Today, more than 115 years after that historic day, let us reaffirm our loyalty to our civilisation and our way of life.
Sisters and Brothers of America,
It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm and cordial welcome which you have given us.
I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world.
I thank you in the name of the mother of religions.
I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.
I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance.
We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true.
I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth.
It was not a speech. It was the roar of a lion.
The world would never see India the same way again.
Indians would never see themselves the same way again.
All because of one man.
Narendranath Dutta, aka Swami Vivekananda.
A proud representative of a 5000-year-old civilisation (India).
A proud representative of a 5000-year-old way of life (Hinduism).
Today, more than 115 years after that historic day, let us reaffirm our loyalty to our civilisation and our way of life.
21 September 2009
Modernity: Definition and Features
What is modernity? What is its definition? What are its features? Again, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Modernisation is the transformation of society through the development of industry and technology, accompanied by far-reaching political and social changes.
A key feature of a modern society is its application of scientific knowledge to the production of goods and services, with an emphasis on maximising efficiency.
Modernisation affects all of society, including the economic, political and social systems. In the economic sphere, modernisation takes the form of industrialisation.
Secularisation is necessary for the rise and maintenance of any modern society.
An orientation towards knowledge, technology and economy is basic to modern civilisation.
The three drivers of modernity are:
1. Experimental science
2. Scientific technology
3. Production-oriented economy
The economy ceases to be oriented mainly towards consumption and comes to place its main emphasis on production as its goal. This involves a shift towards production for further production, that is, capital investment.
The process of modernisation is a kind of permanent revolution, without any final goal. One can distinguish various phases of modernity, with the contemporary scene even offering glimpses of a "post-modern" one.
The superiority or desirability of modernity remains an open question.
Modernisation is the transformation of society through the development of industry and technology, accompanied by far-reaching political and social changes.
A key feature of a modern society is its application of scientific knowledge to the production of goods and services, with an emphasis on maximising efficiency.
Modernisation affects all of society, including the economic, political and social systems. In the economic sphere, modernisation takes the form of industrialisation.
Secularisation is necessary for the rise and maintenance of any modern society.
An orientation towards knowledge, technology and economy is basic to modern civilisation.
The three drivers of modernity are:
1. Experimental science
2. Scientific technology
3. Production-oriented economy
The economy ceases to be oriented mainly towards consumption and comes to place its main emphasis on production as its goal. This involves a shift towards production for further production, that is, capital investment.
The process of modernisation is a kind of permanent revolution, without any final goal. One can distinguish various phases of modernity, with the contemporary scene even offering glimpses of a "post-modern" one.
The superiority or desirability of modernity remains an open question.
20 September 2009
Modernity: Secularisation
A key feature of modernity is secularisation. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Secularisation consists of the following features:
1. Action by Choice
Prescribed actions are those in which an individual is expected to behave in a specific way. Actions by choice are those in which the individual selects his own course of action, and is obliged only to observe certain general rules in making his choice. In traditional societies, most actions are prescribed actions. In modern societies, most actions are actions by choice. Example: choosing one's profession or spouse.
2. Acceptance of Change
Pre-modern societies do not accept change in most of their institutions. In modern societies, change is expected or required. Pre-modern societies institutionalise tradition. Modern societies institutionalise change.
3. Differentiation of Institutions
Societies vary in the number and nature of the institutions devoted to carrying on essential functions such as the provision of goods and services, defence against military attack, education, religion, etc. Pre-modern civilisations show a considerable differentiation of institutions, but these involve only a tiny minority of the population, such as priests, warriors and traders. All institutions in the traditional society are dominated by the same values and norms.
In modern society, the differentiation of institutions and social division of labour proceed almost without limit. The institutions become more and more autonomous. All human activities are fragmented by increasing specialisation.
Increasing secularisation leads away from a single system of values toward pluralism in values. Such pluralism tends to erode the very foundation of an integrated social system: its common core of shared values and norms.
Secularisation consists of the following features:
1. Action by Choice
Prescribed actions are those in which an individual is expected to behave in a specific way. Actions by choice are those in which the individual selects his own course of action, and is obliged only to observe certain general rules in making his choice. In traditional societies, most actions are prescribed actions. In modern societies, most actions are actions by choice. Example: choosing one's profession or spouse.
2. Acceptance of Change
Pre-modern societies do not accept change in most of their institutions. In modern societies, change is expected or required. Pre-modern societies institutionalise tradition. Modern societies institutionalise change.
3. Differentiation of Institutions
Societies vary in the number and nature of the institutions devoted to carrying on essential functions such as the provision of goods and services, defence against military attack, education, religion, etc. Pre-modern civilisations show a considerable differentiation of institutions, but these involve only a tiny minority of the population, such as priests, warriors and traders. All institutions in the traditional society are dominated by the same values and norms.
In modern society, the differentiation of institutions and social division of labour proceed almost without limit. The institutions become more and more autonomous. All human activities are fragmented by increasing specialisation.
Increasing secularisation leads away from a single system of values toward pluralism in values. Such pluralism tends to erode the very foundation of an integrated social system: its common core of shared values and norms.
16 September 2009
Swapan Dasgupta on Modernity (Vs Hindutva)
Swapan Dasgupta says the BJP must dump Hindutva and embrace modernity instead. He seems to be obsessed with modernity. Check out for yourself:
In short, the BJP must embrace modernity, be in a position to re-forge meaningful alliances and relegate identity politics to the backburner. (August 2009)
If India is changing and the RSS has already said that it is open to change, in that case the BJP has the duty to uphold modernity keeping in mind some of the basic fundamentals. (August 2009)
Former prime minister and BJP patriarch Atal Bihari Vajpayee represented modernity in a traditional idiom. (Ditto)
It reveals an unfortunate streak of adventurism that deflects attention from the more urgent business at hand: forging an enlightened nationalist agenda centred on security, growth, modernity and good governance. (June 2009)
Enlightened nationalism, good governance and modernity must become the party's (the BJP's) priorities. (June 2009)
Enlightened nationalism and modernity should become the two defining attributes of the BJP. (May 2009)
Yet, it is undeniable that the crucial swing votes which enabled the Congress to win more than 200 seats on its own came from two sections that are in the frontline of change and modernity: the middle classes and the youth. (May 2009)
The BJP leadership is seen as completely unresponsive to youth aspirations and modernity. (May 2009)
Narendra Modi became a passionate advocate of modernity and efficient governance. (April 2009)
The issue that is foremost in the mind of the RSS - which Bhagwat alluded to in his first public address after assuming charge - is the challenge of "modernity". (March 2009)
India has wholeheartedly embraced modern technology; it is wary of the cultural baggage that comes with modernity. (February 2009)
Tragically, this impatience with extremism has been misread by the Facebook brigade as thumbs-up for elevating the pub and pub-going women into symbols of Indian modernity. (Ditto)
It is a fitting rebuff to the mindset that deems Omar Abdullah's eloquent insensitivity in the Lok Sabha an iconic assertion of cosmopolitan modernity. (August 2008)
His (Narendra Modi's) opponents on the ground naturally include all those who are either disconcerted by or feel left out by this rush towards entrepreneurial modernity. (December 2007)
This disconcerting facet of modernity* appears to have escaped the Bharatiya Janata Party president, L K Advani. (June 2005)
*an electorate that lives for the present and dreams of the future
Today, the BJP is confronted with a stark choice: transforming defeat into defeatism or settling for ideological honesty and a touch of modernity. (August 2004)
Yes, 2004. Dr Dasgupta has been giving this advice for the last 5 years.
In short, the BJP must embrace modernity, be in a position to re-forge meaningful alliances and relegate identity politics to the backburner. (August 2009)
If India is changing and the RSS has already said that it is open to change, in that case the BJP has the duty to uphold modernity keeping in mind some of the basic fundamentals. (August 2009)
Former prime minister and BJP patriarch Atal Bihari Vajpayee represented modernity in a traditional idiom. (Ditto)
It reveals an unfortunate streak of adventurism that deflects attention from the more urgent business at hand: forging an enlightened nationalist agenda centred on security, growth, modernity and good governance. (June 2009)
Enlightened nationalism, good governance and modernity must become the party's (the BJP's) priorities. (June 2009)
Enlightened nationalism and modernity should become the two defining attributes of the BJP. (May 2009)
Yet, it is undeniable that the crucial swing votes which enabled the Congress to win more than 200 seats on its own came from two sections that are in the frontline of change and modernity: the middle classes and the youth. (May 2009)
The BJP leadership is seen as completely unresponsive to youth aspirations and modernity. (May 2009)
Narendra Modi became a passionate advocate of modernity and efficient governance. (April 2009)
The issue that is foremost in the mind of the RSS - which Bhagwat alluded to in his first public address after assuming charge - is the challenge of "modernity". (March 2009)
India has wholeheartedly embraced modern technology; it is wary of the cultural baggage that comes with modernity. (February 2009)
Tragically, this impatience with extremism has been misread by the Facebook brigade as thumbs-up for elevating the pub and pub-going women into symbols of Indian modernity. (Ditto)
It is a fitting rebuff to the mindset that deems Omar Abdullah's eloquent insensitivity in the Lok Sabha an iconic assertion of cosmopolitan modernity. (August 2008)
His (Narendra Modi's) opponents on the ground naturally include all those who are either disconcerted by or feel left out by this rush towards entrepreneurial modernity. (December 2007)
This disconcerting facet of modernity* appears to have escaped the Bharatiya Janata Party president, L K Advani. (June 2005)
*an electorate that lives for the present and dreams of the future
Today, the BJP is confronted with a stark choice: transforming defeat into defeatism or settling for ideological honesty and a touch of modernity. (August 2004)
Yes, 2004. Dr Dasgupta has been giving this advice for the last 5 years.
27 August 2009
This Is A War...
From "The Matrix Reloaded" (2003):
Morpheus: This is a war, and we are soldiers. Death can come to us any time, any place. Now consider the alternative. What if I am right? What if the prophecy is true? What if tomorrow the war could be over? Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth dying for?
See my post on India's war.
Morpheus: This is a war, and we are soldiers. Death can come to us any time, any place. Now consider the alternative. What if I am right? What if the prophecy is true? What if tomorrow the war could be over? Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth dying for?
See my post on India's war.
21 August 2009
Swami Vivekananda Quotes
Some quotes from my all-time favourite hero/icon/idol, Swami Vivekananda:
Strength
If you look, you will find that I have never quoted anything but the Upanishads. And of the Upanishads, it is only that one idea strength. The quintessence of the Vedas and Vedanta and all lies in that one word.
Wanted: Men
Men, men, these are wanted: everything else will be ready, but strong, vigorous, believing young men, sincere to the backbone, are wanted. A hundred such men and the world becomes revolutionised.
Fight!
Stand up and fight! Not one step back, that is the idea. Fight it out, whatever comes. Let the stars move from the spheres! Let the whole world stand against us! Death means only a change of garment. What of it? Thus fight! You gain nothing by becoming cowards. Taking a step backward, you do not avoid any misfortune! ... Arise! Awake! Stand up and fight!
Rise of Nations
And if we read the history of nations between the lines, we shall always find that the rise of a nation comes with an increase in the number of such men; and the fall begins when this pursuit after the Infinite, however vain the utilitarians may call it, has ceased. That is to say, the mainspring of every race lies in its spirituality, and the death of that race begins the day that spirituality wanes and materialism gains ground.
Sacrifice
Sacrifice in the past has been the Law, it will be, alas, for ages to come. The earth's bravest and best will have to sacrifice themselves for the good of many, for the welfare of all. Buddhas by the hundred are necessary with eternal love and pity.
Work and Love
There are many things to be done, but means are wanting in this country. We have brains, but no hands. We have the doctrine of Vedanta, but we have not the power to reduce it into practice. ... I too believe that India will awake again, if anyone could love with all his heart the people of the country – bereft of the grace of affluence, of blasted fortune, their discretion totally lost, downtrodden, ever-starved, quarrelsome, and envious. Then only will India awake, when hundreds of large-hearted men and women, giving up all desires of enjoying the luxuries of life, will long and exert themselves to their utmost for the well-being of the millions of their countrymen.
Feel, Feel, Feel
Feel, my children, feel; feel for the poor, the ignorant, the downtrodden; fell till the heart stops and brain reels and you think you will go mad; then pour the soul out at the feet of the Lord, and then will come power, help, and indomitable energy.
Have No Fear
Be not anxious. It is against the big tree that the great wind strikes. When there comes affliction in the heart, when the storm of sorrow blows all around, and it seems light will be seen no more, when hope and courage are almost gone, it is then, in the midst of this great spiritual tempest, that the light of Brahman within gleams. Brought up in the lap of luxury, lying on a bed of roses, and never shedding a tear, who has ever become great, who has ever unfolded the Brahman within?
Strength
If you look, you will find that I have never quoted anything but the Upanishads. And of the Upanishads, it is only that one idea strength. The quintessence of the Vedas and Vedanta and all lies in that one word.
Wanted: Men
Men, men, these are wanted: everything else will be ready, but strong, vigorous, believing young men, sincere to the backbone, are wanted. A hundred such men and the world becomes revolutionised.
Fight!
Stand up and fight! Not one step back, that is the idea. Fight it out, whatever comes. Let the stars move from the spheres! Let the whole world stand against us! Death means only a change of garment. What of it? Thus fight! You gain nothing by becoming cowards. Taking a step backward, you do not avoid any misfortune! ... Arise! Awake! Stand up and fight!
Rise of Nations
And if we read the history of nations between the lines, we shall always find that the rise of a nation comes with an increase in the number of such men; and the fall begins when this pursuit after the Infinite, however vain the utilitarians may call it, has ceased. That is to say, the mainspring of every race lies in its spirituality, and the death of that race begins the day that spirituality wanes and materialism gains ground.
Sacrifice
Sacrifice in the past has been the Law, it will be, alas, for ages to come. The earth's bravest and best will have to sacrifice themselves for the good of many, for the welfare of all. Buddhas by the hundred are necessary with eternal love and pity.
Work and Love
There are many things to be done, but means are wanting in this country. We have brains, but no hands. We have the doctrine of Vedanta, but we have not the power to reduce it into practice. ... I too believe that India will awake again, if anyone could love with all his heart the people of the country – bereft of the grace of affluence, of blasted fortune, their discretion totally lost, downtrodden, ever-starved, quarrelsome, and envious. Then only will India awake, when hundreds of large-hearted men and women, giving up all desires of enjoying the luxuries of life, will long and exert themselves to their utmost for the well-being of the millions of their countrymen.
Feel, Feel, Feel
Feel, my children, feel; feel for the poor, the ignorant, the downtrodden; fell till the heart stops and brain reels and you think you will go mad; then pour the soul out at the feet of the Lord, and then will come power, help, and indomitable energy.
Have No Fear
Be not anxious. It is against the big tree that the great wind strikes. When there comes affliction in the heart, when the storm of sorrow blows all around, and it seems light will be seen no more, when hope and courage are almost gone, it is then, in the midst of this great spiritual tempest, that the light of Brahman within gleams. Brought up in the lap of luxury, lying on a bed of roses, and never shedding a tear, who has ever become great, who has ever unfolded the Brahman within?
18 August 2009
Patriotic Song on India - 2
"Maate Poojaka Naanu Ennaya" is a patriotic song (in Kannada) on India that is popular in the RSS:
mAte poojaka nAnu ennaya SiravaniDuvenu aDiyali
ninna keertiyu jagadi mereyali ondE Aseyu manadali
eDaru toDarugaLella tuLiyuta munde nugguve bharadali
ninna nAma ninAdavAgali Sramipe nA prati kShaNadali
ninna gouravakeduru baruva balava murivenu chhaladali
jagada janani bhArata ida kELi naliyuve manadali
naguta naliyuva ninna vadanava nODi nalivudu ennede
ninna duHkhita vadana veekShise siDivudennaya hRudayavu
ninna mukhadali gelavu taralu neerugaiyuve raktava
enna kaNakaNa tEdu basiyuve poorNa jeevanaSaktiya
ninna tEjava jagavu nODali urive deepada teradali
enna Saktiya ghRutava satatavu ereyutiruvenu bharadali
mAtRumandira beLagutirali nAnE nandA deevige
batti teradee dEha uriyali sArthakate ee bALige
rudranAgi virOdhi viShavanu bharadi nAnada nunguve
jagava mechchisi adara hRudayava ninneDege nA seLeyuve
sRujipe jagadi ninna poojipa kOTi kOTi bhaktara
keerti Sikharadi mAte manDisu arpisuve nA sarvavA
My crude English translation:
Mother, I am your worshipper; I lay my head at your feet.
May your glory shine in this world; this is my only wish. (Refrain)
I will march ahead, trampling all hurdles and obstacles.
I will toil every moment so that your name rings out.
I will destroy any force that challenges your honour.
India is the mother of the world - I will hear this and rejoice.
Seeing your face smiling and happy gladdens my heart.
Seeing your face full of sorrow shatters my heart.
I will pour my blood like water to bring victory to your face.
I will grind every cell of my body and pour all my life's energy.
I will burn like a lamp so that the world sees your greatness.
I will keep pouring my strength like fuel forever.
May the Mother's temple shine brightly; I am the eternal lamp.
May this body burn like a wick; this life will be fulfilled.
I will become Shiva and drink the enemy's poison.
I will win the world's heart and draw it towards you.
I will create millions of devotees in the world who will worship you.
O Mother, be seated on the peak of glory; I offer my everything.
mAte poojaka nAnu ennaya SiravaniDuvenu aDiyali
ninna keertiyu jagadi mereyali ondE Aseyu manadali
eDaru toDarugaLella tuLiyuta munde nugguve bharadali
ninna nAma ninAdavAgali Sramipe nA prati kShaNadali
ninna gouravakeduru baruva balava murivenu chhaladali
jagada janani bhArata ida kELi naliyuve manadali
naguta naliyuva ninna vadanava nODi nalivudu ennede
ninna duHkhita vadana veekShise siDivudennaya hRudayavu
ninna mukhadali gelavu taralu neerugaiyuve raktava
enna kaNakaNa tEdu basiyuve poorNa jeevanaSaktiya
ninna tEjava jagavu nODali urive deepada teradali
enna Saktiya ghRutava satatavu ereyutiruvenu bharadali
mAtRumandira beLagutirali nAnE nandA deevige
batti teradee dEha uriyali sArthakate ee bALige
rudranAgi virOdhi viShavanu bharadi nAnada nunguve
jagava mechchisi adara hRudayava ninneDege nA seLeyuve
sRujipe jagadi ninna poojipa kOTi kOTi bhaktara
keerti Sikharadi mAte manDisu arpisuve nA sarvavA
My crude English translation:
Mother, I am your worshipper; I lay my head at your feet.
May your glory shine in this world; this is my only wish. (Refrain)
I will march ahead, trampling all hurdles and obstacles.
I will toil every moment so that your name rings out.
I will destroy any force that challenges your honour.
India is the mother of the world - I will hear this and rejoice.
Seeing your face smiling and happy gladdens my heart.
Seeing your face full of sorrow shatters my heart.
I will pour my blood like water to bring victory to your face.
I will grind every cell of my body and pour all my life's energy.
I will burn like a lamp so that the world sees your greatness.
I will keep pouring my strength like fuel forever.
May the Mother's temple shine brightly; I am the eternal lamp.
May this body burn like a wick; this life will be fulfilled.
I will become Shiva and drink the enemy's poison.
I will win the world's heart and draw it towards you.
I will create millions of devotees in the world who will worship you.
O Mother, be seated on the peak of glory; I offer my everything.
17 August 2009
Patriotic Song on India - 1
"Parashivalaya Vara Himalaya" is a patriotic song (in Kannada) on India that is popular in the RSS:
paraSivAlaya vara himAlaya jvalisu oDalina jvAleya
hirime mahimeya O nagAdhipa dahisu nADina vairiya
sattu malaguta nettarittaru enitO sAsira yOdharu
tamma neladoLe hemme chhaladoLe mAtegarpitarAdaru
atta heNNina kaNNa neeride hetta oDaladu cheeride
surida nettara sEDinuttara neeDirennuta naraLide
veera dAhiranoDane bALida sindhu dESadoLaDagida
khaDga bandhuve seeLu dAsyava ELu mElake negeyuta
pRuthvirAjana samarasimhana kooDi mlEchchhara kaDiyuta
mereda lOhave dAha ninnadu taNiva kShaNavido bandide
kAlpi jhAnsiya maNNoLaDagida dAhadali bAyArida
raktasnAnada bayake teerada poorvajara parivArada
tAntya nAnA kuvarasimhara karadoLADida kuSalare
nooru varShada nidde indige sAku lOhada geLeyare
namma himanaga namma nela jala endu nuDivudE nAlige?
Sraddhe bhaktiya kAryakiLisuva balavihude kaikAlige?
nammadAgiha teerthakShEtrava tuLiyutiralari rakkasa
eddu nillali grAmagrAmada rAmalakShmaNa tApasa
mooru dikkina kaDala taDiyindODi banniri banniri
malagidukkina tukkanoresuta geluvu niSchitavenniri
yAva mAteya yAva maNNina makkaLembuda tOriri
balige hasidiha Sastra hiriyuta SatrusEneyaniriyiri
Here is my crude English translation:
O abode of Shiva, mighty Himalaya, set your body on fire!
O great Lord-of-the-mountains, destroy the enemies of our country! (Refrain)
How many thousand warriors fell dead, pouring their blood
In their land with proud resolve, offering themselves to the Mother.
See their women's tears; hear the screams of their mothers' wombs.
The spilt blood is suffering, and cries out for vengeance.
You lived with the brave Dahir, hidden in the land of Sindh.
O brother sword, smash this slavery; jump up and rise!
You chopped the Mlecchas with the lion in battle, Prithviraj.
O shining steel, the moment to quench your heat has arrived!
Buried in the sands of Kalpi and Jhansi, thirsting in the heat,
The desire for bloodbath not sated, of our forefathers' family.
O sharp ones who played in the hands of Tatya, Nana and Kunwar Singh,
O friends of steel, a hundred years of sleep ends today!
When will we say, "Our snow mountains, our land, our water"?
Do our limbs have the strength to turn faith and devotion into action?
Our holy places are being trampled by foes and demons.
Let the worshippers of Rama-Lakshmana rise in every village!
Come, come running from the shores of the three seas.
Wipe the rust off the sleeping iron; say that victory is assured.
Show which mother's and which soil's sons you are.
The weapon is hungry for sacrifice; slash the enemy hordes!
paraSivAlaya vara himAlaya jvalisu oDalina jvAleya
hirime mahimeya O nagAdhipa dahisu nADina vairiya
sattu malaguta nettarittaru enitO sAsira yOdharu
tamma neladoLe hemme chhaladoLe mAtegarpitarAdaru
atta heNNina kaNNa neeride hetta oDaladu cheeride
surida nettara sEDinuttara neeDirennuta naraLide
veera dAhiranoDane bALida sindhu dESadoLaDagida
khaDga bandhuve seeLu dAsyava ELu mElake negeyuta
pRuthvirAjana samarasimhana kooDi mlEchchhara kaDiyuta
mereda lOhave dAha ninnadu taNiva kShaNavido bandide
kAlpi jhAnsiya maNNoLaDagida dAhadali bAyArida
raktasnAnada bayake teerada poorvajara parivArada
tAntya nAnA kuvarasimhara karadoLADida kuSalare
nooru varShada nidde indige sAku lOhada geLeyare
namma himanaga namma nela jala endu nuDivudE nAlige?
Sraddhe bhaktiya kAryakiLisuva balavihude kaikAlige?
nammadAgiha teerthakShEtrava tuLiyutiralari rakkasa
eddu nillali grAmagrAmada rAmalakShmaNa tApasa
mooru dikkina kaDala taDiyindODi banniri banniri
malagidukkina tukkanoresuta geluvu niSchitavenniri
yAva mAteya yAva maNNina makkaLembuda tOriri
balige hasidiha Sastra hiriyuta SatrusEneyaniriyiri
Here is my crude English translation:
O abode of Shiva, mighty Himalaya, set your body on fire!
O great Lord-of-the-mountains, destroy the enemies of our country! (Refrain)
How many thousand warriors fell dead, pouring their blood
In their land with proud resolve, offering themselves to the Mother.
See their women's tears; hear the screams of their mothers' wombs.
The spilt blood is suffering, and cries out for vengeance.
You lived with the brave Dahir, hidden in the land of Sindh.
O brother sword, smash this slavery; jump up and rise!
You chopped the Mlecchas with the lion in battle, Prithviraj.
O shining steel, the moment to quench your heat has arrived!
Buried in the sands of Kalpi and Jhansi, thirsting in the heat,
The desire for bloodbath not sated, of our forefathers' family.
O sharp ones who played in the hands of Tatya, Nana and Kunwar Singh,
O friends of steel, a hundred years of sleep ends today!
When will we say, "Our snow mountains, our land, our water"?
Do our limbs have the strength to turn faith and devotion into action?
Our holy places are being trampled by foes and demons.
Let the worshippers of Rama-Lakshmana rise in every village!
Come, come running from the shores of the three seas.
Wipe the rust off the sleeping iron; say that victory is assured.
Show which mother's and which soil's sons you are.
The weapon is hungry for sacrifice; slash the enemy hordes!
28 July 2009
Heroism, the Contempt for Happiness
Kenneth Clark on heroism in "Civilisation" (1969):
Seen by itself, the David's body might be an unusually taut and vivid work of antiquity. It is only when we come to the head that we are aware of a spiritual force the ancient world never knew. I suppose that this quality, which I may call heroic, is not a part of most people's idea of civilisation. It involves a contempt for convenience and a sacrifice of all those pleasures that contribute to what we call civilised life. It is the enemy of happiness. And yet we recognise that to despise material obstacles, and even to defy the blind forces of fate, is man's supreme achievement. And since, in the end, civilisation depends on man extending his powers of mind and spirit to the utmost, we must reckon the emergence of Michelangelo as one of the great events in the history of Western man.
Seen by itself, the David's body might be an unusually taut and vivid work of antiquity. It is only when we come to the head that we are aware of a spiritual force the ancient world never knew. I suppose that this quality, which I may call heroic, is not a part of most people's idea of civilisation. It involves a contempt for convenience and a sacrifice of all those pleasures that contribute to what we call civilised life. It is the enemy of happiness. And yet we recognise that to despise material obstacles, and even to defy the blind forces of fate, is man's supreme achievement. And since, in the end, civilisation depends on man extending his powers of mind and spirit to the utmost, we must reckon the emergence of Michelangelo as one of the great events in the history of Western man.
22 July 2009
Hindu Conservatism: Dharma or Moral Order
From Russell Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles":
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it. Human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word 'order' signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. 25 centuries ago Plato taught this doctrine. But even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since 'conservative' became a term of politics.
Our 20th century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the 5th century BC, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which societies fall that mistake clever self interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an old-fangled moral order.
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honour, will be a good society – whatever political machinery it may utilise. While a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society – no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.
This is one of the similarities between Hindu conservatism and Western conservatism. In Hindu thought, of course, we know this moral order as Dharma.
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it. Human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word 'order' signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. 25 centuries ago Plato taught this doctrine. But even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since 'conservative' became a term of politics.
Our 20th century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the 5th century BC, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which societies fall that mistake clever self interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an old-fangled moral order.
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honour, will be a good society – whatever political machinery it may utilise. While a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society – no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.
This is one of the similarities between Hindu conservatism and Western conservatism. In Hindu thought, of course, we know this moral order as Dharma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
