Category: Zachary

I am doing a round-up of the past 10 posts excluding my own since ordinarily I tend to write more. I try to judge the tempo of BP and when it’s moving on it’s own momentum I hum down and do other stuff. Incidentally I have excerpted the last twenty articles (the pages display ten articles at a time) and I was surprised that in 3 days we generated so much content.

Beyond cultural parochialism: Razib tells us what to read, which is a good thing because he reads alot. I don’t know how he does it!

Revisiting Somnath–A Review: Kabir revisits Somnath academically and I do agree that British historiography somehow intensified Hindu-Muslim political rivalry. Of course it was a complex equation but I’m surprised no one senses the nefarious hands of Imperialism!

Jaydeepsinh Rathod on the historocity of Sanskriti: AnAn compiles all of JR’s thoughts on the historocity of Sanskriti. In the Aryan threads there are some very knowledgeable comments; I remember Allama Iqbal ending his thesis that the reason Hinduism survived and Zoroastrianism did not was because the Brahmins obsessively discussed every detail of their philosopy and mythology whereas the Magis did not. I sometimes feel like my Magian ancestors and I like to hold on to my cherished notions..

Toxic textbooks and social engineering in Pakistan: AMA investigates how the Pakistani psychosis came to be. I myself of course thoroughly indoctrinate in the Pakistani psychosis; I am rather a bit too proud of my Hijazi camel trader ancestors (nos ancetres les Hijazis sounds a lot less glamorous than the Moghuls).

Madeeha Gauhar, Pakistan’s most famous Theatre Director passes away: Kabir mourns the passing of Madeeha Gauhar, I had remembered Ajoka Theatre coming to London for Dara Shikoh but I didn’t watch the play on principle. When I was in London I used to go to the theatre weekly (sometimes twice or thrice a week) but I got annoyed when I saw all the Pakis rushing to the National Theatre. I am quite white in my inclinations (I am a pretty good rock climber, love a good Oxbridge formal and enjoy the theatre – ergo I have to interact with far too many liberal Wasps). RIP Madeeha Khanum and thank you for your services to Pak Theatre!!!

Why do Indians care about OIT/AIT: Good question by Razib; 89 comments later in we don’t have a clear answer?

The water rises and Canute drowns: Razib writes a short piece touching on Genes, Aryans & India. Result, one of our viral threads. I don’t really know too much to comment on the matter; it’s sad how ill-informed I am about Indus Valley Civ and anything before Mo Bin Qasim. Pakistani psychosis and all that!

The Ministry of Utmost Happiness: A Look into the Underbelly of Modern India: Kabir reposts his review of Ms. Roy’s latest novel. As an aside I think Kabir writes excellent reviews, a nod to his English Lit major.

Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles: The Aeon article essentially states that the Echo chamber is a “soft conditioning.”

Modern Love: AMA writes a Part Fiction, Part Memoir short story about Moving to America.

Race Stereotypes in Medieval Islam (and some lines on cousin marriage): Omar reproduces a short note from Irfan Muzammil about how medieval Muslims pondered over the various races they encountered. ZackThought: Race in Islam is a nebulous concept though colour is not.

Rajneesh and Sheela Ambalal Patel, a question by sbarrkum, on the new Netflex docuseries about the Rajneeshess cult. I’m shocked to realise that Osho is actually no more; I thought he was still alive! ZackThought: I was pondering over this that the older a religion, the more reliant it is on charismatic individuals (gurus, popes, Imams) to guide the religion. The younger the religion the more institutionalized it is (Protestantism, Mormonism, Ahmediyyah, Sikhism, Baha’i Faith).

LV sent this to me and I found this a useful guide to blog debate..

I am very sensitive to “tone” so I probably am between Step 2 & Step 3 on the 7 step path to Aristotle.. IRL I tend to shy away from much discussion or debate, except with the better half, as I’m a very kinesthetic learner.

It’s nice to see BP so active – I completely failed in my goal to take up AnAn’s suggestion and do a compendium of recent posts but I shall indulge with some observations.

We seem to spend a lot of time on BP talking on caste origins.

The more interesting castes are Bollywood; where most of the acting families are linked and intermarry with the industrialist and cricketing caste (the Sharma-Kohli wedding was presaged by Malik-Mirza match).

The Bollywood caste is Punjabi & Muslim men (Ranveer Singh dropped his Sindhi name – who would watch Ranveer Bhavnani) with women stemming from other parts of the Subcontinent.

I’m surprised by the lack of Sikhs in Bollywood; Arijit Singh (who is a cut Sikh) and Ranbir’s mother + Saif’s first wife are Sikh. Where and who are the Sikh men?

I think people forget India is undergoing a breathtaking pace of modernisation. However because of Bollywood; this modernisation isn’t necessarily Westernisation. Bollywood takes a nod from the West and translates it in Hindustani culture, language & values which then influences the whole nation (Pakistan is undergoing the same process but is far more immunised from Westoxication; we are generation to half a generation behind in liberalism).

LV was showing me the new trailer for Veere de Wedding (Kareena Kapoor & Sonam Kapoor) and I was remembering what Kangana Ranaut was saying about nepotism in Bollywood.

Also Vidhi pointed out to me that a lot of the “Punjabis” are in fact half-Sindhi (KJo, RSingh, Kareena Kapoor, Sonam Kapoor).

One of the most shocking juxtapositions in the Subcontinent is just how cosmopolitan and glamorous Sindhi Hindus are whereas Sindhi Muslims have such a staid reputation (landowners, wadheras).

A few things jump out of this map:

(1.) Tibet is important, real important. These rivers feed half the world and these are the population centres of what we mean by “Asia.”

(1a.) Continents ultimately are arbitrary political constructs; what geographic feature cuts off Europe from Asia (is it really the Urals)? This map represents “core Asia” and more than ever I can see why the Middle East has an entirely different orientation. If a world government did ever come about; for fairness sake there would have to be some redistribution in how the Asian super-continent is treated; Africa’s population is burgeoning but difficult to see how it can match this.

(2.) It’s interesting to see how all the South Asian rivers have a common source (the Ganges has another source); a poetic meditation on the unity of the Subcontinent.

(3.) invaders or not; foreign or alien what is admirable about the Aryans is the extent to which they co-opted local traditions. As most readers of this blog know, Mt. Kailash is known as the home of Shiva and it literally feeds the Subcontinent.

(3b) Each initial wave seemed to have weaker and weaker ties to the land. The AASI seemed to have settled in the mists of pre-history, the (Elamitic?) Dravidian farmers may have fused with them to found the Indus Valley Civ.

(3c) the best way to think of the Aryan invasion is the Mongol conquests. The demographics of Central Asia and Mesopotamia shifted (and collapsed) as they did not (only) because of the rapacity of the Mongols but because of the failure to maintain the qanat (complex irrigation systems). I know that for a fact in Greater Iran whereas I can’t be sure that they used qanats in Mesopotamia.

(3d) At any rate either the Aryans filled in an ecological collapse (which seems unlikely since they spread with a rapidity elsewhere meaning that they had some technical and military advantage) or they triggered it. The indigenous compounded Dravidian-Negrito/Australasian (sorry for the loaded terms but easier to use Arya/Dravid than the newfangled terms) collapses and the remainder population did a Latin America where Aryans males were polygamous and high status.

(3e) the Aryans were the last invaders to both fully merge and embrace India as their core civilisation. The Muslim (Turkic?) invaders were oriented West and the British even further West. Each succeeding invasion wave was invested in India by an order of magnitude less than the preceding wave. The English returned to their colonies, the Muslims created Pakistan and the Aryans kept Aryavarta while the Dravidians have their local politics that tie them (especially in TN; the heart of the Dravidian movement).

(3f) I know it’s contentious but I would imagine the AASI would be like the Negrito coastal population and a related equivalent further upriver in the Indus prior to the Dravidian farmer wave. Prehistory was probably pretty ugly and tragic we just don’t know about it as we don’t have records but think the New World repeated time and time again.

(4) a final point as to why Iran may not have had as much a genetic impact. The Iranian plateau is exactly that a plateau. As I was told in Tehran a couple of years ago by a geographic; the mountain is life, every city in Iran is based on hills and mountains the rest is all desert (fertile plains are in short supply). It’s probably why it’s difficult to effect population replace in Iran as it is in its neighbours (Turko-Mongols introversion in Central Asia, Arabs influx in Mesopotamia, Aryan “invasion” in the Indus).

That’s all I can think for now btw the title is a bit misleading since Aryans are always a good lede lol.

Instead of being noted for its exceptional space programme (Mangalyaan!) and brilliant string theorists (Ashoke Sen!), India would have become a garbage dump for every kind of crackpot science. Medical research would have concentrated on medicines made from cow urine and cow dung, the celibacy of peacocks would be under intense scrutiny, astrology would be taught in place of astronomy, and instead of teaching actual mathematics there would be Vedic mathematics. As in Pakistan, Darwinian evolution would be considered heretical and destructive of religious faith.

Nehru’s stamp upon Indian science can be seen across the length and breadth of India in the form of dozens of scientific institutes and universities that owe to him. India is probably the world’s only country whose constitution explicitly declares commitment to the “scientific temper” — a quintessential Nehruvian notion formulated during his years in prison. Briefly: only reason and science, not holy scriptures, provide us reliable knowledge of the physical world.

I was able to see the huge difference that Nehru had made to his country while on a speaking tour in 2005 before audiences in about 40 Indian schools, colleges, and universities in seven cities. Without Nehru there could never have been the huge and palpable mass enthusiasm for science. This was manifested in the many science museums within a single city, and countless scientific societies working to spread understanding of basic science among ordinary Indians. I do not know how much of this has changed under Hindutva. But most definitely not even a fraction of such enthusiasm was visible then, or can be seen now, in Pakistan.

Nehru must also be credited with keeping a lid on his generals. In a democracy the army should be subordinate and answerable to civilian authority, not the other way around. And so, immediately after Partition, Nehru ordered the grand residence of the army chief to be vacated and instead assigned to the prime minister. This move carried huge symbolism — it said clearly who was boss.

When Ayub Khan’s coup across the border happened in 1958, it led to rules that further diminished the role of the Indian army in national affairs. Gen Cariappa, who had retired but praised the coup, was told to shut up. Officers, serving or retired, were strongly discouraged from commenting on matters related to public affairs and economics — and particularly their pensions and retirement benefits. There was no concept of army owned enterprises and businesses.

All this could now be changing. Army chief Gen Bipin Rawat, known for his bellicosity, has broken with the army’s tradition by freely commenting on many foreign policy matters — the Rohingya refugee problem, how India should deal with the Doklam crisis with China, and the need to call “Pakistan’s nuclear bluff”. Time will tell whether Rawat is an exception or, instead, the new rule characterising an interventionist army. Ominously for Indian democracy, criticising the army chief is being described by its media as anti-national.

How much of Nehru’s India will be undone by Modi and his cronies remains to be seen. A demoralised and broken Congress opposition means that they are here to stay for long.

Meanwhile, it is becoming easier by the day for Pakistan to recognise its mirror reflection across the border.

https://theprint.in/opinion/india-would-have-been-a-dump-for-crackpot-science-had-modi-been-its-first-prime-minister/51521/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

To all new commentators; please add pictures (any picture) to your handle.

Anonymity and privacy are of course the prerogative but it’s also for the quality of conversation that any handle have some sort of identity associated with it because otherwise it’s hard to keep track of who’s saying what.

I’ll keep reminding to all the newbies..

I’ll write up a post about guidelines for all new commentators to follow and pin it. Essentially have a picture on your handle and don’t be abusive.

Setting aside my personal views entirely.

Why is Partition a bad idea but Indian independence a good one?

Why is Jinnah a villain but Gandhi & Nehru not?

Does Pakistan have an original sin that it can’t account for?

The reason I ask is that we need to come to BP to examine our preconceptions constantly otherwise what is the point of wasting our collective time.

Accident in a booking made the Ivy book my under my wife’s name (her original name is Changani after her 5th great grandfather Changomal, Lalchand is a patronymic styled after her late grandfather like how mine is Latif, mine is Malik). Lalchand has a better ring to it than Latif. I have been thinking of ameliorating my Muslimness especially as we want to eventually move further West to Silicon Valley.