Whoisjohngalt

Has anyone read Indian capitalist authors? If so, could you please give me the book and author? I know that Gurcharan Das is a capitalist author, but, I have not heard of any other.

In a polygamous marriage, all the wives may not be fully satisfied by the husband. Actually, I don't think it violates anyone's rights as such.

[Mod's note: merged with earlier thread. sN] What do the members think about polygamy? Should it be made legal for anyone to choose to be a polygamist? If you ask me, I think polygamy is barbaric and should be banned. Just wanted to know the thoughts of others here.

Anyway, my point in raising the issue of sharia law in India was to show how the Indian government is encouraging Islamic fundamentalism by refusing to push for reforms in the Islamic community. India is the only country where muslims are paid by the tax-payers' money to go to Mecca for Haj! If this is seperation of state and church, then I am Emperor Ashoka. The worship of death and destruction that is inherent in religion was institutionalised in India by Gandhi through slogans like sarva-dharma-samabhav ("equal respect for all religions") which has resulted in unrestrained support of religion by the government. On a side note, not too surprisingly, Gandhi's followers, after his death, quickly migrated to socialism, under which India has been suffering ever since independence.

No comments on that!

Ok. I think the 2nd option would be the right one. BTW should these posts be moved into a seperate thread?

You are listing the positive points of the Raj and I do not disagree with them. But, the fact that artificial poverty and starvation were imposed on Indians is a blot on that rule. I have not gone through any trustworthy data on 19th century economics in India, but I remember reading in one of Will Durant's books that the Vijayanagara Empire was the richest state in the medieval world. But are you saying India would anyway have been poor if the British had not come?

Actually, I know of many muslim men in India with multiple wives. What do you think of this? As to your question, as long as the couple make rational arrangements in the contract, I don't see why I'd oppose the existence of multiple types of marriage contracts, although I don't know the status of this kind of law in other non-Islamic democratic countries.

I don't know ehat you are driving at, but I think you are talking about religious freedom here. Thats a different issue altogether. IMO religious freedom along with freedom of speech and freedom of thought should increase in India. What do you think? BTW, read up on sharia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia. There is nothing worse than this for either muslims or non-muslims. This is barbaric and deserves to be left in the medieval ages.

Well, I called those who seek physical dominance over other by destroying other people as nihilists. Again, I'm not sure about the exact motives of the British imperialists. When I thought about it, I figured it had to be trade. They did not do much physical damage, but the economic damage is quite evident.

Thanks for the clarification. Well, the result of the colonisation was destruction of human beings. I cannot comment on the motives of the colonialists as historians are varied in opinion regarding their motives which may range from religion (Islamic conquests), prosperity (Columbus's search for India), desire for physical domination (Nazi colonialisation). But I think all the colonialist motives could be reduced to the last one which is pretty much nihilism.

Yes, but do you have an alternative definition of it? I am sorry, but I think sharia law is barbaric and it does not have any merits whatsoever, just as the Hindu scriptural laws are not valid today. But unfortunately, India has never "merged" with any country. All the people in India (including muslims) have been living there for thousands of years. In such a case, maintaining communal differences and claiming to be a "secular" state (as the Indian constitution does) is absurd. IMO, this may be a strawman. Just substituting one mystical irrationality with another is stupid. In fact I think the lack of freedom for individuals who criticise religions is a more dangerous trend in India as we are seeing with the recent Islamic cartoons and Pope controversies. I support the so-called "new Hindu assertiveness" as it actually allows for individual freedom in trying to continue in the same religion as they are born. Anyway, I would like to see India move past religion of all sorts and adopt genuine secualrism in all aspects of life.

That is true. This is not a forum to debate history (not with my knowledge of it at least ). Ideologically I disagree with colonialism as I think its just a nihilistic incursion of some powerful people into another country. I am not a pacifist though.

It means that the peoples of a nation and their way of life are determined by their blood inheritance rather than their brains or intelligence. Good bye individual freedom.

Vimana salesman I don't think describing the British Raj as "glorious" would be doing justice. But yes, during the last 10 or 15 years, our economy is slowly transforming into an open market. And yes, the majority of Indians are still farmers.

Actually I am quite surprised reading the above lines as this imples that multi-culturalism is good. I think that the personal law boards must be scrapped immediately and a uniform civil law should come into place, but I know I may look like this: and I know not many Indians will agree with me.

Regarding the British rule in India, it was evil precisely because because socialism is evil. They too looted India much like the socialists are doing now for the past 60 years. On the question of whether all colonialism is bad, I wouldn't know the answer as I don't know how badly the Native Americans or the Australian aborigines or the South American natives were affected by the colonialists. Moreover, objectivism requires that you have a pride of being and that pride can be sustained only if the natives have it inherently and not as a colonially induced pride (like saying "I am proud to be colonialised"). Moreover we cannot say a somewhat woolly word like "modern" is always good, as it is in the modern times that reason and freedom are threatened the most by some evil idealogies (I think this is mentioned in Atlas Shrugged). Therefore I am against accepting any thing blindly albeit it be allegedly "modern".

The pro-Islam socialists and other leftists have nurtured the demon of Islam in India. Communists in the Kerala state have created a seperate district for muslims! Just shows how low these people will go for the "common good". The leftists here are politically surviving helped a great deal by the votes of devout sharia following muslims (the medieval sharia law has been in force in India since independence. )! Take a look at http://www.news.faithfreedom.org for the latest on Islam if you already haven't. [spun off a separate thread on "Sharia Law in India". - sN]

Nietzsche, Darwin,some of the pet enemies of Bible-thumpers. I wouldn't expect any better from such a site. But including Marx above Hitler was appreciable as the former's theology is doing its damage to millions even today.

Tolien's the only one I've read in the list.

The tradition of thought as a continuation of the Greek civilisation is a very important point you bring up. There was a lot of give and take between the Greeks and the Indians as I learn from the history books. India too is "competing" with Islam but we are largely crippled by lack of freedom and rationalism. On the other hand, do you think the christian influence on the western civilisation has been something worthwhile or natural or is it a sore-spot, because Christianity had cut off all freedom and rationality during the Dark Ages? I agree with most of your other points. But, living in India, I know that the so-called "modern" India is really a mockery on the term. The British rule left us impoverished (we were the richest people before that) and the disease of socialism/communism that had taken over the minds of our political class was largely a result of "British socialism" or Fabian socialism introduced to Indian intellectuals from England. I feel socialism/communism is a carryover of the religious dogma and clerical control over society. The most fundamementalist marxists/stalinists/leninists exist in India even today. There is really no intellectual freedom here. I mean, the moment one is discovered as an anti-communist, one's prospects are not too good. India has been ever since independence controlled by the "looters" as Rand called them. But thankfully, a few people are waking up to freedom with the rise of free market.

I agree that Western civilisation has more respect on rights and reason has influenced the development of this civilisation. Are you saying no other civilisation has such qualities? If so I think that this may be a dogmatic/irrational position. softwareNerd, would you agree that any civilisation that supports rational thinking, freedom and the like would be "objectivistically" worth defending? I thought this is what your words imply.

Hi all, I wanted to know how much objectivism is tied to "Western civilisation"? I have read some articles by objectivists and the authors seem to consider themselves as defenders of "Western civilisation". What is the position of objectivists on non-western civilisations? I am skeptical about such defending the so-called western civilisation as it sounds too White-racish. I am not accusing anybody here. Just wanted to know the general mood.