“Why is there so much bias in the minds of the westerner scientists towards the Indian scientists?”

What kind of treatment really a title of this kind deserve? For one thing this cuts more juice than one can drink. Scientists, Indian scientist, westerner scientist, bias. And add to that the question of background of the author.

The back ground of the author is undoubted. He is undoubtedly a scientist. And everyone who knows this, knows that. This is also very dearly believed that he is a man of his own ways as much as he is a man of his own words.

So as the author of this topic, I need to stop on the temptation of self description and give a little justice to why I am speaking of such a bias. Does such a bias really exist? Has anyone else mentioned of such a bias? If there is plentitude of such a fact then how does the author, the renowned scientist, deals with such a mind blowing scene in the international scientific community? (Its mind clogging, any more, than its mind blowing, I tell you)

But before answering such an interesting (funny) topic I need to point out with the charm of direct speech or the so called literal meaning. Because the title is in itself a direct one, one usually does not see such direct hammering. First of all “why?” is a personal question. You may have heard the version of one scientists understanding of “why” and you may have come across another’s. And then yet another’s. It’s all interesting and depict something quite opposite to what we all hear in high school. That, in science we are often inspired to ask the why. And then each of the scientists above they come forth with the explanation that it’s not a why it’s a how. That differentiates a scientist from the not so ones. They know what the latter know from their training even if this training means a dogma which is carried out religiously. The scientists therefore can come up with clear insights like “it’s a how not a why”. The why is a personal question. The how is a technical question. Its in the details, it’s about the process and effects and not about our whims or arrogant rejection of truth. The latter, of which you may also come with trillions of examples, is personal while the former belong to the understanding of nature as much as it is a question of pure inquiry. Inquiry of that kind which comes up with answers of tremendous value has made our life worth living, despite of the pain nature inflicts on us, it also shows us way to alleviate such pain, without linking it to third power such as Gods. Nature is not amenable to religious manipulations. I may not know enough and I may not know complete picture of such a Universe. That makes my life worth living. But I know enough to say God is a third power as much as Natures ways are concerned. And I can take a beautiful trail in the midst of nature and not concern myself about my lack of knowledge towards the worldly affairs. Because in these worldly affairs a God seats with thousand smile when men so venerate him by making fun of their own intellect and succumbing into their fallibility by making their Gods and their beliefs about such Gods infallible.

Now that I have shown you the charm of direct speech I may not continue onto the other such personal depictions in the title. But I just initiated my essay. So now I must take into the meaning of bias. Well, showing a little less restraint than I intend I am attracted to using the language of science again, to replace bias by prejudice. Because in doing so I would be more personal, in line with the punch of my topic title. Bias is often understood in science as a measured or a measurable variable that must be taken into account to reach a desired result or a technical tool to understand something. That is bias is a systematic change or a change introduced by a system and as much we are trying to understand that change we are trying to understand the system as well. They are interconnected and bias therefore is a necessary variable in any study of the system. And nature is a system. And it must be devoid of a God because God may interfere with nature with his whims and nature doesn’t like that. But if you contrast bias with prejudice although they may be used interchangeably in a social perspective you will do yourself some good by realizing that prejudice is like a social stigma. That prejudice is a social variable and therefore the very fact that one society can hold it against another is a fact enough to create further prejudices and not further knowledge about such prejudices. That is, one prejudice will lead to another like in a chain reaction. It’s like an epidemic. A bias on the other hand leads to further understanding or just a blind spot. Period. Therefore my topic title must read:

“Why there is so much prejudice ………….” And if I would have done so you might have come up with your answer “You know people can really be ignorant about others culture to a degree they consider the others culture to be inappropriate”. But I made a mistake which I realize now. Because of that I gained some insight. But now that we are here discussing many interesting ideas so far, what’s really the role of this topic title??

But this is exactly where I hit my nail. Or I would prefer to. Hasn’t the so called western society been propagating a culture of science whose torch bearers are held with high esteem? And when these torch bearers have shown the path in science, they hardly called upon themselves as great Greek soldiers and great European scientists. Their voice did reach beyond the continents. And of such luminaries all were almost westerners although I have to do a research to find out exactly when the word westerner was created. Because such luminaries as Galileo and Einstein and Newton and Tesla are held with great veneration in the non-western world. Well the first three are venerated with a zeal that doesn’t cut any resemblance with geographic, nationalistic or cultural linkage. So the whole prejudice of “western scientist Newton” doesn’t cut any meaning at all. And such prejudice is not only meaningless it won’t find any adherent either, except in the perennially stupid. But the 4th of the list I gave here is a well accepted scientist from the western shores well into the non-western shore possibly because his genius and scientific temperament being well accepted in the west was transferred to the non-west via literature and media and communication and with time people came to know about him, from where he is not from.

So there is possibly no prejudice in the minds of non-westerners that many great scientists and thinkers of present and recent times (many centuries) are westerners. But this whole concept of being a westerner is such a whack. What the hell we really mean when we say westerner?? I mean Minneapolis is west of Winnipeg. So is someone more learned in the ways of science if he is from Minneapolis? “Well you know we usually mean the west of the globe and east of the globe.” I see what you mean by a westerner. You fought 3 wars on the scale of the west and then called it world war (or two?) based on the fact that the world is in danger because of one particular type, the Nazis. I think the history of western wars is so less understood by me that I tend to call these wars of whims rather than wars of any real animosity.

(And excuse me the world is in danger because of us human beings and not because of the nuclear weapon, many people devoted their whole lives to prove just this and won many peace prizes, but also to their credit there is no more war involving the nuclear weapons. but there still are wars, everywhere, Palestine Vs Israel, Iraq Vs Hegemony, Iran Vs axis of whim)

And now it’s all become “one west”. What is it which is so unificatingly true about all the westerners (the Japanese people sometimes think themselves a part of the western bandwagon) Is it a blind race theory? The skin tone? Because if that’s so the westerner is yet to see the non-westerner in its full variation. And since my topic may consider Indians as the lot facing that as a prejudice the westerners is yet to see the full Indian spectrum. But there could be something unificatingly stigmatized in the Indian and erroneously associated with the scientific output of the same. Like every other stigma this needs to be taken with importance and save him from the vilification. Eg I have read many stories about the glorious past of India in contributing towards science. This is mostly written by the Indians themselves. But this doesn’t have the desired outcome.

(To my knowledge even many other countries have similar responses towards the seemingly “western” prejudice towards their scientific contributions. But I think this is quite closely linked with what you may call “internet mob”, One guy writes something, the other likes the idea behind it and then propounds his own version about something and it propagates before forming a formidable myth)

But to bring forth the desired outcome one needs to consider a lot of factor. Such as establishing truly scientific enterprise with an academic purpose not necessarily with an academic rigor. I think an academic rigor is less important than a scholastic investigation. And such a topic can really be an interesting effective research object of an anthropologist, a sociologist, a philosopher and a scholar of religious study or the historians of science. The fact that there are folks in such academic spheres but they are writing merely to propound their master’s credibility, when this master is a Nehru or Indira or name any so called visionary statesman who propounded science in India, they are doing a disservice to the goal of seeking truth and as such their studies can not be taken very seriously. If a scholar does not use or leverage his scientific tools towards exploration of truth it’s not scholarly, actually. And if, today the west doesn’t know much about Indian science its because, somewhere down the line of history, all the scholars, the scientists, the truth seekers and the philosophers and the researchers they all became slaves to their masters and when they were beating drums of independence music and irritating lore of folk chirping and shouting and what not they were doing a dis-service to the nation as well as to the inter-nation and the international community.

I believe and very honestly believe that I am right, that the west is sometimes quite prejudiced in not respecting the true colors of Indian science but India is as much a culprit of their own behavior and narcissistic pleasure in forgetting to discover their true self and making a 100 scriptures of noting their true scientific heritage, linkages, history and vision because they are always busy somewhere else which are often mindless pursuits at large.

Why science revolves so much around language?

For one thing science does not revolve around any language. But the fancy words and word plays are often observed as a gimmick to cover the face when the heat is too much to bear.

That science is often obstructed by our conditioning where language plays a big part is a bright idea. Before I venture more into other such ideas I recall one piece of essay written by Frank Wilzek, a recent Nobel Prize winner whose essay I read some 3 years ago. Hasty as I was, back then, but starving from intellectual rigor I took on that piece from some journal. All the idea that I received was science is liable to be obstructed by the fancy of language. But I do not completely remember and so I think of researching a bit to find that essay.

After successfully retrieving that article after a few minutes of search on internet (internet is a brilliant tool in the hands of man, will write another blog, I promise) this is what I find. And I can not access it at the moment because I am working as a guest in my sister’s home where I have access to fast internet but not free internet. So whoever made that movie “fast and furious” need to make a movie “fast and free”. Also note that I remembered Nature as some journal. But I swear it’s an unintended mistake that I realize because of internet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature 410, 149 (8 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35065756
When words fail
Frank Wilczek
Abstract
Scientists have to struggle with words that don't fit reality.
Language is a social creation. It encodes the common experience of many people, past and present, and has been sculpted mainly to communicate our everyday needs.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The day I read that article I thought of writing an essay myself and I still remember I got a coffee (no not from burger king) to have read that essay. And I wrote what I thought about magnetic monopoles. Then I woke up in 2010 and now I am writing.

Now since I can not access that essay immediately I am venturing into my mind to see what I would think. But I can not promise chocolates here.

Well said. Language is a social creation. And it’s created with an aim to communicate. Then why it behaves like a bitch and we fail to communicate? Pardon me? Well it does, right? Like if you said kiss me it does not sound kill me. If you say hit me no one is heating you up. Then why is it that if you say “E equals to m into c squared “ then language behaves like a bitch and then no body understands what’s being talked about?? {Right now it’s happening in my mind “why is there so much bias in the minds of the westerner scientists towards the Indian scientists”, so I need to write another blog) What has science got with language and what has language got with science?? And why these two can not make any peace with each other?

One geek’s way of explaining that, is: look there is a capital E here and in language even if you shout like EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE no body has a clue what you are saying. You probably had a bad dream. And you are shivering because some one hit a knife on your groin. But then you go ahead and say “equals to” which sounds more like you said something mathematical and half of the folks are looking outta the window thinking you are talking about mathematics. By the time you say “aim into” they are like “where?” and when you are speaking “c squared” they are like okay enough for today and you do not know enough about psychology to deal with class behavior. Ask me. I have taught in many different situations and many different kinds, class behavior can be more aching than a mob behavior.

So here is the jest of the situation why language and communication (?) behave like a bitch when it comes to science. It’s not just that the words do not fit reality. All most no word fits reality. Give me one example, well except perhaps one. But hey if words will fit reality they will become reality themselves. And does the scientist really remember every word “word by reality” so as to communicate reality to the earthy aliens that are masters of words? What makes scientists so special and what makes them so much of a supercomputer that they surpass the limits of nature? We are trying to communicate reality. And reality is not as simple as is often told. Reality is immensely complex. Communication is a virtue as much as it’s a technology. I have communicated my need to raise the level of “hotness in a dish” in a land as alien to me as Japan, not by technology, by communication. You can say I knew the right words, even though I am not fluent in speaking much Japanese. But that’s a communication skill. You chose the right word, and that comes by experience, and then use your charm, it comes by lack of experience, so un-experience your experience and then decide what you want to communicate. Eg when the lady is serving you hot beverage you don’t ask for serving hot feelings. It’s a bad communication art. If you really are interested to know the trick you read “surely you are joking Mr Feynman” or you pay me direct cash of one hundred $ and I will tell you.

It’s a good communication ploy to be prepared about the event. So if I am going to talk trash to someone I better be prepared with a lot of trash talk. If I am going to talk reality I better know what stuff mean and keep it to a minimum.

But I also remember that there are no bounds to curiosity neither is there any bound to the limit to which young and enthusiastic people can ask you questions. In a recent talk I gave to an audience of about 15 folks where almost all the Professors were missing, there was just one Professor and to my liking he was one I knew from a decade ago. It was a pleasant surprise to have met him.

(God, the Government is paying them just to listen and interact but still they are so busy they can’t make it there and this is a trend in so many places. In the last 1 and half years I gave such talks in about 3 places and didn’t have an opportunity to give this talk at one place because having a big student mass was not very expected. Also if Professors are considered insulated from the requirement to attend seminars it’s a fix up much like match fixing, in India. This should be considered a strict rule for everyone present on campus to attend talks, if you think some ones research is not worthy of such a presentation at such a place then you better point that out, of-course what will happen is if a tiny creature is not quite comfortable with the idea, given his or her ignorance, I have met a few, they will even go to the extent of insulting credible scientists, and less well known speakers and even well known speakers as long as they don’t have the fame of Stephen Hawking )

But the young students there asked me questions as interesting as “Does the beam in your experiment bend because there is an applied magnetic field?” to “How much temperature is needed to produce this or that” and so on. These are so interesting and raised my confidence to a level of my knowledge about these stuff, so much so that I did give good answers to almost all of them.

(The feed back usually comes from a few folks who are good friends and they are reliable because I usually do not persuade them to say this, they come with the appreciation, I have been previously criticized about my age and experience and my status with a particular involvement which may as well be crap which I may take very kindly but I advise to those who keep or spread such opinions to just write their blog, then they will realize what it takes to maintain writing blogs about your-self.)

And this is the usefulness of giving a talk on particle physics in an astrophysics institute and if possible vice versa because it generates interesting questions which is good for science.

And you can also see that talking about particle physics to astrophysicists is much like talking about science to the lay audience. But if chosen with preparedness and skilled in communication*** the folks are not only going to understand what’s talked about (my talk was really, really technical) but also going to take part in it as enthused participants. That just serves one purpose of doing science. To spread the reality, not just to spread the word.

(*** not just language, I am an American for many practical purposes and more so with language, which may not be readily appreciated because of my communication applications)

Now that I have skipped a bit off from the original topic let me check back exactly where. I am Scrolling up. Are you with me?

Yes, science often needs communication, not language. Language is a bitch, and scientists often struggle with words that do not fit reality. But that’s not my topic. My topic is why science revolves around language and since language is a bitch it should stop calling her, right? OK so science is taking a leap of faith at communication, in the hopes of having a dependable relationship.

How is communication different from language? Well communication is a scientific language system. By system I mean, theory, experiment, application, practice, art, skills, goals everything taken together. There are even ideas. This has so much value for science. So when language makes a whimp out of science because reality misfits with language, science hangs up for a while and then goes onto creating a way of communication which understands the feelings of science. OK, science did give into temptation once and fell into week moments twice but here is the newly wed, communication. Now science does not revolve much about language. It’s a happily wed union where Murray Gellman can give a talk about the significance of symmetry and the classical connection between unification of present days with that in Newton’s days. As long as that idea has been flashed in some ones mind one doesn’t need to find the right word (or language) as much as one needs to find the right communication. If Gellman flashes that idea in his ppt slides Mohan reads it on his laptop, far away from where Gellman stands and when he reads the idea he can write about it how he understands, Mr dandy Nabrang can seat in his place and write about it like he understands and Miss whinny bottle-pecker can write about it from where she is reading it. And if these folks really understand the ideas they can go ahead and write about it in languages that “fit” such reality. And if the language is still bitching then “die hard” and find another day because ‘Something’s gotta give”.

Science has found its union in communication but is communication an infidel??

The depiction of Hindu Gods in American folklore..

The Hindu Gods are neither a very well understood bunch nor any less venerated for their true meaning. Neither in their Mother land nor in lands far away where their popularity soars sky high possibly because of the interest and philosophy they generate. Mystical and antiqued they are for ever. This is almost in line (originally wrote in consonance) with their true perspective.

In Feynman’s words Gods are created to solve mysteries. And if they fail in that purpose they become mysteries themselves. But why antique them? Possibly to save them from erosion. We human beings are a selfless intellectual entity (ha). We decay but we do not intend our cultural beliefs and mis-beliefs to be loathed as much as they need not be iconoclast-ed. We antique them.

Of-course (we antique them) in polytheistic practices which are erroneously equated with a savage and paganistic culture. In monotheistic beliefs Gods have a name and purpose that resonate with a thousand icons but do not have a form in an antique and its variants.

The variants of antiques is a much old practice whose evidence is found in cultures as varied as that of Japan and India. You can see in Japan the “million Gods” depicted with their original “Indian” names although the form or the antiques are a variant. In that belief a Japanese can have an Indian name, but it never caught up.

I formed a notion of Indian Gods as understood by the average unsuspecting American equally on both sides, positive as well as hilarious. In a positive depiction where Philosophy cuts the bounds of science in a way tolerable by strict-arians like me Hindu Gods had a place in Quantum Physics.

Yes, the three quantum mechanical operator, creation, annihilation and conservation, were a function-ification of the Hindu Gods Brahma the creator, Shiva the destroyer and Bishnu the conservator. Very aptly these Gods were the most fundamental trinity that assigned themselves the priorities of these responsibilities after the big-bang created the Universe.

Brahma chose to create, like he created the Universe (through a big-bang?), Shiva could be angry enough to destroy anything at sight through a 3rd-eye and his 6th sense usually pardon the good, never destroyed the good, never spared the evil, a fundamental character of Gods to sympathize with the good.

And Bishnu had 10 incarnations on planet earth to see after his responsibilities of seeing the well-being of the intellectual and non-intellectual entity, that so venerates him as a conservator.

What a coincidence. It’s a moderate approach to make science interesting. I heard another fanciful hilarious depiction of the Indian God by an American friend. Brahma in his understanding is the animal with a bow, the Brhma-bow and Ram the incarnation of Bishnu, in the famed dashaa-vatara or ten-incarnations, is the American sheep.

I always wondered why they spared the “Shiva”. Shiva opens his 3rd eye and destroys anything in sight, what happens to a loathsome blaspheme??

But Indian philosophy is so filled with infinite meaning of the same entity, given to its corruptibility by none other than the modern Indians themselves, that a seemingly unloaded mind will make a disappearance before he can be enticed to pay a lending ear.

And the Indian is usually laced with an attitude of grandeur. So is every non-sense I have seen including the famed reflection God, the mirror. And the grandeur of the American often gives in to the defunct notion “I know it all because I have never seen an alternative view point as strong as mine”

In the possibility of that candid allowance Jesus Christ is a mocking bird and Shiva is a Black phallic icon.



Next in line “Why science revolves so much around language?”

My opinions on "Has Science declined in India"

The outset of such an article, which is so titled, is bound to get some attention and indeed elicit as much interest from anyone who would come across this post.

First of all "who am I?" to write about science and India and in such a short title also draw clear the fact I am going to hit a topic as prophetic as predicting its trends. What do I know about history and what exactly are my scientific credentials? I think this much is enough for me to get started on this article.

But I must also answer the above if I were to justify my raising such questions in the first place. My scientific credentials do not include a Bhatnagar award in India or a MacArthur fellowship in the US, I don't have an Infosys prize in science.

I am not a director of any elite institutions in India that gives me a great deal of power to say I can direct some of the perceptions this way or that way or I can write something and call it authoritative.

In the same lines what do I really know about India and what do I know about history. In-fact in a span of 8 years two people who I would have respected a great deal, otherwise, hurled this question at me, albeit in a hurried exasperation because their long held beliefs were subjected to a sharp criticism. "What do you know about history?"

And almost any self respecting man who has an iota of knowledge in the social issues of the times one lives in, would retort "What do you know anyway???" But I reserve such upfront remarks to incite further interest in a hot discussion to a friend or a friendly companion who I am sharing a corona or a carlsburg with

(look at my open advocacy of these two beverages but I can't help in 2010. I can also say, I can ask these fellows "What do you know about beer" but such a scenario does not arise ever.)

Such a question was uncalled for given the age and experience of these two giants. I do have a big deal of respect but I would rather let go of that. But little do I know what kind of insecurity I can generate in a discussion with another fellow.

There was also this tiny creature who was advising me about stuff that I did know inside out because such discussions usually sticks in my mind. Long long ago I read such stuff on the internet and knew this interests the gossip mongers in the (scientific) community so much.

I just don't know if I am the kind of person that creates such unbounded interest in subjects that are not metaphysical but catches so much fire in the scientific community. Like the question of "to eat beef or not?", check one of my earlier blogs about the nature of the Indian scientist.

This young fellow with seemingly no understanding of what he was talking about was spewing knowledge of culture and history and my sharp rebuttal of its falsity incited a sharp reaction summed up above from his companion, the giant. "What do I know about history??".

In a flash of moment in which I remembered what my answer was 8 years ago I restrained myself and somehow the sequence of arguments and counter arguments was broken into a halt. It was indeed attempted to initiate the discussion from where it was broken by my temporal thought adversaries, but I had cleverly remodeled myself in that small break. I took off with a hearty welfare.

And I am thinking after a month. I think I have a pattern of thoughts which just happens on its own. Although now I have a better control over it. Now I can be counted as a self propagating contentious knowledge monger but very confidently I can direct my opinions at you and most definitely you will accept that this is one of my endearing qualities. In the trap of this endearment I possibly lose my case but who is here to win a bet anyway.

Now that I have countered why its not that important, what I know about history anyway, my answer to the questions posed at the beginning of this article is that my credentials in science lie much in the fact that I am an international class scientist who has experienced and interacted with scientists from anywhere in the world, is knowledgeable in the ways of science and how its done including how its done in India.

I have, starting as early as the last decade, been to and lived sizable amount of time in several places(labs and academia) in the world, met and talked to tons of people who do science and those who do not, and have taken a keen observation vantage point in looking for answers as historical as the state of affairs of science.

I have even interacted with ministers and other religious travelers, teachers of history and science about such issues as meaning of science and affairs of scientific communities and significance of our thoughts, meaning of reality and so on.

So has science declined in India? Yes, it has. And why I think its declined. One measure is of-course the fact that the number of world famous scientists, has gone down. World famous signifying not just internationally credited, e.g. some one has a degree from Oxford, someone visits Harvard, someone worked with a Nobel Laurette or someone wrote a paper with some connection with a giant in the field.

You see giants often ask questions like "What do YOU know about history". World famous can be more understood if I explain it with some examples. In citing world famous scientists I would take the example of Raman, Bose, Chandrasekhar, Bha-Bha and even Narlikar.

Examples that would not count in my head as world famous, not withstanding the fact that a big deal of stuff can be written about them in the Wikipedia , because fame can transcend Wikipedia, are Mr short star and Mr long star. These are more so connected with political lobbying and power game rather than count as examples of world famous scientists.

The truly world famous, to give more examples, I am not necessarily citing the ones that necessarily alter the field with every paper, are Ashok Sen and say Amartya Sen.

I actually tried hard to recall more famous scientists of recent times. This number can increase but not in a way that says Prof CNR Rao is a more world famous scientist than Bose of the Bose Einstein condensation. One reason being the internet didn't contribute to Bose's fame but fame transcends internet as well.

Look how much Bose can be discussed and debated for his contribution to that famed paper. That's a sure shot sign of fame and we can not deny that. Prof CNR Rao is more of an expert rather than a world famed scientist. In that sense Prof Yashpal is a more of an India famous scientist than a world famous scientist.

So one parameter to measure the decline is in terms of the number of world famous scientists and it is substantiated.

What are the other reasons we have to say science has declined?? Well the number of research institutes and research funding has gone up 100-fold. This has created a great pool of scientific expertise, which is not bad in itself. But what has it brought in terms of direct recognition of Indian science in the world?

How many people today can work in India like Chandrasekhar worked in the USA?? How many people can work in India like Stephen Hawking works in England? How many people can work in India like Kobayashi and Masukawa can work in Japan?? Or are these people missing??

On the other hand one may counter my opinions saying look how much we are involved in world science in US/Europe/Japan. Well this was always the case. We were not so much involved in the big particle accelerator or a satellite experiment. But do we have one to our credit in India in present times??

Look at another blog of mine where I propose 10 ideas, such as the International Linear Collider or a dark matter experiment in India. Why not? OK I am hardheartedly hitting at the country's meager resources. But look how many houses Mr wine star is having around the world? Somewhere I read he has in 27 countries. Just from wine?? Well the flying soccer as well.

But hey its this kind of big wealth that has brought a great deal of scientific efforts to mission, around the world. And its not just the Mr wine star. I just ruined my chances to seek funding from the billionaire. Look how many billionaires there are in or from India.

So while I am hard hitting at some realities I am not that mistaken actually. I think this is an important point in the decline of our science. Remember Jamshed Jee Tata ??? Anyone?? He was the one who donated some of his wealth to the creation of the Indian Institute of Science, if I am not incorrect.

There are a few more examples but none so much for doing science. The present situation with Vedanta University, despite of Anil Agrawal's philanthropy, is a glaring example of the apathy towards having world class organizations for educational and scientific enterprise.

I have a blog towards Vedanta University. This is another measure of the decline of science. Science is greatly buffered through education and education is a turbulent affair in India. Why?

If you have a basic degree you go for the professional education, MBA and the likes. If you have an advance degree like a PhD from this country or abroad you have the license to do bad science and not get affected because that's the trend. You are making enough money and as long as that's satisfied who cares what's happening with science. So this is another reason for fall of science in this country. Blatant disrespect for education and progress through education. Science is just a namesake.

What's another factor that's causing so much decline in good science?? Well the young and old division for one. The young can never be powerful in science. Their enterprise is directed towards self gratification or to the trash basket. The old is hapless and insecure even if a self proclaiming giant.

And this division sometimes works in union by working together towards the dismay of the ideal and achievable in Indian Science. Otherwise I wouldn't be a writing a blog here in the first place and wasting my time. This lackadaisical system must be changed if we are to make any true progress.

And those who quote Gandhi Jee's famed "Be the change that you want" here is my answer "Have you ever seen a highway constructed, its a change that comes up even if you are not a change that you want, cities are built, institutions are built, privatization has happened in this country, why not a change in our mindsets to accept that we can do world class science if we recognize the potential in our youth. Even if our old is not much experienced in the matter of international science they can either lead the way or let the way to be led by the young. Now voting for Rahul Gandhi wouldn't sound that difficult either, eh??"

So despite of the decline, I am proposing a rebuilding of the nation, a sloganeering in nationalistic tone, for the realization of an ideal scientific progress.

I am in no mood after this to preach the conditions of today's science in India. But here is what's not picking its truly desirable place. The current deficit in the progress of the newly built scientific organizations in India. May be I need another blog, another day.

confession

This is what I learned from some religious teaching which is vast anyway in its scope. Its called confession.As I understand, in the religious teaching, especially Christianity, it means you confess your sin towards the end of your living your life, one fine day when you realize there is no more time for freeing your soul from the sins of your life, and GOD will happily relieve you from the burdens of sin. "What an exploitation" but I do believe in confession although in living my life not just towards the end when freedom is not in sight...

Why Odisha needs Vedanta University

Why Odisha needs Vedanta University
(something I said more than a year ago)
Manmohan Dash
9th January 2009

This article is present with recourse to no hitherto used arguments, in previous discussions, like statistics and comparison to world standards, I am casually aware of them though, the arguments in this article are purposed to be more personal.

This article is aimed at a very small group of enthusiasts, who are culturally aware about the state of Odisha, a beautiful scenic state in the eastern bounds of India. This also aims to draw attention of the small group of world citizen that cares to know whats happening around other parts of the globe.

Odisha in the eyes of its inhabitants, intellectual citizen and visitors is a great old civilization with myriad forms of culture and dance, mainly temple oriented architecture, ”mysterious” forms of religion and rites and visually friendly populace.

As much as India can be described as a village of the world, Odisha can be described as the village of the country. This is true but not strictly so. The village nature of India is generously found in other states of the country and poverty doesn't spare almost any state in the country.

The city culture and amenities are on a development curve but more so as a matter of financial accumulation.

It is in this backdrop of current times that Odisha has seen an enviable flow of business ventures, in some way the largest in the country in modern times. This is because of the huge mineral resources, concurrent financial growth of the country and large sea coasts and virgin lands.

As an immigrant out of Odisha, the author himself, in the last 7-8 years, has personally experienced the ”on the rise” development quotients of the state. There has been a betterment in the lifestyle of the general populace, better roads, better equipped hospitals, plenty of jobs, private educational institutions with better facilities, a little more transparent and accountable system of governance, last but not the least the citizen is willing to travel a little wider and far for education, employment and sight seeing.

On the other hand, the author who never had a long vacation in the home country for more than 7-8 years lived on for a few months. Shockingly enough there has been a lot of reality change at the ground level.

One prime factor of such a state of affairs is the so called problem of Naxalism. It was not much heard of in the youth of the author. It had come up like the terrorism problems of the country and the world, in a natural way. But the the shear sensitivity with which Naxals strike their ”opponents” now is more a matter of technology, strategy, crime and fear.

Their opponents is none other than the system of Governance itself. In the last few months of the author’s stay, he saw two deadly massacre of military magnitudes against the police force. In each of these incidents that happened in row in a matter of weeks more than thirty police personnel were killed each time.

In another incident, not clear how much related, a renowned sear was killed with vengeance, for religious ideologies and responsive attacks were mounted on religious alternatives in the form of social riots.

This ensued for months and particular ideologues were victimized. This made national and international news. In political compulsion the plea of particular groups were heard and of others disregarded.

Another shocking but unrelated ground truth the author realized is the conditions of the infrastructure that has deteriorated in just a few years. The highways are extremely unsafe and actually taken because of lack of choice and every now and then there is a ”killing”, this time the killer being the situation on the highways.

With so much told about the ground truths and with a title heading, why this state needs an University, could be misleading to a normal audience. The purpose was to give a truthful account rather than a social activist’s account or an over-zelous account of a random war-lord.

Coming to the intended discussion thus, its worthwhile to give a background of the proposed Vedanta University. This University is purported to be one of the best universities in the world although this time in unsuspected, India and in one of its most unsuspected states, Odisha.

This is claimed to be developed into the ranks of Stanford and Harvard with an equally astounding sum of fund declared. In-fact this is one of the highest philanthropic donations from personal fortune anyone has ever made.

The man of such respectable generosity is the business tycoon Anil Agrawal, the owner of Vedanta Resources, which has set up large scale industries in the state of Odisha it self. This has not been only an welcoming phenomena,the efforts of building the university are already in place with world renowned architects designing and building the university.

The matter of contention however is consistent opposition from a few quarters of intellectual citizens. Although such oppositions have often sounded traditional for a innovative venture like VU, it has ranged from populist vibes to legal obstructions.

Some of the oppositions have withered with Government action and much of the opposition is actually selfish in nature. Many discussions have rounded the web and a few links are maintened on the web that can be browsed with simple searchs.

Why anyone would want such a University or academic establishment in a community. The reasons are very clear. We want to extend our educational systems to the best in the world. This is a prime goal of any civilized modern society. To have the best of the education, research and scientific body of knowledge.

To that end we not only need primary education and a few set of technical education so that we can get ”jobs” but also we need to prepare a community of learning and sharing that will usher us into a confident social stature in the world community.

It will bring with it a viable but robust economic system. Generate unprecedented pools of jobs. Take care of the research and development needs of a so called ”third world” economy. Open up the path to prosperity and show us in true color how much the world wants us to benefit from what we have invested for hundred years to keep this impoverished nation from faltering! Education.

Education is what we had invested in, the fruits of which we are harvesting. Education is what we’ll invest in, the fruit of which will be enjoyed by our children. Smart forms of social maneuvering and populist vibes are like an unhealthy epidemic. This must not only be rejected but their root causes must be known.

Why someone would spend his personal fortune for such a noble cause? Well, there have been many successful acts of generosity and the gentle-man definitely belong to their categories. Generosity is an act of people who have, not an act of people who question.

How many failed donations of such nature there really have been? Cite a few. None to the authors knowledge. Another question, why United States of America, Japan and other developed nations allow, actually promote huge chunks of population from other countries.

While this has financial significance, these are purely generous acts. Millions of Indians are today spread around the globe and are employed in a system of education, research and academic activities which do not belong to us Indians.We wouldn’t allow so many foreigners in our own country, we just do not have such resources. In other words we are not capable of such generosity.


These learned, alternatively cultured and experienced professionals of Indian origin will enrich the academic environment of Odissa, not indulge in deteriorating their own social base. The outcry of brain drain will cry out.”What went forth has come back” and for the good.

International researchers and experts who spend their energy and expertise in Japan/Korea and Europe will be happily available for an Orissan academic enterprise. This will enrich, strengthen and modernize Odissa and its inhabitants.

There are many talents who can not go abroad for a quality education. This will be produced at home in an international environment. Similar ideas may be present on VU web-site but what is presented here are the authors personal ideas, thought out long before VU was envisioned.

In-fact the VU dream was a shock to author. When the author saw VU proposal on the web it was like a dream come true. This time the dream came from someone who can give out his personal fortune for such a noble cause. This is a once in life-time opportunity and must not be missed.