From: narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana)
Subject: Re: Dr. Jayaraman's article
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:45:23 GMT

In article <1jl8faINN2ma@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu> chandra@cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:
>Reading Dr. Jayaraman's article contained in Sanjiv Mahajan's posting
>made a number of thoughts pass thru my head:
>
>i.  In that article, he was talking as a scientist concerned with the
>future of both scientific research and scientific temper in India, and
>there is hardly any thing "Marxist" about it. For whatever it is
>worth, I am pretty convinced about the usefulness of free markets,
>economic and political liberalization, etc., so I was worried about
>what hide-bound Marxism I might see in it, but all I saw in the
>posting was a passionate argument for how *all* religious fanaticism,
>whether of the Vedic Math variety, or of the Koranic science variety,
>is inimical to science.
>
The stereo type marxist argument. Historically though it is the spiritually
oriented societies that propelled the enquiry. The author failed to show
that a Hindu society following its ethos will be anti-science. The whole 
notion then is a preconceived political bias against religion. No more than
that.

Note that I am reading between the lines of your article,n not of Jayaraman.
I have not read his article, lost interest after so much hype by our
usual admirers.

>ii.  Actually, Dr. Jayaraman in particular cannot be accused of only of
>going after Hindus.  He is as scathing about Islamic fundamentalism if not
>more so.  In fact, I think we should post it to SCP and rile up some of
>the Koranic science fanatics there.
>
Can't say anything!

>iii.  I am  fascinated about a certain process by which you
>become what you fight.  For example, arguably, the US lost more
>freedoms (it became a National Security state in a much more
>comprehensive way) during the cold war when it was fighting the
>Soviets to protect liberty and freedom. 

>Similarly, some people are
>redefining Hinduism as a mirror image of the religion that they, often
>correctly in my view, accuse of suppressing freedom of thought.

I cannot understand this sentence. If you are saying that some people 
are redefining Hinduism in the mould of Islam (which in your/their view 
suppresses freedom of thought), then I have not read even a single 
story about the notion of redefinition from any BJP/RSS/blah blah
varities. Can you simply elucidate how and where they have defined
Hinduism as a mirror image of Islam?

>Hinduism has never been a religion in the sense in which Christianity
>and Islam are religions.  Its hallmark has been variety,
>open-endedness in discourse, many paths to salvation, etc.  The worst

This is only true to the extent of religious worship. It is not true 
that anything and every thing is Hinduism. It follows the precepts
laid down in Vedas. Vedic enquiry is certainly diverse. Try to
distinguish modes of worship from fundamental literature which is
fixed.

>effect of Islam on India ironically might be to end up defining
>something called Hindu religion, which looks as narrow and dogmatic as
>Islam (and Christinaity, I might add) except it is defined in
>opposition to Islam.  

Again where did people say that diversity in modes of worship and
theological enquiry will be restricted. Can you elucidate how they
are going to accomplish this so called stagnation of thought? Besides
how can one restrict thought and yet be Hindus?

>
>iv.  I found Dr. Jayaraman's story about the Indian Science Congress
>now giving an award for Astrology frightening for the future of Indian
>science, and hence for the future of Indian society.  I think people
>should be free to believe in and practice astrology, but to make it
>part of the scientific scene is truly to akin to "Islamic science" in
>Pakistan where jinns are discovered in atoms.  

I agree here! Sciences that are not well-founded on scientific enquiry
should not be in the domian of ISC. However, the question  is whether
philosophy is in the realm of science? To that we should say that
as long as science has not delivered a valid (experimentally verified)
basis for creation, they should admit all theories of creation, that
have, a method of reasoning associated with it as plausible. 

>
>v.  I know many people who have by no means lost their scientific
>temper, who are not fanatics of any stripe, but who are concerned
>about national disintegration, and who support what happened in
>Ayodhya on the grounds of nationalism.  They argue that it is the
>Muslims who are defining themselves away from the rest of Indian
>society by abandoning all that is Indian, having no loyalty to things
>Indian before Islam came to India.  I want to ask if any among this
>group feel threatened by the coming of Hindutva as described by
>Jayaraman.  I have always felt that the Indian system, with all its

You are posing the wrong question! You should pose the relative question!
Given the choice that the state in which you were born and raised follows
communalism in the name of secularism, and secularism that does not have
a religious content to it, which one do you prefer? Do you prefer to
be fooled about secularism or prefer to be told that "heck! your religion
doesn't matter?" The issue is not Hindutva forces. Because even if they
come to power, they will not have the majorities to effect a large scale
difference. But their presence on the scene does strengthen the argument
that secularism is "not a byword for communalism". That is the key!
The threat scenario is not that of Hindutva forces (what ever they are),
it is that of communalism of the worst variety, and deception in the
name of secularism. It may be the threat scenario for a marxist like 
Jayaraman, but not for all others. 

>problems, was superior to that of Pakistan because we are more open to
>democracy and science, and in the long run that will show up in our
>industry and eventually in our standard of living.  But the narrow creed
>that is being defined as Hinduism, the hostility to science or more 
>precisely the increasing tolerance for bogus science in the name
>of "ancient knowledge" makes me think that we are going to have a mirror
>image of Pakistan in India, one  modernity-threatened orthodoxy led by 
>Mullas facing another modernity-threatened orthodoxy led by Pundits.
>I suppose there is some sort of poetic irony here, but not a 
>pleasant one.   

Where was it mentioned by the BJP etc that they are hostile to science?
You mean to say that belief in god is hostility to science? You are
developing (as usual) a scare scenario. Much of the scientific developement
that occurred in the preislamic period did so under the umbrella of
Hinduism. It did not threaten that time? Why should it now! There is
nothing in the Hindu philosophy which says that material progress
is irrelevant.

Your notes have some good points, and a lot of unsubstantiated scare
tactics.