India! I dare you to be rich

Category: Uncategorized

God cannot be schizophrenic. That the Quran is schizophrenic further confirms it is a work of fiction.

My FB  comment:

God must be schizophrenic. Not!
Clearly Mohammed was.


It is self-evident that Islam is (like ALL other religions) a cult centered around the fiction created by a human being (in this case, Mohammed).

Not only is the Quran full of scientific fallacies and amazing levels of ignorance, it is extremely schizophrenic. In some places the Quran exhorts people towards liberal ideas, such as Quran 2:256. In many other places, however, the Quran asks people to kill or otherwise humiliate those who don’t believe in the Allah of the Quran.

Now, one thing we do know. We know that God (if he/she/it exists) is NOT schizophrenic. Cannot be schizophenic. So this is further proof (apart from the innumerable falsehoods in the document) that the Quran is man-made.

I’d recommend that Muslims carefully review the facts and make up their own mind. To be good and to be truthful, one doesn’t need religion, leave alone an ultra-schizophrenic and ignorant “religion” like Islam.

Regardless, let’s all be very clear: Islam is NOT a “religion of peace”.

Continue Reading

Perhaps the best introductory lectures on Indo-European languages: by John McWhorter

I don't know what's happened to me. I was not particularly interested in languages or ancient Indian history, but since I discovered the debate re: AIT/OIT and began to understand that European languages are very similar to Indian ones, a number of questions have arisen that I am curious about. Curiosity has set in, and I must keep exploring. That's why I am reading/ learning about linguistics in my spare time.

I chanced upon these talks which are extremely well-presented. These two lectures (lectures 8 and 9) are part of a 36 lecture series by Dr. John McWhorter, 'one of America's leading linguists and a frequent commentator on network television and National Public Radio'.

These two (out of 36) lectures relate to Indo-European languages. Enjoy. 

Continue Reading

Entering into a debate with a Vedic scholar re: OIT theory of Sanskrit/ Rig Veda #5

Around four days ago, I received this fifth installment from Kalicharan Tuvij. I find some assertions (e.g. in red, below) that I don't agree with. Much is interesting but not directly relevant to the issue I'm looking into: the OIT.

Publishing this for the record.

​SS ji,


You said,

"Well, this information (re: Parsuram, Sudras, etc.) is rather interesting and I'm sure will interest a lot of people."

No sir, this – or anything else – will NOT interest a lot of people. Tolerance for truth is not among the highest in our country, where playing "fighting" into each other is a profitable business ensuring returns even without investment.

Our middle class being a consumer, and not producer, need to be told or taught how to do/ use this or that; sadly, they are completely dysfunctional in every other way.

When RV was redacted (text form) for the first time, the society (except our "beggar-bhaktas", and "village-Hindus") was already dysfunctional. Because it is very clear that those who did the documentation, or did the subsequent commentaries (Yaska, Sayana, even Panini, etc), did not have any clue on what the text meant.

This was because a civilisation had just died a natural death (widely understood under "yuga-cycle"; yeah US will also go, someday:-)), and RV as a written text was an attempt to salvage some of that.

The oral tradition was, therefore, continuing since even before that: prAkrita and Sanskrit existed side by side- none being older or younger to the other. RV is in Vedic Sanskrit, so we don't have any records of Prakrit from that period (other than the substratum in RV).

Indus seal writings have not been deciphered, and will never be, because we don't have Prakrit from that period. It is also a false framework to compare Sanskrit with other IE languages, because Sanskrit IS NOT A NATURAL LANGUAGE, Prakrit is. But we don't have any Prakrit texts from that time to compare with, since Sanskrit was the medium of formal communication; Prakrit was not even one language – it was a guild of  a thousand languages.

Ultimately, Sanskrit is as old as the RV ideas. Using the RV ideas, Prakrit was modified, unified, rationalised, and refined to create Sanskrit. Sanskrit, on the other hand, since then, continued to influence Prakrit as well.

Philology is therefore successful when Russian region is shown to be the main genesis of European IE, but fails when it is taken out of context to include Vedic Sanskrit into its application on the Eastern IE.

One doesn't have to be particularly bright to see that Sanskrit has a lot of innovations (sound resolutions, rules inventing, roots arithmetic, and so on), but that doesn't mean that Sanskrit came later: because, as I said, Sanskrit was coexisting with Prakrit. Sanskrit was also a language designed to be an efficient carrier of innovations, its root system is an important tool to support that. PANini didn't create Sanskrit — everyone knows that — he didn't create inflection, roots, any of that. The original Sanskrit is known as "Aindra Sanskrit".

Sanskrit was meant to be the ONE LANGUAGE, as against the many of Prakrit. Sanskrit was meant to be the formal pan-bhArata lingo, so the insistence that there is only one Indian IE, that is Sanskrit, is in the end nothing but an obfuscation.

The native names of places and rivers (small or big) in Punjab, Haryana etc are known to be IE. This is because they are from various Prakrit's, which were all IE's.

Linguistically speaking, and in every other sense as well, India can be modelled as an inverted triangle: the three vertices being — at the bottom TamilNadu-Kerala, at the left upper Punjab-Haryana, and at the right upper Bihar-Jharkhand.

This is the three dimensional "vector" model, where all other regions of bhArata are seen as different sums of these three pure, "basis" vectors.

Among these three, the bottom vertex is the "first among the equals". The RV ideas, even though co-eval, were preceded a bit by the South. Remember, the timelines I am talking here could be tens of thousands of years.

So, even though the three "centres" were the independent contributors to the competencies, these still interacted with each other and kept abreast, so the content remained the same.

Under this triangle model, the IE story is only the third of the whole story.

The Easterners are less bragging than the Westerners, and that is I guess why the Japanese are not claiming a JIT (Japanese Invasion Theory) explaining their connections with the Bengalis or others on the East :-)

To the East, it is not the RV or Sanskrit that played that role: it was primarily the Ramayana culture. Not different languages, just different Ramayana's. Not much military enforcement was required either. Yet, the Ramayana ideas are at the deepest level the same as the RV ideas, even though there is a lot of difference in their respective forms.

So, yes, ideas went outside both from the East and the West of India.  

We don't believe in creationist theories of "Aryans" (which nobody, I admit, "believes on paper", either, nowadays. Well, good for them), but the thing is, a lot of evolution and enrichment took place in India which was specially located for this purpose (spent a lot of time even floating there in the sea as an island).

There is a "West", and there is an "East", and we are right there in the Center. For clearly, "east" doesn't mean that "the sun REALLY rises there", neither does "west" mean that "the sun REALLY sets there". (I have read K.Elst earlier say something along this line).

There are many deeper things about these world-views and models, but I will not allow myself to speak more on this; however, the point is, this is the framework (already existing in our native sources) I am suggesting that is relevant here, and admits of all facts.

The liberal narrative demands that various models should be given opportunity to compete with each other. There is no middle path.

Continue Reading

The Constituent assembly did not trust the people, that’s why we still have IAS

I shared my email to Mihir Sharma widely, and received a link from someone to an article (here) by JK Bajaj.

Reproduced below is an eye-opening section from the article. It shows why the IAS was allowed to continue (not just that Sardar Patel advocated for it), but why it is an anti-democratic approach, and why it has hobbled India. The IAS must go. There are far better ways to deliver governance.

Judiciary and Administration

The Constitution of India is perhaps the longest constitution in the world. This extraordinary length of the Indian constitution arises in large part from the detailed provisions it makes regarding the public services and the Judiciary. The Constitution records in great detail the structure of administrative and judicial institutions, and the rights, privileges and also the salaries and allowances of public and judicial officers at various levels. Most democratic constitutions of the world record only the fundamental principles of governance, and leave such detailed working out of the administrative and judicial arrangements to the wisdom of the Parliaments. Such institutions are almost always created by legislative acts of Parliaments, not by constitutional fiats.

The leaders of the Constituent Assembly deliberately chose to include detailed administrative and judicial arrangements in the Constitution of India. One reason for this decision was that in the prevailing circumstances, the leading founding fathers were keen to retain intact the administrative and judicial arrangements of the colonial administration. And therefore they found it necessary and expedient to provide constitutional guarantees to the high administrative and judicial officers that their domain of authority as well as their salaries, perquisites and privileges would remain unaltered in independent India. But perhaps even a more pressing reason was that many of the leading founding fathers had little faith in the wisdom and maturity of the people of India and the Parliaments chosen by them. They were afraid that Parliaments might chose to make drastic alterations in the administrative and judicial structures of the colonial administration, which many of them believed were ideal for the governance of India.

Dr. Ambedkar, known as the father of the Indian Constitution, expressed his fears openly, declaring that the details of administrative and judicial arrangements must be enshrined in the Constitution because ‘it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution without changing its form by merely changing the form of administration’. ( Constituent Assembly Debates, VII, i.38. ) Dr. Ambedkar in fact was of the view that independent India does not need a new constitution, the Government of India Act of 1935 could itself form the Constitution of India. Eventually, as we have mentioned earlier, the Act of 1935 did become the basis of the Constitution of India.

The extraordinary sanctity provided to the administrative and judicial structures in the constitutional arrangement has served to severely restrict the initiative and authority of the Indian people and their elected representatives. That these arrangements were going to so restrict the initiative of the political authorities in carrying out any fundamental changes in the social milieu left behind by the British became clear at the very beginning. Several judgements of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court in the very first year of the coming into force of the Constitution challenged the authority of the Parliament and State Legislatures at a level that leaders of the stature of Patel and Nehru began to feel frustrated. And they felt the need to effect the first amendment of the Constitution to get around judicial pronouncements rather soon. The process to carry out the amendment was initiated in October 1950 and the amendment was passed by the provisional Parliament in May 1951, even before the first election under the new Constitution was held.

It is possible to read the constitutional history of India as a tug of war for supremacy between the judiciary and the political authority, as a meticulous scholar of Indian Constitution seems to do in a recent study of the working of the Constitution during the first four decades. This tug of war gave rise to traumatic events in the current history of the nation. But more than anything else it has diverted the attention and energies of the nation from the primary task of nation-building to legalistic debates that have occupied the centre stage in the life of the nation.

The same level of controversy has not arisen about the constitutionally sanctified public services. But, clothed with constitutional protection, the administrative services, have continuously expanded their areas of influence, and curbed the initiative of the people at all levels. Only recently, under the influence of the global tilt towards free-market principles, has some effort been begun to lessen the rigours of the all-encompassing bureaucratic apparatus.

Whatever the reasons of the Constituent Assembly for enshrining the colonial administration and judiciary in the Constitution of free India, these arrangements cannot be allowed to be permanent. It is probably now high time to begin altering these arrangements and making them appropriate to the genius and seekings of the Indian people. As a first step towards this restructuring of the administrative and judicial apparatus of India, we need to bring these arrangements out of the Constitution and recreate these through legislative acts of the Parliament and the State Legislatures, as is done everywhere in the world.

We need to remove the constitutional protection provided to these arrangements, even if we chose to keep the arrangements entirely intact and unaltered at this stage. Such changes in the Constitution shall probably change nothing immediately, but it shall restore the dynamism to the development of administrative and judicial structures, and open the way for far-reaching changes in the future.

Continue Reading