Posted on January 14th, 2010 at 3:37 pm

Gotama's Men Says:

Our Stand

Although multiple interpretations of the given topic are possible, we shall go with the defense’s definitions of Global Dominance and Hindustan. Hindustan is defined as the “culture and mindset of our (Indian) people which has evolved over a long history of more than 3000 years culminating in today’s realities.” However, the defense just flags a dead horse when it conveniently clubs together everything that can be termed “undesirable” under the name Hindustan and makes the obvious assertion that these should be prevailed upon in the march towards global dominance. First, this convenient clubbing readily closes the argument because nowhere do we really see an appraisal of the attitudes and mindset that form this Hindustan as an organic entity with complex interconnections. Instead, in the imagination of the defense, all that is evil and good exists separately in this mental-space and the evil should and could be dispensed with, when necessary. Moreover, the defense also fails to adequately think over the possibility of India losing all that is good in Hindustan in its path towards global dominance.

Harping on Peripheral Issues

Furthermore, while the defense is right in listing economic wealth, military power and soft power as the categories constituting global dominance, the team has not listed the determinants of these individual categories and has failed to relate how the evils that it finds with “Hindustan” may affect these components and thus thwart India’s quest for global dominance. Further, it is our stand that absence of risk taking propensity, failure to aim big and superstitions are peripheral issues when one thinks about factors constraining India in her quest for global dominance. The team has glossed over core issues like the absence of egalitarian ideals, the marginalization of sections of society based on caste etc., which can be directly ascribed to “Hindustan” and which are significant impediments in our road to prosperity.

We also find that there are many factual errors, omissions and inherent inconsistencies in the argument presented by the defense, which we have listed below.

1. The bold assertion that India has traditionally been a very tolerant society must be backed up by equally strong evidence. Also, one must question what ‘Indian society’ defined as a monolithic entity represents in the long history of the subcontinent. From the Pandya dynasty’s violent repression of Jainism in the South1, to the Islamic persecution of the “infidels” of India in the medieval times in Delhi2 and the northern kingdoms, to the struggle between Sikhs and Mughals in Punjab mainly on the basis of religious faith3, religious intolerance found its full expression in different regions of India with very different religious/ethnic demographics at different points of time.

2. Even the diverse pagan belief systems of India, which are collectively termed today as Hinduism, have given rise to such deeply rooted social divisions within them that they overshadow the brief instances of state-sponsored religious and ethnic pluralism in Indian history. To term religions like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and even the atheistic Carvaka school of thought- all of which originated essentially as a critique of the established religious traditions of the day- to be a part of Hinduism is a bastardization of what ‘religion’ means. From being a set of beliefs and practices, it brings religion down to an ethnic identity, assigning any school of thought that originates in the subcontinent as Hinduism. It must be remembered in this context that the only information that has survived today of Carvaka and his teachings are works of those who have vilified him and disapproved of his methods.

3. Even if we assume the defense’s point that India has been traditionally a tolerant society and that communal tensions are only a recent artifact to be true, how does the defense in the very next breath conclude that these current problems come from a “culture and mindset of the masses which has evolved over a 3000 year history”? There is an inherent contradiction in this argument.

4. Regarding the lack of risk-taking ability in Indians: In a country with 42% of its population below poverty line5, ascribing the lack of risk taking ability to culture and mindset is basically putting the cart before the horse. It is because failure arising out of risk directly implies lack of food, clean water and basic amenities for most people in the country, that the Indian society, with its joint family system, discourages accepting failure. In this context post-liberalization India, which encouraged privatization and disinvestment before educating its masses and providing healthcare, has only further hampered the possibility for a majority of the people living in “Hindustan” to develop entrepreneurship.

5. The defense’s argument about the threats to multi-cultural pluralism in India, by invoking modern instances of xenophobic and religious bigotry, again raises the question of whether it is Hindustan or (modern) India, which is the problem.

6. It is an indisputable fact that racial segregation, in the form of casteism, in India is truly very old and is a part of “Hindustan”. On the other hand, caste-based reservations have their origins in the transformation of India from a colonial pre-modern society to an inclusive social democracy. While it might be true that their misuse today is being fed by the old feudal psyche of Indians, the defense’s blaming it instead on the Indian mindset of taking easy solutions (doesn’t this sound like a subjective judgment of the present? Does this have a historical aspect to it?) and competitive politicking raises questions on whether these problems have been analyzed by the defense in any proper perspective. Further, while the defense argues at length about the ills of caste based reservations, which is a fairly recent phenomenon, the team has failed to address the problems ingrained in the caste based work division system, which Hindustan accepted for thousands of years. For instance, the defense has not critiqued “revered scriptures” of Hindustan like Manusmriti, whose regressive attitude towards women and lower castes4 formed the basis of discrimination for centuries, ideals which definitely would not serve India in good light if it is to position itself as a country with significant soft power.

Posted on January 14th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

Team Me, Myself & Chotu Says:

Cut the roots and then lets see how tall the tree grows. The very needs that have been cited as the reason for the presented argument, can only be satiated by the best of Hindustan and India. It takes not a minute to refer to the current trends, but look deep, what is the reason behind it. Moving forward is a perception if one is running on a treadmill; hit the ground and you would have all the doubts about your stamina, vanish in thin air

In a world where nations, big and small, are breaking into micro entities, often with disastrous consequences, India has demonstrated its inherent strength. This strength comes from its composite culture that has made India a truly vibrant democracy, the largest in the world – a country where unity thrives on diversity. In its quest for modernization, India has preserved its ancient civilization and never lost sight of the ideals that gave her strength through countless centuries. Science and technology has been steadily raising the living standard and prosperity of its people, but the nation of more than one billion people – one sixth of humanity – continues to live with some of its traditional values that go back 4,000 years and more.

India has a highly complex and colourful social mosaic. Yet, although characterized by a vast spread of cultural diversity and heterogeneity, this mosaic is not chaotic. It has a clearly discernible pattern, wherein socio-cultural diversity draws its strength and sustenance from India’s composite culture and civilizational thrust. This culture has evolved over centuries, through a process of assimilation and amalgamation of the diverse cultural influxes coming with the hordes of invaders – the Aryans, the Sakas, the Huns, the Pathans, the Moghuls, and the Europeans. Thus, the evolved composite culture of India cannot be compared either with the melting-pot of American society or with the multinational state exemplified by the now defunct Soviet Union. India’s socio-cultural mosaic is the true picture of “unity in diversity,” like a bouquet of flowers or vegetables in a salad bowl, where every component, while retaining its specific identity, is a part of a larger whole.

All ill-effects of ‘Hindustan’ have been stated by the team but what do they imply by ‘India’? When you take the essence out of a Country, nothing remains except for its Name that can be carried altogether forward. As Vivekananda rightly spoke at the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago,
“Shall India die? Then, from the world all spirituality will be extinct, all sweet-souled sympathy for religion will be extinct, all ideality will be extinct ; and in its place will reign the duality of lust and luxury as the male and female deities, with money as its priest, fraud, force, and competition its ceremonies, and human soul its sacrifice. Such a thing can never be’. Precisely such a terrible might remain on account of the inexorable and immutable process of Globalization while leaving behind the Heart and essence of our country which lies in its culture for which it is known for”.

It was this ‘Hindustan’ that brought us our freedom and has been fighting well and protecting our borders since ages. It is this internal unity and strength of character of individuals which the entire world knows and this has been moulded together through the cultural diversity and mutual harmony which are being ridiculed at and considered as impediments in path of global dominance.

Heinz Werner Wessler says India’s traditional multi-cultural society that came into being in the pre-modern context, is probably the most important resource for a political and cultural vision of “Unity and Diversity”. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Independent India’s first Prime Minister, often said India’s strength is “the unity in diversity”. While a majority accepts this motto, some lay stress on its inevitability. Because, they remark, the motto may imply to mean that while we recognizes the actually existing diversity we also appreciate the need for unity. Hence, they say, unity and diversity are not contradictory but complementary. At the same time, the modern state in principle always approves of diversity and looks for ways to enable minorities to identify themselves with the state as much as possible.

Whatever may be the debate about political unity and cultural diversity in India, the fact is the diverse peoples of India have developed a peculiar type of culture far different from any other type in the world and have learned to live together as one people. This unity transcends the countless diversity of blood, color, language, dress, manners, sect et al and without these, the so called global dominance for a country like India makes no sense when its heart ‘Hindustan’ is left behind.

Posted on January 14th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Team Manfest Says:

INTRODUCTION

We would like to close our arguments in favor of the topic “In the path to global dominance, India must first prevail over Hindustan”. While closing our argument, we intend to clarify our stand, present our arguments firmly and answer the questions raised by the other teams in their defense.

REITERATING OUR STAND

We defined Hindustan as “the culture and mindset of our people which has evolved over a long history of more than 3000 years culminating in today’s realities”. This would refer to the lifestyle led by our people with prominence to the soft power, (Nye, 2004) strength of tolerance, appreciation of diversity and other aspects which are misused, such as the vestiges of caste system, untouchability, religious dogmas – “theory of outsiders” as propagated by a few evil political forces. Our interpretation of global dominance (which is a vast topic) focused on 3 major components – significant economic power, adequate military power and soft power. While we strongly opined that soft power is a major advantage that we possess, there is a long way to go in a lot of other factors that have been discussed in the summary below.

SUMMARY OF OUR ARGUMENTS

In the course of the debate, we have discussed the factors that illustrate how the ill-effects Hindustan either directly or indirectly hampers the progress of India.

• Religious Tolerance
  India has traditionally been known for religious tolerance, the testimony for which lies in this nation being the nursery of so many religions other than Hinduism and absorbing various religions into our culture are including atheism. However with a few political parties seek political mileage out of the “Hindustan Theory” and “the Outsiders theory, the religious tolerance has been threatened in a few instances. India must deal with this enroute global dominance
• Easy Way Out – Caste based Reservation
  Indians have taken the easy way out in many situations. Caste-based reservations in education, employment, & politics are a case in point. While reservations provide opportunities to deprived sections of society, currently it has become a prize to be secured in competitive politicking. The vestiges of the caste system that still exists in the society are ill effects of Hindustan. In the long run, it might be nearly impossible to retreat the policy in India’s democratic framework. The current method of implementation has been done even when better alternative methods based on economic parameters aren’t even taken up for discussion by the decision makers. From these larger issues to smaller ones such as bribing a traffic constable to escape paying a fine, the whole system is caught up in a bad equilibrium.
• Superstitions and ascriptions to the supernatural
  Ascription of the outcome of events in the life of individuals to supernatural forces and “actions in past births” are evil effects that still remain among our people. These ideas probably made sense of life at an age when science and the spirit of enquiry were still nascent. Performance of Caesarean sections so that a child is born at a specific ‘auspicious’ time (Singh, 2007), crimes against women and refusal to take medicines are still observed in parts of the country. Any nation which aspires to dominate the global stage in the 21st century needs to be forward looking and promoting scientific enquiry which starts at the level of individuals and communities. While India has covered significant ground in this direction there is still a long way to go.
• Aiming Big
  Dhirubhai Ambani once famously said, “Indians have lost the art of dreaming big” (Piramal, 1996). The attitude of “Sab Chalta Hai” exists among the people in our country that has seeped in and existed for generations. This attitude has irritated tireless workers like Pandit Nehru and J.R.D.Tata. Be it an MNC that has made it to the Fortune 500 or a nation that is at the apex of global dominance, thinking big is quintessential and while India has encountered a lot of change in professionalism, there is still quite a way to go.

RESPONSE TO REBUTTALS

In this section, we would like to go over the main points of criticism of our defense and clarify our stand.

THE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS OF HINDUSTAN

A significant part of the rebuttals of most teams has been based on the various ways in which ‘Hindustan’ can be interpreted. For example, Team 2 attacked our argument based on a misconception that by Hindustan, we mean the economically backward regions of India. Our stand on what
we interpret as Hindustan has been stated clearly at the beginning of our defense.

Both Teams 4 and 6 have opined that we are arguing for a total break from the past in order to forge forward and become dominant on the world stage. However, nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, we have strongly stated that the advantages of Hindustan are the platforms over which India should forge towards the path of development and global dominance, particularly with respect to soft power. However there are other aspects such as rising intolerance, superstitions, and low risk appetite which do hamper growth and development. We certainly believe that these factors which we want to be weeded out of our culture are not the “essence” (as Team 6 puts it) of the nation. Also, removing these negative factors would only strengthen the national unity while preserving our diversity.

We are unsure as to whether Team 3 had the time to read our report carefully. The site that we have “Neglected core issues such as egalitarian ideals and the evils of the caste system, which have been covered by us in detail over two sections dealing with “religious intolerance” and “taking the easy way out”

CLARIFICATION ON CITATION

We wish to clarify the confusion about the ‘piecemeal citation’ that Team 2 has accused us of. We had stated that “Cultural factors such as encouragement and support offered by family and facilitator organizations hamper risk taking”. Team 2 provided another result from the same paper which had found that “The majority of the respondents in the sample stated that they received a lot of family support to carry on their entrepreneurial activity” and also that the majority of entrepreneurs are from joint families. However, this is a fallacy of argument which does not refute our proposition since what the rebuttal basically states is that out of the surveyed entrepreneurs, most of them had received support from their families. But our stand (based on the results cited) is that the number of entrepreneurs emerging out of the system itself is low and that that the low risk appetite of the Indian society, which according to scholars is one of the reasons for the joint family system, is a responsible factor. Also, we are not advocating that the joint family system itself needs to be overcome in order to create more entrepreneurs, on the contrary we aim to say that the risk-taking propensity needs to be encouraged enroute global dominance

MISCELLANEOUS CLARIFICATIONS

Team 7 counters our view that superstitions and belief in astrology hamper development of the Indian society by citing a survey which shows that three fourth of Americans believe in some paranormal activity. A closer look at the survey points out that only 25% believe in astrology while most believe in relatively less significant (because of negligible impact on everyday life) beliefs such as ESP and haunted houses. While in India, these beliefs can often result in whether an activity is performed and even in determining the suitability of a marriage partner.

Team 4 says that while Hindustan is secular, religious riots have occurred mainly as a result of politically motivated propaganda. A closer reading of our defense would indicate that this is precisely what we have argued as well. That’s why we have cited it as a misuse of Hindustan rather than intolerance, by itself, being a problem in Hindustan. For example, it is not a coincidence that the Shiv Sena refers to India as Hindustan. However, even though it is a misuse of Hindustan, it remains a fact that the misuse has cost the lives and livelihoods of the people in the country and there is need for a change in attitudes. This is because misuse by vested interests alone cannot suffice to result in large scale violence without existence of an underbelly of intolerance among the populace.

CONCLUSION – CHANGING TRENDS

We concur with Team 7, that the “not aiming big” attitude has decreased with Indian companies competing aggressively with MNCs. Isn’t this evidence that India has already begun shredding negative aspects of Hindustan enroute global dominance. Also, the multiplicity of cultures and the recent trends of export of our culture such as yoga, spirituality, and music (as propounded by Team 4) substantiate the soft power provided by the positive aspects of Hindustan and should remain an integral part of India. Based on the strength of our beliefs and arguments, we strongly opine that in the path to global dominance, India must first prevail over Hindustan.

Posted on January 25th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Ernie Lamacchia Says:

List and find open houses on onlyopenhouses.com

Posted on April 19th, 2010 at 2:11 am