Untitled

India! I dare you to be rich

Stand by the truth – others will come around to your view

I've always found it useful to stand by the truth. It doesn't matter who agrees or who disagrees. Recently I annoyed a lot of people by speaking the truth about Anna Hazare. That annoyed one third of my readers.

I speak the truth (to the extent I know about it) about Narendra Modi. That annoyed another one third.

I speak the truth about MMS, Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. That annoys the remaining one third.

I speak the truth about the medical profession. That annoys my doctor friends.

I speak the truth about the bureaucracy. That annoyed one of my former IAS colleagues.

I speak the truth about "antrhopomorphic" climate change being a hyped-up piece of semi-fiction. That has annoyed those who worship "experts" and don't wish to study the facts for themselves.

I speak the truth about accupuncture/ spiritual fraud (Sai Baba type), etc. That annoys those who have no scientific bent of mind.

I specialise in being unpopular (the way it seems!), and yet I speak about working (as part of a team) to become India's prime minister. I write blunt books like BFN.

What's going on? Am I arrogant? Do I think I know more than others?

Not quite. ALL my views are subject to change if YOU show me solid reasons and evidence to change them. In other words, I form TENTATIVE conclusions about the truth, like any scientist should. All my conclusions are based on solid evidence (or rejection of bad evidence) – but if that evidence is found to be untrue I will change my views.

Stand by the truth

Don't worry if people don't seem to be enthused about the truth. That's not your problem. That's THEIR problem. For ultimately the truth always wins. I am 100% confident about that.

MOST scientists have had this experience – of stating something that people disagreed with – for years, decades, TILL finally coming around to the truth.

Good examples:

a) The scientists who discovered that helicobacter causes peptic ulcers. Till they found this truth a LOT OF JUNK SCIENCE prevailed. "Psychosomatic disorders" were hyped up by idiot psychologists with zero training in science. As if the mind can create bacteria. After decades of being treated as outcastes these medical scientists finally got the Nobel prize. The truth prevailed..

b) And now, "When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group". [Source]

Dan has finally got the Nobel prize, but be prepared to be mocked and insulted if you care about the truth more than you do about popularity.

There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples.

STICK TO THE TRUTH. If in your generation people don't care for it, they WILL - long after you are dead.

That's what we are here in this world for – to discover the truth. Anyone who is here to protect his "patch" is an ENEMY of mankind and must be shunned. That includes all religious people who don't question their scriptures, all doctors who take what they were taught 30 years ago to be the only truth. That includes all BLIND followers of Anna Hazare, Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh.

BURN YOUR BOOKS! Start thinking. Find the truth! Start speaking the truth.


If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:

Breaking Free of Nehru

Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.

Google
Print Friendly

View more posts from this author
9 thoughts on “Stand by the truth – others will come around to your view
  1. ramesh

    Dear Sabhlok,
     
    Question has not been about standing by the truth. The question has been about WHAT THE TRUTH IS. Since liberty and freedom compels individual to find the truth himself. So there are as many truths as the number of individuals. People are confused as to by which truth one should  stand by. In the past there was religion (however defective it may be) which was used to be standard by which ones actions etc were used to be compared and judged whether one stood by truth etc or not. Now days science has left the individuals to judge and discover it by themselves. [At present there is no hope of truth unveiling by the science so the pandemonium is likely to be prevailed indefinitely]
     
    Need of the our is not to stand by the truth but to help all know what the truth is so that everybody stands by it. Mistake me not. As far the truth of 'liberty and freedom concerns' people understand only 'to agree to disagree'. What is going to be achieved by this? 
     
    I am votary of 'freedom and liberty' but not of the above sort. Happy if you clarify for the sake of liberty and freedom. Many Indians may need it.
     

     
  2. ramesh

    continued…..
     
    The version of liberty and freedom 'Agree to disagree' is not supportive of 'The Truth' which is always 'unique' (in every sense, scientific, metaphysical, social, political etc). By disagreeing many truths will be prevailing. Which truth one is supposed to stand by? With one's own version? Will that unify society? In the absence of the truth how is that one could stand by it? That is the basic problem. Where is this question is being handled?

     
  3. Anil Sharma

    "STICK TO THE TRUTH"
    Absolutely, no two ways about it. My only humble submission is that sometimes for wider and effective dissemination of these truths, the delivery of these messages must be in a subtle and cajoling way. It does not mean that the truth has to be diluted or distorted just to gain someone's goodwill; no, absolutely not! But for better understanding of the target audience; it might take time, it will take lot of cajoling, convincing, persuasion, arguing but a humble way will take us a lot further more so when we aspire to provide political leadership to this country.
     
    Jai Hind.

     
  4. kumar

    Dear Sanjeev,
    That includes all religious people who don't question their scriptures, all doctors who take what they were taught 30 years ago to be the only truth. That includes all BLIND followers of Anna Hazare, Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh.
    The same thing applies to you when you criticsed baba ramdev that Yoga can cure cancer and cannot be used as an alternative therapy.  Now we have scientific proofs and at least we can say Harvard MEdical school is colaborating with Patanjali Yogpeeth for research on yoga and ayurveda as alternate medicine.
     

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Kumar

    I HAVEN’T said “that Yoga can cure cancer and cannot be used as an alternative therapy”. Please show me where! It is difficult when my OWN ideas are not well understood. It is impossible when someone’s else’s words are put in my mouth!

    However, since you say so, let me assert this NOW:

    1) Yoga CANNOT cure cancer.
    2) Yoga is useful for muscular problems like RSI. I’ve mentioned it (and indeed use it) here: http://rsicure.sabhlokcity.com/. Medication might also help in a few psychological problems.

    And note that I DO not claim that ALL ayurveda is bunkum. Indeed, I haven’t even commented much on ayurveda. The ingredients in traditional medicine have often been found to have therapeutic value.

    All I ask for is specific EVIDENCE for specific things. So don’t box me into something you imagine I’m saying. I’m seeking the TRUTH, and do not generalise. Be specific, for the truth is always specific.

    And if you jump with joy just because Harvard is collaborating with Ram Dev, be very clear that Harvard has NO PATENT on the truth. Plenty of fools have taught in Harvard.

     
  6. ramesh

    Dear Sabhlok,
    Re: I’m seeking the TRUTH, and do not generalise. Be specific, for the truth is always specific. 
     
    What is this specific 'truth'? Isn't it specific according to every individual? Which 'truth' one is supposed to stand by? Is it science? It is could not do anything except to build technology based on few definitions. 
    What truth you talk all about? Let us everybody know it so that all of us abide and stand by it.

     
  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Ramesh

    The truth is unique, but anything that describes the reality in an accurate manner is A truth. In general we can only aspire to a model of the truth. The total reality is almost never known (except for simple things like 2+2 =4). Therefore there are many truths.

    Not all are equally true. Some are approximations. Thus, Newton’s laws are valid at a certain level of magnitude of physical entities, but at the atomic level these laws break down and are substituted by other truths that describe the atomic reality better.

    Such truths are NOT specific according to every individual. These are invariant across individuals. We do not create the truths. They exist regardless of our existence.

    In the sphere of social relations, there are such universal truths as well, but these become more difficult since these are all about relationships, incentives, and behaviours. That doesn’t mean we can’t distinguish between good political systems and bad, or between good and evil behaviour.

    S

     

Leave a Reply

p-4j9aGt2RSyXeB