Both Indian politics and Indian academics suffer from the same fundamental problem: the chicken-and-egg problem – or the people-and-system problem. Good people are not there in the field. Why? Because the system is not good. And why is the system not good? Because good people are not there. That is: Good people will enter the field only when the system becomes good – and the system will become good only when good people enter the field.
Of course, this is a fundamental principle of the universe. And as per this principle, there should be no progress in the world at all. But the history of the world is nothing but the story of progress. So how does progress happen – in spite of the chicken-and-egg / people-and-system principle? There are two reasons. The first reason is that the principle is not 100% rigid/watertight. Especially with regard to the egg-to-chicken part – ie, the relationship between the quality of a system and the entry of good people. Some good people (who are fools) enter a field even though the system is not good.
The second reason is that luckily for us, human/social systems are not 'digital' but 'analog'. That is – they are not binary/discrete (bad vs good; 0 vs 1) but continuous (a gradient/spectrum from bad to good; 0 to 10). So a few good people (fools) enter a bad system and make it better – which attracts more good people – who make the system even better – and so on. This is nothing but the upward spiral / virtuous cycle of progress. Of course, the critical factor here is the speed of the process – especially when we are in a dynamic environment / competitive world. We can only hope that both our academics and our politics get on to a self-sustaining path of improvement (good systems + good people) as soon as possible – and move on it as fast as possible. Aum . . .
21 June 2020
Job/Work/Career: Strengths Vs Weaknesses
JOB/WORK/CAREER: STRENGTHS VS WEAKNESSES
Conventional career/personality development theory tells us to improve in our areas of weakness. This is nonsense. Because there is no such thing as the perfect/complete worker/all-rounder. Different people have different strengths - and the 21st century is the age of teamwork and specialisation. So your success will be determined by how strong your strengths are. If you work on your weakness, you will improve from poor to average - not more than that. And what will a team do with an average skill? Instead if you work on your strength, you will improve from good to great - and you will be valuable to any team. So forget about your weaknesses - and focus on your strengths. Find out what your strengths are - and develop them. Trying to 'fix'/'repair' your weaknesses is the biggest waste of time in the world.
Conventional career/personality development theory tells us to improve in our areas of weakness. This is nonsense. Because there is no such thing as the perfect/complete worker/all-rounder. Different people have different strengths - and the 21st century is the age of teamwork and specialisation. So your success will be determined by how strong your strengths are. If you work on your weakness, you will improve from poor to average - not more than that. And what will a team do with an average skill? Instead if you work on your strength, you will improve from good to great - and you will be valuable to any team. So forget about your weaknesses - and focus on your strengths. Find out what your strengths are - and develop them. Trying to 'fix'/'repair' your weaknesses is the biggest waste of time in the world.
08 June 2020
Capital, Capitalist And Capitalism
Today the word 'capitalism' means "an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned" (as opposed to socialism – in which the means of production are owned by the government). But the original meaning of the word was quite different. The word 'capital' came first – in the 1200s. It meant simply money or wealth. The word 'capitalist' came next – in the 1600s. It meant "an owner of capital/money/wealth" – ie, merchants. Around 1800, the Industrial Revolution began and the word 'capital' acquired today's meaning – not simply money/wealth but the means of production (ie, machines and factories). Consequently, the word 'capitalist' also changed – from "owner of money/wealth" to "owner of machines/factories". Then the word 'capitalism' came in the 1800s – meaning "the economic system consisting of capitalists". This looks like a trivial definition but it is not. Defined this way, capitalism was indeed a revolutionary new economic system. Why?
Since the beginning of civilisation, capital (the means of production) consisted of small simple tools. And these tools were owned by the respective workers. The farmer owned his plough and sickle. The blacksmith owned his anvil and furnace. The carpenter owned his saw and hammer. The potter owned his wheel and the weaver owned his loom. In other words – the workers owned the capital. The Industrial Revolution changed all this – by giving birth to big complex machines (and the buildings that contained them – ie, factories). These were too expensive to be owned by ordinary workers – only rich merchants could afford to own them. So for the first time in history, capital was not owned by workers – but by another group of people: the capitalists. And the new economic system was called 'capitalism'. This was the original meaning of the word 'capitalism'.
Since the beginning of civilisation, capital (the means of production) consisted of small simple tools. And these tools were owned by the respective workers. The farmer owned his plough and sickle. The blacksmith owned his anvil and furnace. The carpenter owned his saw and hammer. The potter owned his wheel and the weaver owned his loom. In other words – the workers owned the capital. The Industrial Revolution changed all this – by giving birth to big complex machines (and the buildings that contained them – ie, factories). These were too expensive to be owned by ordinary workers – only rich merchants could afford to own them. So for the first time in history, capital was not owned by workers – but by another group of people: the capitalists. And the new economic system was called 'capitalism'. This was the original meaning of the word 'capitalism'.
22 May 2020
India's Systems: Quality Vs Quantity
INDIA'S SYSTEMS: QUALITY VS QUANTITY
Every system has two fundamental aspects: quality and quantity. Which is more important? Both are equally important. That is – a system must ideally maximise both quality and quantity. But given resource constraints, we can increase only one of these two parameters at a time. So to achieve both quality and quantity, a sequential approach is needed. Accordingly, two approaches are available:
Which approach is better? The critical part of the process is the second phase. In the first approach, the second phase involves increasing the quantity of a high-quality low-quantity system. In the second approach, the second phase involves increasing the quality of a high-quantity low-quality system. Which of these two processes has a higher probability of success? Once the question is framed this way, it becomes clear that the first approach has a higher probability of success – and is therefore better.
India came under foreign rule around 1000 AD – during the Agricultural Age. It remained under slavery for 1000 years – under the Turks, Mughals and British. During the period of British rule, the Agricultural Age ended and a new age in the history of mankind - the Modern/Industrial Age - started. When India finally became free in 1947, the fundamental challenge before it was to build modern systems that would be both world-class (quality) and big enough for the world's second-biggest country (quantity). And that required choosing between the two approaches described above. Unfortunately, we chose the second approach. That is – we aimed for quantity rather than quality, perhaps hoping to increase the quality later. The result is that today we are stuck with low-quality high-quantity systems whose quality we are now struggling to increase.
Every system has two fundamental aspects: quality and quantity. Which is more important? Both are equally important. That is – a system must ideally maximise both quality and quantity. But given resource constraints, we can increase only one of these two parameters at a time. So to achieve both quality and quantity, a sequential approach is needed. Accordingly, two approaches are available:
| Approach 1 | Keep quantity low | Maintain quality |
| Approach 2 | Keep quality low | Maintain quantity |
Which approach is better? The critical part of the process is the second phase. In the first approach, the second phase involves increasing the quantity of a high-quality low-quantity system. In the second approach, the second phase involves increasing the quality of a high-quantity low-quality system. Which of these two processes has a higher probability of success? Once the question is framed this way, it becomes clear that the first approach has a higher probability of success – and is therefore better.
India came under foreign rule around 1000 AD – during the Agricultural Age. It remained under slavery for 1000 years – under the Turks, Mughals and British. During the period of British rule, the Agricultural Age ended and a new age in the history of mankind - the Modern/Industrial Age - started. When India finally became free in 1947, the fundamental challenge before it was to build modern systems that would be both world-class (quality) and big enough for the world's second-biggest country (quantity). And that required choosing between the two approaches described above. Unfortunately, we chose the second approach. That is – we aimed for quantity rather than quality, perhaps hoping to increase the quality later. The result is that today we are stuck with low-quality high-quantity systems whose quality we are now struggling to increase.
Classroom Education Vs Online Education
CLASSROOM EDUCATION VS ONLINE EDUCATION
"The Covid-19 crisis has changed the world forever – especially education. Classroom education is dead, obsolete and Stone Age. Online education will and should replace classroom education." This is now the consensus opinion of almost all experts and ordinary people.
I know people will call me Stone Age. But based on my 18 years experience as a student and 7 years experience as a faculty, I will say this: The classroom + blackboard + chalk is the most effective method for understanding a subject – especially complex concepts. There is no substitute for mentally wrestling with complex concepts with the help of a faculty who has been doing the same for years – along with other students who are currently doing the same.
If online education is better than classroom education because it is more 'efficient', then why stop there? Why not take this idea one step further – to its logical conclusion? Excellent textbooks are available on every subject. So the most 'efficient' option is to simply buy the textbooks, sit at home and read the textbooks. Where is the need for even an online education? To get a degree? It will be more 'efficient' for universities to only conduct exams and award degrees to those who pass the exams.
Since 1947, we have completely neglected quality and focussed only on quantity in our education. This is the #1 reason for India's under-development today. Now this online education will become another excuse to further dilute quality for the sake of quantity in our education. "We have reached X number of students", "We have trained Y number of candidates", "We have produced Z number of graduates", etc. How well have they understood the subjects? Especially complex concepts? Nobody is bothered about this.
"The Covid-19 crisis has changed the world forever – especially education. Classroom education is dead, obsolete and Stone Age. Online education will and should replace classroom education." This is now the consensus opinion of almost all experts and ordinary people.
I know people will call me Stone Age. But based on my 18 years experience as a student and 7 years experience as a faculty, I will say this: The classroom + blackboard + chalk is the most effective method for understanding a subject – especially complex concepts. There is no substitute for mentally wrestling with complex concepts with the help of a faculty who has been doing the same for years – along with other students who are currently doing the same.
If online education is better than classroom education because it is more 'efficient', then why stop there? Why not take this idea one step further – to its logical conclusion? Excellent textbooks are available on every subject. So the most 'efficient' option is to simply buy the textbooks, sit at home and read the textbooks. Where is the need for even an online education? To get a degree? It will be more 'efficient' for universities to only conduct exams and award degrees to those who pass the exams.
Since 1947, we have completely neglected quality and focussed only on quantity in our education. This is the #1 reason for India's under-development today. Now this online education will become another excuse to further dilute quality for the sake of quantity in our education. "We have reached X number of students", "We have trained Y number of candidates", "We have produced Z number of graduates", etc. How well have they understood the subjects? Especially complex concepts? Nobody is bothered about this.
20 May 2020
India's Debt, Fiscal Deficit And GDP Growth Rate
Let a country's GDP be G and its debt be D. Then its debt-to-GDP ratio is D/G. Let its GDP grow at a rate of g every year (0 < g < 1). Then its GDP next year will be (1 + g) × G. Let its fiscal deficit next year be F. Then its debt next year will be D + F. So its debt-to-GDP ratio next year will be (D + F)/[(1 + g) × G]. If the debt-to-GDP ratio is to remain constant, then:
D/G = (D + F)/[(1 + g) × G]
Let us express both debt and fiscal deficit as a fraction of the GDP. Let D/G be d and F/[(1 + g) × G] be f. Then the constant debt-to-GDP ratio condition becomes:
d = d /(1 + g) + f
This gives us:
1. f = d × g / (1 + g) And:
2. g = f / (d - f)
A country starts off with a certain amount of debt (D) – which is expressed as a fraction of its GDP (D/G = d). It wants to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio (d). How to do this? There are two ways of asking and answering this question:
1. If the country's GDP grows at a certain rate g, then it must keep its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) below some level f. Equation 1 gives us this value of f.
2. If the country maintains its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) at a certain level f, then its GDP must grow above some rate g. Equation 2 gives us this value of g.
India's debt-to-GDP ratio is 70% – which is the highest among major industrialising countries. How to reduce this? We can use the two equations given above. Accordingly we have:
A. Maximum fiscal deficit (based on the GDP growth rate)
Our average GDP growth rate since 2000 has been 7%.
B. Minimum GDP growth rate (based on the fiscal deficit)
Our average fiscal deficit since 2000 has been 4.5%.
Note: The 2003 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act states that the government must reduce the fiscal deficit to 3% of GDP.
Let us express both debt and fiscal deficit as a fraction of the GDP. Let D/G be d and F/[(1 + g) × G] be f. Then the constant debt-to-GDP ratio condition becomes:
This gives us:
A country starts off with a certain amount of debt (D) – which is expressed as a fraction of its GDP (D/G = d). It wants to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio (d). How to do this? There are two ways of asking and answering this question:
1. If the country's GDP grows at a certain rate g, then it must keep its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) below some level f. Equation 1 gives us this value of f.
2. If the country maintains its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) at a certain level f, then its GDP must grow above some rate g. Equation 2 gives us this value of g.
India's debt-to-GDP ratio is 70% – which is the highest among major industrialising countries. How to reduce this? We can use the two equations given above. Accordingly we have:
A. Maximum fiscal deficit (based on the GDP growth rate)
B. Minimum GDP growth rate (based on the fiscal deficit)
Note: The 2003 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act states that the government must reduce the fiscal deficit to 3% of GDP.
12 May 2020
Major/Important Finance Ministers Of India
Major/important finance ministers of India:
| # | Finance Minister | Period | Prime Minister |
| 1 | Shanmukham Chetty | 1947–1948 | Jawaharlal Nehru |
| 2 | John Mathai | 1948–1950 | Jawaharlal Nehru |
| 3 | Chintaman Deshmukh | 1950–1956 | Jawaharlal Nehru |
| 4 | T T Krishnamachari | 1956–1958 | Jawaharlal Nehru |
| 5 | Morarji Desai | 1958–1963 | Jawaharlal Nehru |
| 6 | T T Krishnamachari | 1963–1965 | Nehru / L B Shastri |
| 7 | Sachindra Chaudhuri | 1966–1967 | Indira Gandhi |
| 8 | Morarji Desai | 1967–1969 | Indira Gandhi |
| 9 | Yashwantrao Chavan | 1970–1974 | Indira Gandhi |
| 10 | C Subramaniam | 1974–1977 | Indira Gandhi |
| 11 | Hirubhai Patel | 1977–1979 | Indira Gandhi |
| 12 | Charan Singh | 1979–1980 | Morarji Desai |
| 13 | R Venkataraman | 1980–1982 | Indira Gandhi |
| 14 | Pranab Mukherjee | 1982–1984 | Indira Gandhi |
| 15 | V P Singh | 1984–1987 | Rajiv Gandhi |
| 16 | Narayan Tiwari | 1987–1988 | Rajiv Gandhi |
| 17 | Shankarrao Chavan | 1988–1989 | Rajiv Gandhi |
| 18 | Madhu Dandavate | 1989–1990 | V P Singh |
| 19 | Yashwant Sinha | 1990–1991 | Chandra Shekhar |
| 20 | Manmohan Singh | 1991–1996 | P V Narasimha Rao |
| 21 | P Chidambaram | 1996–1998 | Deve Gowda / Gujral |
| 22 | Yashwant Sinha | 1998–2002 | Atal Bihari Vajpayee |
| 23 | Jaswant Singh | 2002–2004 | Atal Bihari Vajpayee |
| 24 | P Chidambaram | 2004–2008 | Manmohan Singh |
| 25 | Pranab Mukherjee | 2009–2012 | Manmohan Singh |
| 26 | P Chidambaram | 2012–2014 | Manmohan Singh |
| 27 | Arun Jaitley | 2014–2019 | Narendra Modi |
| 28 | Nirmala Sitaraman | 2019– | Narendra Modi |
26 April 2020
Economy, Economics And Economic Literacy
Humans need some things to live – like food, clothes, houses, etc. They obtain these things by making and exchanging them with one another. And this system of people making and exchanging things is nothing but the economic system (or simply – the economy).
Now this economic system or economy does not behave randomly. If I am holding a ball and I let go of it, what will happen? Simple: the ball will fall down. Why? Again simple: due to the law of gravity. So the ball falls down instead of going up because the law of gravity says it must fall down. That is – its behaviour is dictated by the law of gravity. More generally – the behaviour of the physical world is dictated by a set of physical laws. And these physical laws make up a science – the science called physics. Engineers build many physical systems – like machines. When they do so, they must do it on the basis of the laws of physics – for which they must know the science of physics. And we would like to understand how these machines or physical systems work. In order to do that, we must also know the science of physics.
What is true of physical systems is equally true of the economic system (economy). Just as physical systems do not behave randomly but as per certain physical laws, similarly the economy (economic system) does not behave randomly but as per certain laws of human/social behaviour – ie, economic laws. And just as the physical laws make up a science called physics, similarly the economic laws also make up a science – the science called economics. And just as we must know the science of physics to understand how physical systems work, similarly we must know the science of economics to understand how the economic system (economy) works.
Every human gets the things he/she needs to live from the economic system or economy. So the economic system or economy is directly important to every human. Thus every human must understand how the economic system or economy works. That is – every human must know economics (at least the basics). This being the case, it is shocking that we do not teach even basic economics in our schools. We teach economics only in senior high-school (ie, +2) in the Arts and Commerce streams – so the Science stream students miss out on economics completely. We must correct this by teaching at least basic economics in the 10th standard.
We must teach the most fundamental concepts of both micro-economics and macro-economics. Fundamental micro-economic concepts would include:
1. Supply and demand
2. Social surplus/welfare
3. How free-market maximises social welfare
4. How government-controls reduce social welfare
Fundamental macro-economic concepts would include:
1. Taxes and revenue
2. Government spending
3. Fiscal-deficit and debt
4. Subsidies, loan-waivers and welfare-schemes
Economic literacy is also essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy. One of the most important functions of a government is to manage the country's economy properly. If people don't know even basic economics, how will they evaluate the government's performance – and the opposition's criticism? And how will they make the right choice in the election?
Now this economic system or economy does not behave randomly. If I am holding a ball and I let go of it, what will happen? Simple: the ball will fall down. Why? Again simple: due to the law of gravity. So the ball falls down instead of going up because the law of gravity says it must fall down. That is – its behaviour is dictated by the law of gravity. More generally – the behaviour of the physical world is dictated by a set of physical laws. And these physical laws make up a science – the science called physics. Engineers build many physical systems – like machines. When they do so, they must do it on the basis of the laws of physics – for which they must know the science of physics. And we would like to understand how these machines or physical systems work. In order to do that, we must also know the science of physics.
What is true of physical systems is equally true of the economic system (economy). Just as physical systems do not behave randomly but as per certain physical laws, similarly the economy (economic system) does not behave randomly but as per certain laws of human/social behaviour – ie, economic laws. And just as the physical laws make up a science called physics, similarly the economic laws also make up a science – the science called economics. And just as we must know the science of physics to understand how physical systems work, similarly we must know the science of economics to understand how the economic system (economy) works.
Every human gets the things he/she needs to live from the economic system or economy. So the economic system or economy is directly important to every human. Thus every human must understand how the economic system or economy works. That is – every human must know economics (at least the basics). This being the case, it is shocking that we do not teach even basic economics in our schools. We teach economics only in senior high-school (ie, +2) in the Arts and Commerce streams – so the Science stream students miss out on economics completely. We must correct this by teaching at least basic economics in the 10th standard.
We must teach the most fundamental concepts of both micro-economics and macro-economics. Fundamental micro-economic concepts would include:
1. Supply and demand
2. Social surplus/welfare
3. How free-market maximises social welfare
4. How government-controls reduce social welfare
Fundamental macro-economic concepts would include:
1. Taxes and revenue
2. Government spending
3. Fiscal-deficit and debt
4. Subsidies, loan-waivers and welfare-schemes
Economic literacy is also essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy. One of the most important functions of a government is to manage the country's economy properly. If people don't know even basic economics, how will they evaluate the government's performance – and the opposition's criticism? And how will they make the right choice in the election?
25 April 2020
ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ / ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ
Secularismಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ 'ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ' ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ಅನುವಾದ ಸರಿಯೇ? Secularism ಎಂದರೇನು? Secularism ಎಂದರೆ ಹಿಂದು-ಧ್ವೇಷ - ಅಂದರೆ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಹಿಂದು-ಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುವುದು. ಸೆಕ್ಯುಲರವಾದಿಗಳು/ಎಡವಾದಿಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ - ಅಂದರೆ ಅವರು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಜಾತಿಗಳ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅವರ ಹಿಂದು-ಧ್ವೇಷ ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ. ಆದುದರಿಂದ secularismಗೆ 'ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ' ಎಂಬ ಶಬ್ದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ.
24 April 2020
India's Muslims: Non-Fundamentalists Vs Anti-Fundamentalists
India's middle-class Muslims are non-fundamentalists. This is a good thing - but it not enough. Lower-class Muslims are so deeply sunk in fundamentalism that it is not enough for middle-class Muslims to be merely non-fundamentalist. They must do more - they must fight against fundamentalism. That is - they must become anti-fundamentalists.
PS: And needless to say - we Hindus will support them 100% in their war against fundamentalism.
PS: And needless to say - we Hindus will support them 100% in their war against fundamentalism.
21 April 2020
Varna System And Types Of Work
There are four basic types of work:
1. Working with things
2. Working with money
3. Working with people
4. Working with ideas
Accordingly, ancient Indians designed and built a social system (the Varna system) in which different groups of people specialised in each of the four basic types of work:
1. Working with things - Farmers/Workers (Shudras)
2. Working with money - Merchants/Traders (Vaishyas)
3. Working with people - Rulers/Administrators (Kshatriyas)
4. Working with ideas - Scholars/Priests (Brahmanas)
1. Working with things
2. Working with money
3. Working with people
4. Working with ideas
Accordingly, ancient Indians designed and built a social system (the Varna system) in which different groups of people specialised in each of the four basic types of work:
1. Working with things - Farmers/Workers (Shudras)
2. Working with money - Merchants/Traders (Vaishyas)
3. Working with people - Rulers/Administrators (Kshatriyas)
4. Working with ideas - Scholars/Priests (Brahmanas)
20 April 2020
China's History: Warfare, Violence, Aggression
China was born around 2000 BC - about 1000 years after India. China's history is similar to India's: many kingdoms fighting many wars with one another. But that is where the similarity stops. The nature of the warfare was completely different in each case.
In India, the armies of the two warring kingdoms would meet at the battlefield and start fighting at sunrise. At sunset, they would stop and evaluate the situation. The army which fared better was declared the winner. Then the losing king would acknowledge the winning king as his overlord - and pay him a tribute every year. Thus it was limited warfare.
In China, the war would be a fight to the finish. The winning king would kill the losing king - even if he surrendered. The winning army would kill the entire losing army - even if they surrendered. Then the winning army would march to the capital of the losing kingdom - and kill every man, woman and child in the city. Thus it was total warfare. And this went on for 4000 years.
Therefore China's history is the most violent and blood-drenched history in the world. And 4000 years of bloody warfare have made the Chinese a very violent and aggressive people. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party made the country a completely unified state for the first time in its history. As a result, all those inter-kingdom wars came to a stop. But a national character that has developed over 4000 years cannot change overnight. So where will all that violence and aggression go? Simple: outside. That is - the violence and aggression that went into internal wars for 4000 years is now going into the outside world.
Reference: History Of China - John Keay (2008)
In India, the armies of the two warring kingdoms would meet at the battlefield and start fighting at sunrise. At sunset, they would stop and evaluate the situation. The army which fared better was declared the winner. Then the losing king would acknowledge the winning king as his overlord - and pay him a tribute every year. Thus it was limited warfare.
In China, the war would be a fight to the finish. The winning king would kill the losing king - even if he surrendered. The winning army would kill the entire losing army - even if they surrendered. Then the winning army would march to the capital of the losing kingdom - and kill every man, woman and child in the city. Thus it was total warfare. And this went on for 4000 years.
Therefore China's history is the most violent and blood-drenched history in the world. And 4000 years of bloody warfare have made the Chinese a very violent and aggressive people. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party made the country a completely unified state for the first time in its history. As a result, all those inter-kingdom wars came to a stop. But a national character that has developed over 4000 years cannot change overnight. So where will all that violence and aggression go? Simple: outside. That is - the violence and aggression that went into internal wars for 4000 years is now going into the outside world.
Reference: History Of China - John Keay (2008)
19 April 2020
RSS's System/Philosophy
RSS is supposed to be a Hindu and an anti-Western/modern/industrial organisation. But its system is to train people to become good social-workers; which is nothing but an industrial system - a factory. Whereas Hindu philosophy says that each human has a unique Swadharma; and the goal of life is to discover our Swadharma - and fulfill it.
18 April 2020
Congress Propaganda: Gandhi/Nehru Vs Bhagat Singh / Subhash Chandra Bose
When the Covid-19 lockdown began, I took up a small project that I had always wanted to do: To compile a list of Bollywood's all-time greatest patriotic songs. To do this, I went through all the old songs. And I found something very interesting:
1. Half the songs were familiar - I had seen them regularly on Chitrahaar (remember that program on Doordarshan?) as a kid in the 1980s and 1990s. But half the songs were new - I had never seen them on Chitrahaar.
2. Very coincidentally - the songs that Chitrahaar regularly showed glorify Gandhi and Nehru. And the songs that Chitrahaar never showed glorify Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose.
There were also state-versions of Chitrahaar - in each state's language. Extending the above analysis to Maharashtra's Marathi version of Chitrahaar, I think it never showed songs that glorify Vinayak Savarkar. My Marathi friends can confirm this.
Nice propaganda by the Congress Party!
1. Half the songs were familiar - I had seen them regularly on Chitrahaar (remember that program on Doordarshan?) as a kid in the 1980s and 1990s. But half the songs were new - I had never seen them on Chitrahaar.
2. Very coincidentally - the songs that Chitrahaar regularly showed glorify Gandhi and Nehru. And the songs that Chitrahaar never showed glorify Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose.
There were also state-versions of Chitrahaar - in each state's language. Extending the above analysis to Maharashtra's Marathi version of Chitrahaar, I think it never showed songs that glorify Vinayak Savarkar. My Marathi friends can confirm this.
Nice propaganda by the Congress Party!
17 April 2020
Socialism, Capitalism And India's Muslim Middle-Class
When Partition happened in 1947, most of our middle-class Muslims moved to Pakistan. So post-Partition India's Muslim community consisted mainly of lower-class Muslims. Then in 1947, Nehru adopted inefficient government-controlled socialism as our economic system. As a result, our economy grew at a rate of 3% per year. And our population grew at a rate of 2% per year - so our per capita income grew at a rate of 1% per year. But the East Asian and South East Asian countries adopted efficient free-market capitalism as their economic system - and grew at a rate of 10% per year.
Fast economic growth creates a big middle-class. Due to our slow economic growth under socialism, we were not able to create a Muslim middle-class (that we had lost in Partition). Finally in 1991, Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao changed our economic system from socialism to capitalism - and our economy started growing at the rate of 7-8% per year. This fast economic growth created a big Indian middle-class. Specifically: It created a small Muslim middle-class - for the first time since 1947.
So our Muslim middle-class is small and recent (only since 1991). Thus Nehru's socialism delayed the formation of a Muslim middle-class by almost 50 years - and therefore also delayed the modernisation of the Muslim community.
Fast economic growth creates a big middle-class. Due to our slow economic growth under socialism, we were not able to create a Muslim middle-class (that we had lost in Partition). Finally in 1991, Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao changed our economic system from socialism to capitalism - and our economy started growing at the rate of 7-8% per year. This fast economic growth created a big Indian middle-class. Specifically: It created a small Muslim middle-class - for the first time since 1947.
So our Muslim middle-class is small and recent (only since 1991). Thus Nehru's socialism delayed the formation of a Muslim middle-class by almost 50 years - and therefore also delayed the modernisation of the Muslim community.
16 April 2020
Hindus And The Modernisation Of India's Muslims
Recent events (first the anti-CAA riots and now the Covid-19 outbreak) have glaringly shown how deeply our lower-class Muslims are immersed in fundamentalism. What is the solution for this? There is only one: modernisation. And who must do this? Ideally - anybody/everybody who can. But there is an important limitation here: Hindus cannot do this - because of the nature of the problem (fundamentalism). Any effort by Hindus in this regard will be a non-starter. So it has to be done by middle-class Muslims only.
Therefore Hindus have been doing nothing in this regard since 1947. And the results of this approach are there in front of us today. So this approach is clearly unsustainable. Either middle-class Muslims are not modernising their lower-class counterparts. Or their efforts are not being enough. So Hindus must either kick-start the process (if it is the former) - or accelerate the process (if it is the latter). And how to do this?
The starting point for every change-process is a discussion/conversation. The biggest problem in this matter is that there is no discussion/conversation happening at all. Why? The answer is obvious: Hindus feel that if they criticise Islamic fundamentalism (or Christian fundamentalism - but that is another story) it looks like they are criticising Islam - which is 'hatred' and therefore wrong. So we have chosen a comfortable silence since 1947. And today the results of this silence are there in front of us. Therefore this comfortable silence is no longer an option.
Hinduism says 'Sarva Mata Sama Bhaava'. So we respect all religions - including Islam. But we will not tolerate Islamic fundamentalism - which is an evil ideology. We must be very clear about this difference. That will give us the confidence to criticise Islamic fundamentalism freely and openly - based on facts/logic. At the same time, we must (equally freely and openly) support the middle-class Muslims who are trying to modernise their lower-class counterparts. There is no contradiction between respecting Islam on the one hand and criticising Islamic fundamentalism on the other hand. In fact - the two approaches are two sides of the same coin. Each strengthens the other. And each is incomplete without the other.
We are all one country - India. We will all either prosper together - or we will all go down together. These are our only two options - there is no third option. So let us all work together to make our country better. Bharat Mata ki jai.
Therefore Hindus have been doing nothing in this regard since 1947. And the results of this approach are there in front of us today. So this approach is clearly unsustainable. Either middle-class Muslims are not modernising their lower-class counterparts. Or their efforts are not being enough. So Hindus must either kick-start the process (if it is the former) - or accelerate the process (if it is the latter). And how to do this?
The starting point for every change-process is a discussion/conversation. The biggest problem in this matter is that there is no discussion/conversation happening at all. Why? The answer is obvious: Hindus feel that if they criticise Islamic fundamentalism (or Christian fundamentalism - but that is another story) it looks like they are criticising Islam - which is 'hatred' and therefore wrong. So we have chosen a comfortable silence since 1947. And today the results of this silence are there in front of us. Therefore this comfortable silence is no longer an option.
Hinduism says 'Sarva Mata Sama Bhaava'. So we respect all religions - including Islam. But we will not tolerate Islamic fundamentalism - which is an evil ideology. We must be very clear about this difference. That will give us the confidence to criticise Islamic fundamentalism freely and openly - based on facts/logic. At the same time, we must (equally freely and openly) support the middle-class Muslims who are trying to modernise their lower-class counterparts. There is no contradiction between respecting Islam on the one hand and criticising Islamic fundamentalism on the other hand. In fact - the two approaches are two sides of the same coin. Each strengthens the other. And each is incomplete without the other.
We are all one country - India. We will all either prosper together - or we will all go down together. These are our only two options - there is no third option. So let us all work together to make our country better. Bharat Mata ki jai.
Bollywood's Greatest Patriotic Songs
Bollywood's greatest patriotic songs (in rough chronological order):
1. Vande Mataram
Lyrics: Bankim Chandra Chatterjee
Music: Hemant Kumar
Voice: Hemant Kumar
Movie: Anand Math (1952)
2. Kadam Kadam Badhaye Ja
Lyrics: Vanshidhar Shukla
Music: Ram Singh Thakur
Voice: Ramchandra Chitalkar
Movie: Samadhi (1950)
3. Mera Rang De Basanti Chola
Lyrics: Ram Prasad Bismil
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voices: Mahendra Kapoor, Mukesh, Rajendra Mehta
Movie: Shaheed (1965)
4. Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna
Lyrics: Bismil Azimabadi
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voices: Mohammed Rafi, Manna Dey, Rajendra Mehta
Movie: Shaheed (1965)
5. Aao Bacho Tumhe Dikhaye
Lyrics: Kavi Pradeep
Music: Hemant Kumar
Voice: Kavi Pradeep
Movie: Jagriti (1954)
6. Yeh Desh Hai Veer Jawanon Ka
Lyrics: Sahir Ludhianvi
Music: Omkar Nayyar
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Naya Daur (1957)
7. Aye Mere Pyare Watan
Lyrics: Prem Dhawan
Music: Salil Chaudhari
Voice: Manna Dey
Movie: Kabuliwala (1961)
8. Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Sathiyo
Lyrics: Kaifi Azmi
Music: Madan Mohan
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Haqeeqat (1964)
9. Apni Azadi Ko Hum
Lyrics: Shakil Badayuni
Music: Naushad Ali
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Leader (1964)
10. Aye Watan Aye Watan
Lyrics: Prem Dhawan
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Shaheed (1965)
11. Jahan Daal Daal Par
Lyrics: Rajendra Krishan
Music: Hansraj Behl
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Sikandar E Azam (1965)
12. Mere Desh Ki Dharti
Lyrics: Gulshan Bawra
Music: Kalyanji-Anandji
Voice: Mahendra Kapoor
Movie: Upkaar (1967)
13. Hai Preet Jahan Ki Reet Sada
Lyrics: Indivar
Music: Kalyanji-Anandji
Voice: Mahendra Kapoor
Movie: Purab Aur Paschim (1970)
14. Taqat Watan Ki
Lyrics: Gopaldas Neeraj
Music: Sachin Burman
Voices: Manna Dey, Mohammed Rafi
1. Vande Mataram
Lyrics: Bankim Chandra Chatterjee
Music: Hemant Kumar
Voice: Hemant Kumar
Movie: Anand Math (1952)
2. Kadam Kadam Badhaye Ja
Lyrics: Vanshidhar Shukla
Music: Ram Singh Thakur
Voice: Ramchandra Chitalkar
Movie: Samadhi (1950)
3. Mera Rang De Basanti Chola
Lyrics: Ram Prasad Bismil
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voices: Mahendra Kapoor, Mukesh, Rajendra Mehta
Movie: Shaheed (1965)
4. Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna
Lyrics: Bismil Azimabadi
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voices: Mohammed Rafi, Manna Dey, Rajendra Mehta
Movie: Shaheed (1965)
5. Aao Bacho Tumhe Dikhaye
Lyrics: Kavi Pradeep
Music: Hemant Kumar
Voice: Kavi Pradeep
Movie: Jagriti (1954)
6. Yeh Desh Hai Veer Jawanon Ka
Lyrics: Sahir Ludhianvi
Music: Omkar Nayyar
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Naya Daur (1957)
7. Aye Mere Pyare Watan
Lyrics: Prem Dhawan
Music: Salil Chaudhari
Voice: Manna Dey
Movie: Kabuliwala (1961)
8. Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Sathiyo
Lyrics: Kaifi Azmi
Music: Madan Mohan
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Haqeeqat (1964)
9. Apni Azadi Ko Hum
Lyrics: Shakil Badayuni
Music: Naushad Ali
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Leader (1964)
10. Aye Watan Aye Watan
Lyrics: Prem Dhawan
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Shaheed (1965)
11. Jahan Daal Daal Par
Lyrics: Rajendra Krishan
Music: Hansraj Behl
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Sikandar E Azam (1965)
12. Mere Desh Ki Dharti
Lyrics: Gulshan Bawra
Music: Kalyanji-Anandji
Voice: Mahendra Kapoor
Movie: Upkaar (1967)
13. Hai Preet Jahan Ki Reet Sada
Lyrics: Indivar
Music: Kalyanji-Anandji
Voice: Mahendra Kapoor
Movie: Purab Aur Paschim (1970)
14. Taqat Watan Ki
Lyrics: Gopaldas Neeraj
Music: Sachin Burman
Voices: Manna Dey, Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Prem Pujari (1970)
15. Har Karam Apna Karenge
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi
Music: Laxmikant-Pyarelal
Voices: Kavita Krishnamurti, Mohammed Aziz
Movie: Karma (1986)
15. Har Karam Apna Karenge
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi
Music: Laxmikant-Pyarelal
Voices: Kavita Krishnamurti, Mohammed Aziz
Movie: Karma (1986)
15 April 2020
Microeconomic Foundations Of Macroeconomics?
# Neo-classical microeconomics looks at economic agents - by assuming them to be rational maximisers.
# Keynes gave birth to macroeconomics which looks at the aggregate economy independently - ie, without bothering about microeconomics.
# Neo-classicists attacked Keynesian macroeconomics - saying it does not have 'solid microeconomic foundations'.
# Neo-Keynesians are responding by building the 'solid microeconomic foundations' for Keynesian macroeconomics.
# But all this is funny when the foundation of microeconomics (rational maximisation) is itself being broken - by behavioural economics.
# Keynes gave birth to macroeconomics which looks at the aggregate economy independently - ie, without bothering about microeconomics.
# Neo-classicists attacked Keynesian macroeconomics - saying it does not have 'solid microeconomic foundations'.
# Neo-Keynesians are responding by building the 'solid microeconomic foundations' for Keynesian macroeconomics.
# But all this is funny when the foundation of microeconomics (rational maximisation) is itself being broken - by behavioural economics.
07 April 2020
India's School-Education System & Basic Literacy Skills
My students are bombarding me with demands for the 'notes' for my subjects. Last year's lectures have been recorded and the videos are available to them. They also have the textbook - its PDF is available free on the Internet. Still they are insisting on 'notes'.
For understanding a subject, the most effective method is listening to a lecture. The second most effective method is reading a good textbook. The least effective method is reading 'notes'. Still my students are insisting on 'notes'.
How do we understand a subject through the first two (effective) methods? The process consists of these steps:
1. Reading/Listening
2. Understanding
3. Thinking logically
Now these also happen to be basic literacy skills - which are the foundation for all other skills. Once students have these fundamental skills, they can develop other higher level skills.
So if the students are insisting on 'notes', that means they do not have these basic literacy skills. This is a damning indictment of India's school-education system. It means that we are basically producing a nation of educated illiterates. How will we survive in the 21st century - which is the Knowledge Century?
For understanding a subject, the most effective method is listening to a lecture. The second most effective method is reading a good textbook. The least effective method is reading 'notes'. Still my students are insisting on 'notes'.
How do we understand a subject through the first two (effective) methods? The process consists of these steps:
1. Reading/Listening
2. Understanding
3. Thinking logically
Now these also happen to be basic literacy skills - which are the foundation for all other skills. Once students have these fundamental skills, they can develop other higher level skills.
So if the students are insisting on 'notes', that means they do not have these basic literacy skills. This is a damning indictment of India's school-education system. It means that we are basically producing a nation of educated illiterates. How will we survive in the 21st century - which is the Knowledge Century?
02 April 2020
Minimum WhatsApp Group Distance (MWGD)
Consider any of your WhatsApp groups. Consider any other member of that group - let us call him/her as X. Now you are connected to X through one WhatsApp group. That is - the Minimum WhatsApp Group Distance (MWGD) between you and X = 1.
Now consider any other of X's WhatsApp groups (which you are not a member of). And consider any other member of that group (with whom you don't share any WhatsApp group) - let us call him/her as Y. So you are connected to Y through two WhatsApp groups. That is - the MWGD between you and Y = 2.
Now almost all the 40 crore Indians on WhatsApp are connected to one another like this. The only thing that varies is the MWGD. The lesser the MWGD between two persons, we can say they are 'closer' to each other. The greater the MWGD between two persons, we can say they are 'farther' from each other.
Question: What may be the MWGD between the two Indians who are 'farthest' from each other?
Now consider any other of X's WhatsApp groups (which you are not a member of). And consider any other member of that group (with whom you don't share any WhatsApp group) - let us call him/her as Y. So you are connected to Y through two WhatsApp groups. That is - the MWGD between you and Y = 2.
Now almost all the 40 crore Indians on WhatsApp are connected to one another like this. The only thing that varies is the MWGD. The lesser the MWGD between two persons, we can say they are 'closer' to each other. The greater the MWGD between two persons, we can say they are 'farther' from each other.
Question: What may be the MWGD between the two Indians who are 'farthest' from each other?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
