Hindu Mindset

Monday, February 9, 2015

The Staggering Vanity of India's Powerful

(Ramachandra Guha is a historian, biographer, author of, among other books, Gandhi before India, A Corner of a Foreign Field: The Indian history of a British sport and India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy.)

After Narendra Modi's recent meeting with Barack Obama, there was some criticism of his wearing a suit whose stripes spelt out his own name. The criticism was not unmerited; it was a tawdry, tacky, thing to do. Yet Modi's expensive display of self-love was entirely characteristic of how powerful and successful Indian males tend to behave in public.

Consider this. India's most famous and highly decorated scientist is C.N.R. Rao, a Fellow of the world's most prestigious scientific academies, and a recipient of his country's highest honour, the Bharat Ratna. Some years ago, an admirer decided to lobby the Bangalore Municipality to name the circle outside the Indian Institute of Science (of which Rao had been director) after the great man. Now circles and roads are normally not named after living people. But here was C.N.R. Rao in the flesh, actually present when a circle named after him was being inaugurated.

Next only to Rao in the hierarchy of Indian science is R.A. Mashelkar. Mashelkar is a former director general of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and much else. He has not, so far as I know, had a circle or building named after himself. Yet his conduct in public is scarcely less boastful, as witness his editorial in a recent issue of the journal, Current Science. Entitled '"Indovation" for affordable excellence', it is mostly about the author himself. In a mere couple of pages we are told of a paper by Mashelkar in the Harvard Business Review which "provoked worldwide discussion" and was the subject of a "special session" at the World Economic Forum; that a TED lecture he gave "has received more than half a million views and has been subtitled in 23 languages"; that Mashelkar is the president of something called the Global Research Alliance; that the European Union invited him to give a talk to "an audience of around 2000"; that when he was director general of the CSIR he set up "a public-private partnership called New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative".

Mashelkar's article runs so contrary to the spirit of science that I wonder how it was accepted for publication. How did the editor of Current Science allow the essay to pass without major cuts and changes? Either the editor is plain incompetent, or, what is more likely, too intimidated by Mashelkar's reputation and influence to have asked him to revise his essay.

Founded by C.V. Raman, Current Science is modelled on the American journal, Science, and the British journal, Nature. Like them, it publishes original scientific papers as well as shorter commentaries, book reviews, and obituaries. But one would never find in Nature or Science editorials remotely as self-promoting as this. As he was crafting his essay, did Mashelkar not realize that this was not a self-written Wikipedia entry or a funding application but in fact a scholarly editorial in what is presumed to be the flagship journal of a nation's scientific community? Reading Mashelkar's editorial in Current Science, I was reminded of a story involving the great British-born biologist, J.B.S. Haldane. In the 1950s, Haldane embraced Indian citizenship, and set up a laboratory at the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta. One of his students bored him with stories about his impending marriage, his family lineage, and his own academic record. At last Haldane held up a hand, and remarked: "You only talk about yourself.

But science begins with an interest in the world outside yourself." To be sure, not all Indian scientists are as boastful as Rao or Mashelkar. One of my own intellectual heroes is the late Obaid Siddiqi, who founded theNational Centre for Biological Sciences, arguably India's most high quality scientific laboratory. Siddiqi, who combined intellectual brilliance with personal rectitude, recruited a team of gifted young scientists and then left them the institute to run. He nurtured an atmosphere of egalitarianism in the NCBS, where juniors could fearlessly challenge seniors and where honorifics such as 'Sir', 'Professor'. were rigorously eschewed. Sadly, not many Indian scientists are cut of the same cloth as Obaid Siddiqi. In their youth, C.N.R. Rao and R.A. Mashelkar undoubtedly did first-rate scientific work. But, rather than allow younger people to take over scientific leadership as they themselves grew older, they consolidated their own position and power. Worse still, they encouraged flattery and chamchagiri, as manifested most spectacularly in Rao allowing a circle to be named after him.

Where our scientists go, our social scientists can scarcely be far behind. Consider the conduct in this regard of the two most influential economists of Indian extraction, Jagdish Bhagwati and Amartya Sen. Educated Indians know their names, and know also that they have been involved in a long-running debate about economic policy. Bhagwati is a proponent of the free market, and of opening out the economy to foreign investment and foreign competition. Sen thinks that distribution is as important as growth, and places greater emphasis on the role of the State in nurturing human capital. At the level of political influence, Sen was highly regarded by Sonia Gandhi and her National Advisory Council, whereas Bhagwati is much admired by Narendra Modi.

These intellectual and ideological differences have led to the construction of Bhagwati and Sen as rivals and adversaries. But there is one thing that unites Bhagwati and Sen- both are still living, and yet both, like the scientist C.N.R. Rao, have had things named after themselves. Bhagwati has taught for many years at Columbia University, which now has a Jagdish Bhagwati Chair in Political Economy, occupied by Bhagwati's co-author and protege, Arvind Panagriya. Meanwhile, the Indian Council of Social Science Research has endowed annual Amartya Sen Prizes for Excellence, these handed out at a ceremony presided over by Amartya Sen himself.

B.R. Ambedkar famously said that hero-worship is antithetical to the democratic spirit. This is true in politics, and perhaps even more so in the sphere of science. Respect for senior scholars for what they have achieved is fine; but when respect shades into deference and even reverence, it is not conducive to independent and original thinking. No wonder that Indian universities and research institutions lag so far behind in global rankings.

While drafting this column, I was discussing its argument with a friend, who asked whether, like C.N.R. Rao, the cricketer Anil Kumble was present at the naming of a circle after him in Bangalore. I answered that I did not know, but in any case one did not hold sportsmen to the ethical or aesthetic standards that scholars or scientists were supposed to adhere to. One of Jagdish Bhagwati's own close friends and former colleagues is Robert Solow. When Solow (arguably the world's greatest living economist) was teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, did someone else at the MIT hold the Robert Solow Chair in Political Economy? Like Amartya Sen, Martin Rees was once Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. But does that distinguished British astronomer annually hand out Martin Rees Prizes for Scientific Excellence? These were -are -the pertinent questions, and I suspect that in each case the answer is "No".

In allowing (or encouraging) things to be named after themselves, C.N.R. Rao, Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati have not done anything that is illegal. What they have done is not even immoral. But it is unquestionably in poor taste.

Which brings me back to Narendra Modi and the suit he wore with his own name on it. In societies whose spirit and form are egalitarian, or where the aesthetic ethos is one of refined understatement, what he did would be completely out of place. But in a country where hero worship is so ubiquitous, where the vanity of the powerful and the famous is so staggeringly large, it was an entirely normal thing to do. When India's top scholars and scientists are so flagrantly narcissistic, one must not be too harsh on a self-made, semi-educated, political leader for being so.

(Source: The Telegraph)

The ugly Indian


By  Veena Venugopal
 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/blink/talk/the-ugly-indian/article6835042.ece

         I spent Republic Day on a train, travelling from Amritsar to Delhi. Minutes after we boarded, perhaps not to be outdone by the show of arms and weaponry at the grand parade, four people started a loud argument. At issue was the space in the luggage racks. Since some people were travelling with more than one piece of luggage, and everybody absolutely has to be seated right below their suitcase, the resulting fireworks were inevitable. Much shoving and pushing ensued, first of the said baggage, then of each other. Since this was the executive coach, the arguments started in English but quickly moved to Hindi and many mothers, sisters and body parts were invoked, even as shirt buttons tried to withstand a stress test. It was, despite the flying spit, comforting to know that as far as territorial protection is concerned, the 67-year-old nation is in safe hands.
Meanwhile, in the same train, a friend was travelling in another coach. She too was witnessing a great battle, she whispered on the phone, this time it was a group of three adults who were allocated seats in different parts of the compartment but were absolutely insistent on sitting together. When more than two people refused to change seats to enable this, tempers flared, shirts were grabbed and language went down the toilet. A free-for-all looked imminent, but somehow someone managed to defuse the situation. (I am always intrigued by people who make such a fuss to sit together. Flying from Chennai to Delhi once, four strapping young men shuffled some 15 people around in order to ensure that they sat in the same row. I was expecting a big meeting to start, perhaps a discussion on an impending merger or an acquisition. As soon as the flight took off, all four promptly fell asleep and woke up only when we had touched down. It was the most puzzling two hours of my life.)

Truly speaking, none of this is surprising. It was just that this was less than a couple of hours after the magnificent ceremony in Delhi in which popular Prime Minister Narendra Modi did his best to showcase the glory of our country to US President Barack Obama, and so it seemed an appropriate day to passively observe the greatness of its citizens.While it must be said that Indians manage to bring in a modicum of ugliness to every public situation, it is particularly potent when we travel. Earlier that same morning, I happened to be talking to a person who runs a travel business. She was in Turkey in December, she said, and was visiting various hotels in order to arrange accommodation for her clients. As soon as they heard that she was representing groups of Indian tourists, the meeting ended. Some were rather rude, even. Groups of Indian tourists are notorious, she said, for the way they behave. They take everything from the room ­ not just the tiny bottles of shampoos and soaps, but kettles, hair dryers, coffee mugs and even bed linen. They order room service and check out without paying the bill. There are even instances of Indian tourists breaking the fire alarm in the room, misconstruing its blinking light to be a video camera surreptitiously recording them!

Back home, we trudge and trample, spit and pee without irony or apology. The train itself ­ a Shatabdi Express, used by the upper class ­ exhibited the failure of Modi’s Swachch Bharat campaign. Within minutes, the floor was littered with abandoned teabags and empty pouches of cashew nuts. The washrooms were a puke-inducing, smelly mess. Outside the window, where these things can conveniently be attributed to the great unwashed multitudes, piles of plastic garbage broke the vista of the green fields of Punjab. There was rubbish everywhere.

The lone kid in the coach kept everyone up with a recurring cycle of loud songs, whines and wails, while his parents focused relentlessly on unlocking achievement levels on Candy Crush on their fancy phones. Every once in a while, they would look up and bark at the maid to take the child outside. The maid, who didn’t look older than a teenager, struggled as the kid kicked and slapped her and refused to budge. None of this seemed to warrant an admonishment from his parents. They looked on, not as though this problem wasn’t theirs, but as though this wasn’t a problem at all. You could see this kid, 20 years later, rolling up his sleeves and taking on a fellow passenger who showed the audacity of touching his bag. At least as far as a behavioural and cultural continuity is concerned, we have nothing to worry about.

With 10 minutes to reach Delhi, the great race to be the first one out of the compartment began. Suitcases blocked passageways and finally after being trampled on and trod over for no reason other than a general disrespect for anyone who is not family, I managed to get out and go home. Even though it was past midnight, I couldn’t resist the urge to catch a repeat telecast of the Republic Day parade. It did look grand ­ the marching soldiers, the daredevil BSF men and the brave martyrs. Truly, India is a great country. Which makes it even more tragic that Indians are completely undeserving of it.

Labels: ,

Friday, January 16, 2015

Hindus are naive, apathetic; they lack national character and spirit.

By Greet C. Sharma Ph.D. Hindus are naive, apathetic; they lack national character and spirit.

http://indiatribune.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9160:hindus-are-naive-apathetic-they-lack-national-character-and-spirit-&catid=30:opinion&Itemid=460


We all grew up hearing back home that it makes no difference as to who rules us. Apathy among Hindus is one of the most complex and fascinating phenomenons.  Hindus show utter apathy when it comes to actual karma, in spite of constant references to scriptures and exposure to sermons. Hindu tendency is to act individualistically. Apathy becomes even more visible when dealing with people of other religions, missionaries, terrorists, and their agendas resulting in demographic manipulations to change India’s national character, as well as Hindu destiny. As a consequence, Hindus are stereotyped as meek, weak, coward, gullible and never a “force.”

In Guyana when a local criminal needs money he turns around and robs the nearest Indian. In Zambia, average murder of an Indian is one  per week. Locals know that Indians are hard working, entrepreneurial and have money. This “sitting duck”  syndrome is pervasive in most countries where Hindus have settled, whether Jersey City in the USA, Suva in Fiji, Dhaka in Bangladesh, Sindh  in Pakistan, or Aligarh in India.

The sole factor that defines such a dynamics is Hindu apathy. It is unique except it has only one parallel that is,  Jewish passivity in Germany just before the holocaust. Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937) wrote:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out as I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.


The extremes of apathy are indifference, depression, immobility, paralysis, desperation, abandonment and brain atrophy.  In clinical terms, it is indicative of serious disease revealing mental disorder or brain damage. In mental health, the apathetic individual has no energy, talks inaudible, moves very slowly, is uninvolved, and avoids any interaction.  However, the worst character defect of an apathetic person is taking his words as a substitute for action.

Apathy is not stoicism, not spirituality, not freedom from emotions, nor an effective buffer from negative consequences.  It is about living by default, and letting others control your destiny.  It is about living in illusion that one cannot change the ultimate outcome or destiny. Selfish, self-centered, opportunistic orientation, tolerating unfairness and corruption, and patronizing offenders instead of confronting them are character traits, which have become Hindu hallmark. Such mindset is contrary to the Bhagavad-Gita and the cumulative wisdom of  Dharma. It is abandoning everything that should matter, whether motherland, culture, identity, family, or one’s future.  It is allowing others, regardless of their “motives” to make decisions for you.

The collective history of any nation offers a good view of the past to figure out one’s national character. However, it works well only if history is written objectively and not driven by politics.  In the case of Hindus of Bharatvarsha, its history has been written, dictated, edited, and marketed by other than Hindus, whose agenda has always been seeking total control, monopoly and intolerance for differences.

Hindu apathy and passivity have made it possible for one of the most original civilizations to be defined by others, for others, paid by Hindus and sold to the world.  It is the holocaust of the Hindu’s in the making.  The corporate world has taken liberties to commercialize Hindu religious symbols to market sandals, toilet seats, and other offensive items.  Unfortunately, the reaction from Hindus, if any, has been minimal.

Compare Hindu behavior with Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, British, Israelis, and Pakistanis, but only the Hindu apathy wins the distinction. The irony is we do not see the ground realities, Muslims have 56 countries, Christians 7, Jews 1, however, Hindus still have no country to call home.

Psychologically speaking, one behaves according to one’s thinking, which is a combination of concepts, values, and beliefs. A Hindu wakes up praying for the well being of the entire creation, practices non-injury, believes that all religions are the same. They are beautiful ideals for ideals all mankind to pursue. Ironically Abrahamnic religions believe in converting, violence, and Jihad to seek a religious monopoly. Hindus naivety and one-sided idealism leaves them vulnerable incapable to confront reality, adversity, and danger.

Apathy thus unwittingly serves the purpose of keeping Hinduism glued in an imaginary cocoon, even though it’s stagnating in a rigor mortis. Hindu scriptures are rich with inspiration, defining the duty for the nation as well as promoting a pragmatic life. The Hindu pursuit of nirvana, “detachment,” and Bhakti Yoga inherently causes ineffective handling of inter-religious politics. Hindus need leaders and there is an abundance to name a few, Swami Vivekananda, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh Azam, and Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.

The opposite of apathy is action, resilience, determination, direction, pride and clarity of thinking. Knowing one’s place in the scheme of life, and being an important player in the worldly drama is not a luxury but a necessity.

Labels: ,

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian Mindset

Jai B. P. Sinha. Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian Mindset.  2014

ISBN-13: 978-8132218036 ISBN-10: 8132218035 Edition: 2014th


  This volume situates Indians in the contemporary world and profiles the major facets of their thought and behaviour; then goes back to trace their roots to ancient thought to see how the past predisposes and the present guides Indians in their everyday life. The volume begins with a conceptual framework showing how the Indian worldview has encompassed and enveloped a variety of ideas and influences from divergent sources. As a result, Indians are both collectivists and individualists, hierarchically oriented while respecting merit and quality, religious as well as secular and sexually indulgent, spiritual as well as materialists, excessively dependent but remarkably entrepreneurial, non-violent in principle but violent in practice and comfortable in shifting between analytical, synthetic as well as intuitive approaches to reality. Such a coexistence of opposites often causes inaction, hesitation and perfunctory action, but also equips Indians to be innovative by continuously aligning their thought and behaviour to the demands of a milieu. The milieu has an inner layer consisting of desh (place), kaal (time) and paatra (person), which are embedded in the larger societal contexts of castes and classes, poverty, corruption, fragmenting politics, conflicts and violence and unfolding global opportunities and challenges. Cultural heritage permeates in all these. Indians function in this tiered, multifactorial, dynamic space.

 This volume draws evidence from ancient texts and the latest national and international research, many of which were conducted by the author and his associates. It does not, however, hesitate to indulge in anecdotal evidence, cases and speculative ideas in order to complete the picture. The author takes an in-depth view of the Indian mindset without getting the reader lost in either the intricacies of ancient philosophical abyss or the trivialities of present-day non-events


About the Author

Jai B. P. Sinha is Professor of Psychology and Management at the ASSERT Institute of Management, Patna, India. Professor Sinha completed his post-graduation in India and received his Ph.D. from Ohio State University, Ohio, USA. He has been a visiting professor at Hunter College of City University of New York, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem (USA), McGill University, Montreal (Canada) and Copenhagen Business School (Denmark). He has been a National Fellow of the Indian Council of Social Science Research; National Lecturer of the University Grants Commission, Government of India; Senior Fulbright Fellow. He was a member of the Executives of the International Association of Applied Psychology and International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology and Vice President of the World Association for Dynamic Psychiatry. He is an Honorary Fellow of the World Association for Dynamic Psychiatry and Honorary Fellow of the National Academy of Psychology. Professor Sinha's research focuses on the interface of Indian culture and Western forms of work organizations ranging from small and medium size enterprises to leading foreign multinationals in India. He has published over 150 research articles in national and international journals and has written or co-authored over a dozen of books. He has delivered invited addresses and given seminar lectures in most of the countries of North America, Western Europe, former Yugoslavia, the Far East and South-East Asia.


Other books by the author



Jai B P Sinha.The Cultural Context of Leadership and Power, 1995

Jai B P Sinha.Managing Cultural Diversity for Productivity, 2000





Labels: