Books; People; Ideas : These are few of my favourite things. As I live between day-to-day compromises and change-the-world aspirations, this is the chronicle of my journey, full of moments of occasional despair and opportune discoveries, of connections and creations, and, most of all, my quest of knowledge as conversations.
Subscribe to this blog
Follow by Email
Timely meditations: Indians and their cows
The cow cartoons explaining politics has now been greatly expanded (see the impressive range here) and an Indian version has become available. The joke, however, is timely, though slightly misdirected: The title should have been Indian ideology, rather than Indian corporation. [Indian corporation version, if one must try, would be - you have two cows. You outsource them. You buy back their half-diluted milk 25% cheaper. But then you build a dozen flats where the barn used to be.]
A lot of people ask me whether Indians really worship the cows. While the fact that Hindus don't eat beef was well-known, the recent news about cow vigilantism and cow-urine retail packs have brought the question to the fore. And, also, the other aspect of this debate is Hindu/ Indian distinction. Some parents in a local primary school petitioned 'Indians don't eat beef' and almost convinced everyone, until more enthusiastic ones tried to take this one step further - Indians don't eat meat, they said - for the whole idea to unravel.
Since Prime Minister Modi's government has come to power in India, cows have been in headline news. The consumption of beef, already a taboo in many states, has been banned in many other states, including in Jammu and Kashmir, the only state in India where Muslims are a majority. Buffalo meat was, ironically, one of the key export commodities from India, where the country had a technological advantage, but it stalled in the face of political uncertainty (See this story from The Economist). Various Indian state governments passed legislation restricting cattle sales and slaughter, and cow-vigilantism became headline news as it spread across the country and Ministers provided it tacit support by remaining silent in the face of lynching and burning of people accused of eating ot storing beef (or buying or selling cattle).
So, what about Hindus and the cows? Is it a sacred animal and why? When we know that the ancient Hindus did eat beef and sacrificed Oxen at festivals, why is it a big issue for today's Hinduvta warriors? It is worth exploring the back story, both genetic and religious, to understand the connection. However, at the outset, this is not an attempt at justification of the modern politics of the cows, which, as I hope the following paragraphs would show, is based on a profound but deliberate misinterpretation of the Hindu tradition.
Genetic evidence points to all existing cows originating from a single herd of wild Oxen in ancient Persia (see the story) and while many still debate about exact time of its domestication, we know of domesticated cows in the Indus valley about 8,000 years ago. That makes cows an early breed to be domesticated, and humped cow, in particular, a South Asian domestic animal of choice.
The lactose tolerance, a mutation that came with domesticated cows and something proved to be an evolutionary advantage as this was an easy source of nutrition, followed the same path out of Persia. It seems that this mutation moved from Persia to Europe (and is considered as one of the possible sources of European advantage) but also to India (see this report). It seems that the 'Aryans' brought cows and lactose tolerance to India, because most Indians in South and East India show less lactose tolerance than the North Indians. As the Aryans, who seemed to have been cow-herders, interacted with the settled farming communities in India, they brought the cow into the culture. In that sense, the ancient Indians and cows co-evolved together, and built bonds as deep as Central Asian or Middle Eastern tribes and their horses.
This brings us to the figure of cow (and Ox) in Hindu culture. For the Hindu texts, such as the epic Mahabharata, the cow is the symbol of the Earth while the Ox is the symbol of 'dharma', or duty. The earth, like the cow, is milked for sustenance - and as the giver of sustenance, one is to look after the mother earth (and the cow, as its symbol). This symbolism may have a material origin and arisen from the deep connections between the Aryans and their cows, but cows stood for an attitude of 'care', a commitment to nature, as Hinduism spread to other parts of India where cows were relatively new imports. Indeed, cows provided poor agricultural families a whole energy system, nutrition through milk and fuel through cow-dung, while Oxen were used in tilling the land. It is not difficult to guess why a community would want to discourage the slaughter of its cows for their meat when it was so integral to its existence.
So, yes, the Indian ideology is to build a life around two cows and be satisfied with it. Now, that's not what the current leader's political line is. For a start, the above-mentioned genetic lineage would be an anathema to him. The alien origin of the cows wouldn't sit well in the environment when everything has to be made in India to be acceptable. Besides, his complete disregard for the environment shows a superficial understanding of the Hindu tradition - taking the 'cow' literally rather than appreciating what it meant.
However, on the other hand, the 'liberal' disregard for the ideology of cows is also based on similar ignorance, and an arrogance to live outside history and tradition. It is important for the Indian liberals to understand the significance of cows in Indian culture (while Indian and Hindu are not equal, Hindus are a majority of the Indian people) and be more circumspect about dismissing sentiments about cattle as uneducated naivety. And, indeed, eating beef may not be progress in India; it may just stand for environmental vandalism.
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."
The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which appeared …
Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper etal, 1991). Arunthanesetal (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something).
The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive season, is …
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago.
Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so.
Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself.
Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was, as I …
Since October, as I walked out of my job, I have been looking to fine-tune my ideas about Education-to-Employment transition.
The first step of this was to look at the experiences of last six years, which I spent developing, first, an online competency-based education programme and then on building employer-engaged online project-based education. These were all good ideas, and the reason that I am not doing these any more are partially operational: The first business was underfunded, and the second one was poorly conceived and implemented. But those are discussions for a different day. I am focusing currently on understanding the key conceptual elements - what works and what doesn't work - of a successful education-to-employment transition.
Indeed, the claim that we can make a student employable with a few months of training is apparently pretentious. The years of schooling, family background and the students' dispensation, and luck, plays a much bigger role than any traini…
In an earlier post, I pointed out that the application of 'platform thinking' in education misses the mark, as it fails to understand how value is created in education. Since this apparently contradicts my earlier enthusiasm for the university as a 'user network', this statement needs further explanation.
To start with, Clayton Christiansen's idea that the universities of the Twentieth Century needs to evolve from its current 'value chain' model - wherein its value lies in its processes - to a form of User Network, where its value emanates from its community, still resonates with me. The Value Chain model, with departments, examinations, textbooks and degrees, that we know the university for, is very much a late Nineteenth/ early Twentieth century formulation. And, indeed, one can claim that the universities were always communities, and its value came from being a member of that community rather than its end product - the degrees - for much of history. It …
Business Schools are a great success story in Higher Education. What may have started as a Correspondence training was transformed by the establishment of University department in Pennsylvania with Joseph Wharton's money, to train the captains of American industry, in 1881. A generation later, with the founding of Harvard Business School in 1908, the whole global phenomenon has got started, though it took until 1954 for Cambridge University to start Management studies (which became a separate business school in 1995, while Oxford started its Business School in 1996). By the turn of the millennium, Business has become the most popular undergraduate subject, and increasingly Engineers and other technically trained professionals were coming to Business Schools to get credentialed. By this time, Business Schools became the most successful sector in Higher Education, with unparallelled prestige, and had developed an entire ecosystem of ranking, funding and accreditation of their own. …
In an ironic twist, many large employers in India complain that the education Indian graduates receive are too narrow.
Surely, the same employers, riding high on growth of IT services, helped model a tertiary education system - second largest in the world in terms of student numbers - as one narrowly, vocationally, defined. The glamour of the IT services industry, with an urban cosmopolitan life and the chance of lottery-draw for offshore opportunities, completely transformed Indian middle class life over the last two decades: That the whole ecosystem of Middle Class education, from Senior School to Business School, aligned itself to these new opportunities, is no surprise at all.
But this expansion has now stalled, offshore is becoming off limits, and the industry is transforming rapidly. Rather than each corporation trying to develop their various enterprise-wide systems from scratch, and thereby, handing out huge multi-year development contracts to be executed by an army of low…
For those who want to change the world through Powerpoint, there are some fundamental beliefs about Education.
Like, education is about 'human capital', making the individuals receiving education economically productive.
And, that, education is important for national competitiveness, the better educated its people are, the more competitive a nation will be.
That education is really about skills - being able to do things - rather than learning: Knowledge can be acquired on-demand and at leisure.
That educators should build close connections with employers and look to align themselves with their future talent needs.
These are ideas everyone - at least everyone who count - agree on. And, such agreement means that all the attention, along with all the money, gets diverted to certain specific things. And, with money and attention, a certain kind of education - a specific idea of education - becomes pre-eminent. It crowds out other ideas, drives out all the alternatives.
Ten years ago, I wrote a post on this blog about Lord Macaulay, or, more specifically, about a statement which he allegedly had made about India. I meant to debunk one of those Internet memes that seek to revise the history with a specific agenda: Now we call these things 'fake news'. Sent to me by a well-meaning and unsuspecting friend, it was a crude hoax, giving itself away in modern language and openly conspiratorial motive, apparently at odds with Reform Era English Intellectual manners and ideas. It took me a few minutes on Google to figure out that the quote came not from Macaulay, but a Hinduvta journal published in the United States in the 70s, which invented the statement.
At that time, almost exactly 10 years ago, this blog was a hobby, my scrapbook of ideas, something I did with no other purpose than keeping the habit of writing. The post about Macaulay changed all that. Little did I suspect how popular and widespread the usage of that quote was, and how many peo…
I wrote about the origin story of the Indian Education system (See An 'Indian' Education) to argue that 'Indianness' of Education does not necessarily have to be regressive, ritualistic or religious. The current tendency of relegating any discussion about an Indian Education to obscurantism cedes the space to Hindu Fundamentalists, who are left free to promote their particular, limited and historically inaccurate ideas. However, a culturally congruent education is much needed at a time when Indian society is at a crossroad, the pains of globalisation is hurting and the crisis of identity is real and urgent.
This post is a rejoinder to the earlier one. Here, I intend to expand my argument that the Indian system of education did not break out from its earlier, imperial, mode. This is a familiar argument that the cultural nationalists make all the time, but, since I didn't think that British imperial education was necessarily English-only (rather, it promoted the mod…