If India wasn't partitioned

National
1. India might have still lost the 1962 war
2. The civilian democracy would have still survived
3. The nation would have become strongly federal

International
1. The USA would have found it difficult to support Afghan Mujahideen
2. The communist dictatorship in Afghanistan would have survived
3. The Soviet Union would have lingered bit longer
4. The Taliban would have never been created
5. The 9/11 might not have happened
6. The ISIS wouldn't have been there

Social
1. Hindutva wouldn't have grown so strong
2. The Babri Masjid would have survived

3. Linguistic faultlines would have been exacerbated

4. The Muslim birthrate would have come down quicker. The present-day Pakistan region  would have had a smaller population than present-day Bangladesh region
5. Conversions to Christianity and Islam from the caste system would have been higher
6. Many regions with 30% Muslim population would have been close to 50% because of migrations and conversions
7. There would have been stronger OBC and Dalit movements

About prayers

I guess one could distinguish between acceptable prayers and unacceptable prayers as one would do between acceptable bribery and unacceptable bribery.

Here prayer is for the future gains or thanking the deity for any gains.

Acceptable:
1. sickness
2. fertility
3. impending fatal danger
4. clearing an exam

Unacceptable:
1. surviving an accident in which many others perished
2. for jobs
3. for better grades
4. more money

Basically, anything where the believer is the only beneficiary is acceptable, however, in situations where it appears as if god/s has/ve to take sides praying is unacceptable. One shouldn't put limits on gods for the greater good of the society.

Of human behaviour

There is a thinking that human society progressively improves. But the present situation where the right-wing is in ascendence makes one wonder. Many Sci-Fi TV serials or movies show that the basic human nature is consistent and never transcend even after amazing technological innovations. So, our imagined future as depicted in Science Fiction or the reality where the right-wing is getting away with atrocious statements and deeds tells otherwise. I wonder whether we need to disassociate human society from human nature.

I may not be able to define basic human nature. I'll put them into the following categories.
1. Humans with criminal tendencies(or selfish streak) who can be part of all the classes and who can harm the society for their benefit
2. Humans in survival mode who probably form most of the lower and middle class and probably majority women, and who generally maintain the status-quo though always under the impression that they are doing good
3. Humans defined by the puritanical definition of "good", can be anyone from an Islamic fundamentalist to a Vegan activist, who can bring radical changes to the society by generally suffocating it
4. Humans with individualistic streak who can be part of all the classes, who are always a positive influence on the society but lack the resources and mindset to sustain it

Typically, the nature of the sedentary human society was decided by the males from the groups (1) and (3) and sustained by the conflict-weary group (2). This is known as patriarchal or feudal society. Now, most of the societies have become liberal or culturally socialist societies. This was achieved by the coming together of groups (4) and (2).

But what we can observe that group (2) isn't a reliable group. Their survival instincts can be manipulated easily. As the oppression by the feudal society is a thing of past, they can no longer associate inhumanity with the patriarchal ideas. This has allowed groups (1) and (3) to regain power.

However, the laws of the society have been successfully changed for the benefit of the majority in many cases during the socialist interlude. Now, the new feudal power can oppress minority populations(which itself can be divided into all those four groups) while maintaining group (2)'s sense of security.

Basically, the new laws are responsible for the continuous evolution of the society in a positive direction. However, majority humans within that have continued to be in the same mental attitude as their forefathers.

Random Thoughts - Our Election Process

As our political landscape changes from the one between centre-left and left parties to right-wing and left-wing, I wonder whether we need to have a system similar to the US without their presidential democracy. Maybe, we need the NDA and UPA having primaries first before contesting against each other.

With each day passing, crony capitalism (or sophisticated corruption of the highest order) is becoming murkier. We at least need people to get a chance to vote based on country's economy rather than ideology or at least need to give them a chance to vote where communal polarization is irrelevant so that they can choose candidates based on other competencies.

Then again, the candidates need to raise the money twice but I guess that could be circumvented by having only one campaign and back to back primary and main elections.

The migrant population - i

Societies can remain distinct despite migration

Via Science Daily

I guess it's inevitable that studies like this would be carried out in a greater number considering the present situation. It is a must to understand;
- What would be the allowable migrant percentage in a country?
- Is that percentage a constant with every ethnic group or can go up or down considering the privileged position of the culture and the language those migrating populations bring?
- If the acculturation is possible in 2-3 generations, how do we calculate the effective migrants?
- Is the allowable percentage calculated without any consideration of different identities or is it specific to one identity?
- Is this percentage calculation considers ghettoisation?


I guess this study is a good start.

He added: "While the models here might counter extreme conservative claims that any level of migration is detrimental for the maintenance of cultural traditions, they also count against extreme liberal claims that migration can never be too high.
"For very high rates of migration (e.g. where half the population is replaced by immigrants in every generation) then cultural variation between societies is typically eroded completely.
"While such levels exceed modern-day migration rates, such a situation might resemble past colonisation events.

Our matrilineal future - II

In this video, there is a strong argument for double-barrelled surnames, where you pass the surname according to your gender to the next generation. This is a good proposal as it keeps the uniparental lineages of both sides in every generation intact.

But for simplicity, I'll still stick to surname inheritance based on your gender in each generation. Maybe if you've children of only one gender, double-barrelled look reasonable, however, I still don't agree with that as it shows surnames have some kind of significance and people have the need to pass their identity. That kind of thinking should be made invalid. On the other hand, "I'll take up my wife's surname because smash the patriarchy" is another extreme which trivialises the whole thing by making it a joke and thus general population don't find anything wrong with the current situation.

Surname Dilemma, via BBC

Random Thoughts - Love_Lust

"I am homoromantic; I feel platonic love, but have no sexual desires."
Asexual and proud of it
Maybe I should have used 'romance' instead of 'amour'!

So the present list includes:
Heterosexual-Heteroamoural -> Anna Karenina (Fictional, Anna Karenina), Max Weber
Heterosexual-Homoamoural -> Nick Carraway (Fictional, The Great Gatsby), Tom Daley
Heterosexual-Inamoural -> Emma Bovary (Fictional, Madame Bovary)
Homosexual-Homoamoural ->  Uncle Frank (Fictional, Little Miss Sunshine)
Homosexual-Heteroamoural -> Francis Bacon, Freddie Mercury, Chirlane McCray, Brandon Ambrosino
Homosexual-Inamoural -> ?
Asexual-Heteroamoural-> Emy, a French woman, Devi, Gill, Jon and Ian from UK
Asexual-Homoamoural -> Vibhor Sen
Asexual-Inamoural -> ?

Fandry, Sairaat and a new wave of realism

In the 50s, Raj Kapoor was busy making movies where the protagonist was mostly a poor man. Nargis was Kapoor's co-star in many of these movies. (She was, of course, the rich girl) Kapoor's movies were entertainers and no where close to reality.

In 1955, first of Satyajit Ray's movies - Pather Panchali was released. He made a few more movies based in rural India. (Apart from the Pather Panchali trilogy, there is Ashani Sanket, based on the Bengal famine) I think, this can be seen as start of realism in Indian movies.

In the 80s, Nargis, who worked in Kapoor's many "poor-man" movies accused Ray of "showcasing Indian poverty to the world". I read that it was her maiden speech as Rajya Sabha member and I think she can be forgiven for the comment. (One has to say something in speeches after all, she wanted the world not to see India as poor but as a progressive country.) Satyajit Ray, of course, stands acquitted. But this comment draws me to the mark Marathi movies are making today, portraying poor and underprivileged people.

Starting with Sairaat, Sairaat is about a boy from a family of fishermen, who loves a girl from a rich family in his village. Their life in the village and life after they run to the city is shot with realism very rare for a commercial movie with song and dance numbers. Then I wanted to watch Fandry by the same director (Nagaraj Manjule). If I thought Sairaat was real, then Fandry took realism few notches up. (Actually Fandry was shot before Sairaat and the director brought realism few notches down.)

Fandry was also about a teenage boy who loves a girl of "upper caste" and is really ashamed of his family - who have to do the odd cleaning jobs in the village, cleansing the village of pigs for one. It's difficult to believe that the protagonist's father - Kishore Kadam, is a professional actor and not an amateur picked for the role! And the boy - Somnath Avghade (maybe 13 when he acted in the movie) had expressions on his face that one cannot have after one grows up. (I think some facial muscles become dormant by constant un-use) He has very few dialogues in his voice that is cracking up as he is attaining puberty, even though he is on the screen for most of the scenes. Acting and technology in Marathi movies has taken a big leap since the last Marathi movie - Shwaas (2004) that I had watched.

The third movie in my list was Chauranga, a Hindi movie, I realized disappointingly once I started watching - A NFDC produced movie. As some cliched dialogues came up and as I saw some familiar faces, I realized it's just like any other movie. (I'm only half way through, though.) Made for pan-India and the age old story of exploitation of the "lower-caste" woman by "upper-caste" male. (among other things)

But the realization for me here is that Indian audience is adjusting to the realism and thanks to Social Media there is nothing hidden about a country to the outside world and one can be as close to real as one can dare. But, as I read in another article, movies that are made for pan-India and with commercial motives and market dynamics in mind (like Dhadak which is a remake of Sairaat in Hindi) cannot really dare!

New age Vaidikism Vs Buddhism/Jinaism

The kind of blatant attacks on the AAP politicians by the central government run by Hindutvites reminds me of Brahmin and Kshatriya supremacy disputes that led to the creation of Buddhism and Jinaism by the Kshatriya intellectuals. At the time, Brahmins with the help of the caste system, other Kshatriyas and the Sudras who became the rulers but remained subservient could prevail upon the religions which didn't have anything for the married people.

The present-day Hindutva movement, even though termed as Brahmin-Bania, is basically brahmanical in its ethos. But the merchant castes are its strongest backers including the Jains who are now only next to Brahmins in casteism.

Mr Kejirwal's party can attract many from the merchant castes in its fold if it grows in strength and the BJP dreads that scenario. So, we now see unprecedented attacks on the AAP members as if the Hindutva party's existence depends upon its decimation.

It's interesting while the Kshatriya religions, talked about 'ahimsa'(non-violence) when that Varna itself was the main perpetrator of the physical violence in the society. It's a different matter altogether that with the infuse of merchants and Brahmins, who weren't directly responsible for the physical violence, ahimsa focussed on non-human violence. A while ago, I made a comment that for merchants, true ahimsa meant they would cease to practice corrupt practices as that would lead to misery in the society. For Brahmin converts, it should have been the violence that they inflicted in the society in the form of the caste system. But if you see present-day Jains, then both corruption and casteism have become part-parcel of the religion making the mockery of its founders.

With this background, it's interesting to note that Mr Kejriwal's movement was against corruption which, just as Kshatriyas, is against the dominant practice of the Varna he was born. But it can get corrupted and ideology-less, self-preserving brahmanical Hindutva party can still prevail in the end.

In which population genetics debunked Aryan Migration Theory and reinstated Aryan Invasion Theory

According to the study, The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, Indians are a hybrid group of;
1. Dravidians
2. Indus Valley People
3. Indo-Aryans

The Indus Valley people were a mix of Dravidians and Elamites.
Indo-Aryans were a mix of Europeans and Elamites.

There were two distinct groups.
1. Ancient North Indian: Mix of Indo-Aryans and Indus Valley people
2. Ancient South Indian: Mix of Dravidians and Indus Valley people

These two groups later mixed at a varying degree to form the present day Indians.

Interestingly, the major percentage (70-99%) of Indian genome belongs to Dravidians and Indus Valley people.

This again gives credence to the Aryan Invasion Theory where predominantly male Central Asian people, invaded and ruled over the local population spreading their culture and language. The female lineage(mtDNA haplogroup) is predominantly Dravidian and Elamite.

Indian Astronomy

The traditional Indian knowledge was aware of the planets like Mercury(Budha), Venus(Shukra), Mars(Mangala), Jupiter(Guru) and Saturn(Shani). I wonder whether we can identify if that's a self-developed or borrowed discovery.

The traditional Indian Astrology adds two additional planets Rahu and Ketu to this set. I think that shows it was not an autochthonous idea. If it was then they would have known how those planets were identified in the first place (like the Greeks did). And if they knew the systematic study that went behind it, they wouldn't have taken the poetic liberty to add two additional planets, unless of course, if one considers Astrology is some kind fantasy poem.

Position of Tulu Language - V

For whatever its worth;

While the NeighborNet network clearly distinguishes three groups, reticulate signal is evident for Tulu, which is located on the edge of the South I subgroup and shows some affinity with Brahui, and Telugu and Koya. 

I've previously argued that Tulu was influenced by Telugu or SD-II languages.

Reference:
A Bayesian Phylogenetic study of the Dravidian Language Family, Kolipakam et al. (2018)

Gender neutral language

The other day, I was listening to a ghazal. I observed that both lover and lovee were males. I searched for articles on this. One view on this was that the intention was to make the poem universal and hence it's not masculine but gender neutral. So we should view them from gender neutral perspective and not from homosexuality angle. The other view was that, homosexuality was never a sin in Indian society hence poets wrote freely about their homosexual love. We can't view them from post-British anti-homosexual angle.

I'm in no place to analyze them, nevertheless, I'm interested in gender neutral language. I suppose not just in poems, we need gender neutral language in many places. Our attempt to achieve it, using he or she or singular they, looks very clumsy. The gendered language itself was an innovation in our speech once declensions started appearing (and sometimes disappearing at a later time). These innovations introduced new terms or affixes to the language. But what we are trying to do is to use the existing terms and try to give it a dual meaning or elaborating them. Why is it impossible to come up with new animate terms for gender neutral language? The gender neutral language might have started as a correction to patriarchy but now the lack of it looks more like a limitation.