What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.


India loves PM, but not the way he is handling Pak

All this happened under his nose, yet!

tem56tg6.png


After Uri, its Handwara under Modi:

J&K: Terrorists fire at police post in Handwara: Just In: Police post attacked by terrorists at Langate, Handwara in Jammu and Kashmir. More details awaited.
 
Why the Science Students of JNU Voted For ABVP
BY SIMANTINI KRISHNAN ON 20/09/2016LEAVE A COMMENT
SHARE THIS:


The Hindutva ideology propagated by the organisation represents a unitary vision of politics and development, which can be more easily aligned with the scientific rather than humanistic mode of thinking.

ABVP candidates in JNU elections. Credit: ABVP JNU/Facebook

The recently concluded polls in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) have brought to light an interesting phenomenon: The victorious Left alliance dominated the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) in the social science and language schools, but the trend was reversed when it came to the science school.

Social media reacted to this trend with a righteousness of sorts. The idea seemed to be that the political disposition of science students is more valid by virtue of being more scientific and therefore correct. At the same time, another set of reactions on social media questioned the curious affinity of the science school with an ideology that is anything but scientific. Why did the science students of JNU vote for an ideology that propagates myths in defiance of modern science?

The answer to this question is not simple, as it rests on the complex relationship of academic disciplines with broader social and political milieus.

The scientific enterprise is typically understood as a value-free and neutral inquiry to uncover truths about the world we inhabit. The knowledge derived from such scientific inquiry is deemed universal. Yet, its relationship with the human civilisation has not been free of contradictions.

On one hand, the advancement of science in the western world went hand-in-hand with the industrial revolution, secularism and democracy. On the other hand, the universality of science became the justification for colonialism. What began as a search for new markets gradually gave way to the white man’s civilising mission across the rest of the world. One of the most influential thinkers in the liberal tradition, John Stuart Mill, has been guilty of justifying colonialism on these lines.

The social sciences identified with the scientific enterprise as they set out to understand patterns of human behaviour which would aid efficient administration. However, by the middle of the 20th century, many such disciplines were spurred by black and feminist movements in the West, and anti-imperialist movements in Asia and Africa.

The notion of universal truth that was directly linked with the victory of science over religion came to be challenged in this new political context. As hitherto unheard voices highlighted their distinctive experiences, humanistic disciplines became more and more amenable to the idea of multiple or subjective truths. It became important to distinguish the domain of the physical sciences from the realm of human experience. A single objective truth could not account for human conditions shaped by oppression, indignity, exploitation and servitude. Empathy and understanding were deemed far more potent in the pursuit of such knowledge.

In the context of Indian politics, the Hindutva ideology propagated by the Sangh parivar represents a unitary vision of the country. Even a benign interpretation of Hindutva suggests that a unifying Hindu identity supersedes differences based on religion, sect, caste, region or language. Such a unitary vision is consistent with the language of development employed by the BJP government.

The current discourse on development rests on the monolithic narrative of a bright, shining, prosperous and powerful nation, but one that does not accommodate the voices of weaker sections of the population. For example, the Swachh Bharat campaign speaks of a clean India, but without making any references to the sanitary and scavenging occupations of the Dalit population. The concept of digital India has now merged seamlessly with India’s most powerful business house. Yet, the discourse seems to be that Reliance is fulfilling the prime minister’s dream of digital connectivity. The means by which Reliance may have procured its resources, and how that may have come at a significant cost to the society, is irrelevant.

A unitary vision of politics and development can be more easily aligned with the scientific rather than humanistic mode of thinking. This explains the intuitive affinity of JNU’s science students with the ABVP, while the students of social sciences and languages were less enamored by such politics. The occurrences of February 9, 2016 and subsequent developments deepened the divide in JNU. The sedition charges slapped on students for defying a unitary vision of India would have been nothing short of abhorrent to students trained to value multiple perspectives of reality. Science students tend to be less amenable to such a position, and therefore more susceptible to the dominant mode of thinking on the issue.

Left politics has traditionally offered a broad platform to the diversity of students at JNU. An admission policy that gives special consideration to women, as well as students from backward regions, has amplified the impact of reservation on the student demographic in the university. Besides, the university is host to a vibrant queer movement. Such a student body is incompatible with the ABVP, which remains male, upper caste and Hindi speaking at its core.

The rise of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association as principal opposition to the Left alliance is further testimony to the inability of ABVP to accommodate voices that may have been marginalised in Left discourses.

As far as the larger discourse on social media is concerned, the denigration of humanistic disciplines reflects a much larger problem in India’s education system. In western democracies, humanistic knowledge played a considerable role in shaping education systems, especially in the post-war period. The perils of science that did not operate within ethical bounds led to a premium on teaching ethics and humanism through history and language curricula in schools. Further, universities ensured exposure to various subjects, enabling conversations across disciplines and ideologies.

Indian education, on the other hand, came to be characterised by a disconnect between the sciences and the humanities. More specifically, technical education took precedence, as it was a better guarantor of employability and socioeconomic mobility in a developing country. Over time, this has come to reflect in school education as well, which gears students for competitive exams based on science curriculum. Further, colleges and universities dedicated exclusively to technical education have precluded the scope of broader conversations.

The original vision for scientific and technical education in India was deeply embedded in a larger socioeconomic milieu. It was meant to propel industrialisation and lift the Indian society out of poverty, superstition and backwardness and thus create the conditions for democratic government. This link between science and society was even written into the charters of institutions such as the IITs, resulting in the inclusion of humanities departments. While the premium on scientific and technical education has remained, the social and political context has gotten lost along the way. In its absence, science at the service of the nation, can scarcely exceed political rhetoric.
 
Why the Science Students of JNU Voted For ABVP
BY SIMANTINI KRISHNAN ON 20/09/2016LEAVE A COMMENT
SHARE THIS:


The Hindutva ideology propagated by the organisation represents a unitary vision of politics and development, which can be more easily aligned with the scientific rather than humanistic mode of thinking.

ABVP candidates in JNU elections. Credit: ABVP JNU/Facebook

The recently concluded polls in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) have brought to light an interesting phenomenon: The victorious Left alliance dominated the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) in the social science and language schools, but the trend was reversed when it came to the science school.

Social media reacted to this trend with a righteousness of sorts. The idea seemed to be that the political disposition of science students is more valid by virtue of being more scientific and therefore correct. At the same time, another set of reactions on social media questioned the curious affinity of the science school with an ideology that is anything but scientific. Why did the science students of JNU vote for an ideology that propagates myths in defiance of modern science?

The answer to this question is not simple, as it rests on the complex relationship of academic disciplines with broader social and political milieus.

The scientific enterprise is typically understood as a value-free and neutral inquiry to uncover truths about the world we inhabit. The knowledge derived from such scientific inquiry is deemed universal. Yet, its relationship with the human civilisation has not been free of contradictions.

On one hand, the advancement of science in the western world went hand-in-hand with the industrial revolution, secularism and democracy. On the other hand, the universality of science became the justification for colonialism. What began as a search for new markets gradually gave way to the white man’s civilising mission across the rest of the world. One of the most influential thinkers in the liberal tradition, John Stuart Mill, has been guilty of justifying colonialism on these lines.

The social sciences identified with the scientific enterprise as they set out to understand patterns of human behaviour which would aid efficient administration. However, by the middle of the 20th century, many such disciplines were spurred by black and feminist movements in the West, and anti-imperialist movements in Asia and Africa.

The notion of universal truth that was directly linked with the victory of science over religion came to be challenged in this new political context. As hitherto unheard voices highlighted their distinctive experiences, humanistic disciplines became more and more amenable to the idea of multiple or subjective truths. It became important to distinguish the domain of the physical sciences from the realm of human experience. A single objective truth could not account for human conditions shaped by oppression, indignity, exploitation and servitude. Empathy and understanding were deemed far more potent in the pursuit of such knowledge.

In the context of Indian politics, the Hindutva ideology propagated by the Sangh parivar represents a unitary vision of the country. Even a benign interpretation of Hindutva suggests that a unifying Hindu identity supersedes differences based on religion, sect, caste, region or language. Such a unitary vision is consistent with the language of development employed by the BJP government.

The current discourse on development rests on the monolithic narrative of a bright, shining, prosperous and powerful nation, but one that does not accommodate the voices of weaker sections of the population. For example, the Swachh Bharat campaign speaks of a clean India, but without making any references to the sanitary and scavenging occupations of the Dalit population. The concept of digital India has now merged seamlessly with India’s most powerful business house. Yet, the discourse seems to be that Reliance is fulfilling the prime minister’s dream of digital connectivity. The means by which Reliance may have procured its resources, and how that may have come at a significant cost to the society, is irrelevant.

A unitary vision of politics and development can be more easily aligned with the scientific rather than humanistic mode of thinking. This explains the intuitive affinity of JNU’s science students with the ABVP, while the students of social sciences and languages were less enamored by such politics. The occurrences of February 9, 2016 and subsequent developments deepened the divide in JNU. The sedition charges slapped on students for defying a unitary vision of India would have been nothing short of abhorrent to students trained to value multiple perspectives of reality. Science students tend to be less amenable to such a position, and therefore more susceptible to the dominant mode of thinking on the issue.

Left politics has traditionally offered a broad platform to the diversity of students at JNU. An admission policy that gives special consideration to women, as well as students from backward regions, has amplified the impact of reservation on the student demographic in the university. Besides, the university is host to a vibrant queer movement. Such a student body is incompatible with the ABVP, which remains male, upper caste and Hindi speaking at its core.

The rise of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association as principal opposition to the Left alliance is further testimony to the inability of ABVP to accommodate voices that may have been marginalised in Left discourses.

As far as the larger discourse on social media is concerned, the denigration of humanistic disciplines reflects a much larger problem in India’s education system. In western democracies, humanistic knowledge played a considerable role in shaping education systems, especially in the post-war period. The perils of science that did not operate within ethical bounds led to a premium on teaching ethics and humanism through history and language curricula in schools. Further, universities ensured exposure to various subjects, enabling conversations across disciplines and ideologies.

Indian education, on the other hand, came to be characterised by a disconnect between the sciences and the humanities. More specifically, technical education took precedence, as it was a better guarantor of employability and socioeconomic mobility in a developing country. Over time, this has come to reflect in school education as well, which gears students for competitive exams based on science curriculum. Further, colleges and universities dedicated exclusively to technical education have precluded the scope of broader conversations.

The original vision for scientific and technical education in India was deeply embedded in a larger socioeconomic milieu. It was meant to propel industrialisation and lift the Indian society out of poverty, superstition and backwardness and thus create the conditions for democratic government. This link between science and society was even written into the charters of institutions such as the IITs, resulting in the inclusion of humanities departments. While the premium on scientific and technical education has remained, the social and political context has gotten lost along the way. In its absence, science at the service of the nation, can scarcely exceed political rhetoric.


Does anyone remember this gem from Sagarika Ghosh:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-...alam-by-the-eminent-journalist-Sagarika-Ghose


Science is tough

Sagarika Ghose

Why’s the Great Indian Public thrilled about Bomb Daddy for president? Two answers. The first is obvious. We can’t help but feel a little relieved at the manner in which the Sangh has pulled off a cunning theft of secularism. After Gujarat we are terrified about the Sangh’s plans for the future of India. We had visions of the hairy Sant Paramhans flying up Raisina on an udan khatola. But in the midst of our fears… bang! Bomb Daddy explodes on the scene. He may be a token but at least he’s not ash-smeared with dreadlocks. But there’s a second answer: Indians love Science. Science is beloved of the Indian middle-class and particularly of the Hindu patriarchs of the Sangh parivar. In India, Real Men all study Science. Boys are programmed from an early age to make Science their chief obsession. The IITs are shrines to a certain high Hindu male technological libido. Atomic scientists, writes scientist Dhirendra Sharma, are a ‘super State’ within the State, comprising shadowy brahmanical scientists (mostly all Tam-Brahms and the occasional bawa like Bhabha) living antiseptic and secretive lives, loftily distant from the dirty masses. They are pampered by the government, ferried back and forth to spotless fortified labs where they carry out incomprehensible expensive experiments. Atomic scientists are the extremely powerful but invisible brahmins of India. Scientism is, in fact, nothing but a version of Hindu brahminism. Let’s carry out a survey. Murli Manohar Joshi is a physicist. So is NCERT Director J.S. Rajput. BP Singhal is an MSc. Pramod Mahajan is an MSc. Former RSS Sarsangchalak Rajju Bhaiyya taught physics at Allahabad University. Jaswant Singh is a BSc. KS Sudarshan is a telecommunications engineer. And what subject did MS Golwalkar study at Benares Hindu University? Science, of course! Science, suggests Australian writer Dan Madigan, is particularly compatible with religious fundamentalism. The hard sciences, as opposed to the soft humanities, create an orthodox and extremist mentality. A technological education, Madigan writes, has a ‘can do’ approach. It believes that with the right design and the right materials you can build just about anything, including a technologically engineered history and a technologically controlled society. The technological mind-set is profoundly impatient with the tentativeness, the ‘softness’ and the endless ‘may-be-may-not-be’ of the humanities. Guess what Osama bin Laden studied? Engineering, naturally. And Mohammad Atta? You got it. Also engineering. For Indians the Humanities are considered the ‘soft’ option. The Humanities or Arts, the great subjects of Plato and Aristotle which as the name suggests keeps society ‘human’, are subjects like History, Literature and Politics. Yet, paradoxically, these are considered ‘soft’ subjects and are studied mostly by women. Women study Arts. But Men study Science. Science is ‘hard’, extremely macho but potentially insane. Not that dear old Bomb Daddy has anything in common with fundamentalism. But as he embarks on his high office perhaps he might heed Nehru’s words: “Scientists can’t live in an ivory tower. If Science gets divorced from morality and ethics then it may be used for evil purposes. The scientific spirit must be essentially one of tolerance and the realisation that nobody has a monopoly on the truth.
 

Modi’s own credibility is now at stake. He responded to the terrorist storming of the Pathankot air force station at the beginning of this year by sharing intelligence about the attackers with Islamabad and allowing a Pakistani team to visit the base for investigations. This was done in the naïve hope of winning Pakistan’s anti-terror cooperation. Modi’s exchange of saris and shawls with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif, as well as his surprise visit to Lahore to wish Sharif on his birthday and attend his granddaughter’s wedding, attested to how New Delhi was focused on optics rather than outcomes.

 




Cs1yrqAUEAEarFp.jpg


BBC: HOW INDIA'S ARMY MIGHT AVENGE THE KASHMIR ATTACK

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37404332

India has to beg in absence of UNSC seat.
And only Russia can help, despite China's caution to it (Russia)

tem5gt6.png


I refuse to surrender 2019, hence I will respond - Modi ;)

If there is poor planning in retaliation and more Indian soldiers die, Modi to sit in parliament as leader of opposition.

Nuclear blackmail won’t be tolerated, says BJP
Stop this nonsensical talk BJP, we saw how well you tolerated this during Pathankot!
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom