Esteem, Ego, Arrogance, Courtesy, .... Civil Interaction, Courtly Conduct -

Few thoughts more for what it is worth, not all mine, while about people and ego.

Aai used to say "people criticise Napoleon to say he had an ego, but who deserves it if not him, the average clerk?" That was her way of putting it, about relating accomplishments to ego. I am not sure who she had in mind, but likely it was about various women (mrs a, kgb, ...) saying this about her, and most of those women were far from free of ego as a matter of fact. No one is, unless really very highly achieved in spiritual realm. So it is really about whose ego one may tolerate or excuse or not mind, partly based on mutual behaviour and expectations.

Later at TIFR the place was full of intellectual giants and more so in numbers if not in height at Boston what with Harvard, MIT, Brandeis and visitors from around the world. So I am not merely used to it, but have a different view.

One might wish to be the tallest and everyone look up to one, but then one is looking down, and on a flat plain with shrubs around. Or one could like to look up and be surrounded by high peaks, and this is necessary if one wishes to climb up. Few take off like a rocket from a plain. And even in a flat plain I love to have tall trees shade me and distant mountain peaks in view, if not closer. Literally as much as in human terms.

Once in Boston there was an opportunity of attending a high level course in my subject, and I tried for a while. This professor was highly regarded and elderly. He rarely taught, so it was very attractive to try. But I had six courses that semester and thesis work, so gave up most one after another. Anyway around the beginning a colleague remarked that he thought this professor was arrogant. I did not think that, I thought he was like an old sage of ancient India (he was not Indian although Asian), and said he had achievements enough to justify any arrogance or ego, and I did not think he misbehaved or was rude personally. Later I had a one on one conversation with the professor before dropping out and was completely thrilled with it, nothing to do with me, it was about his work. I would be pleased if he did not think very low of me, but if he did it probably would be objective and not personal and certainly not malicious, and therefore would not bother me except perhaps to wish I were better, and at that usually one can try balancing between trying to be better and accepting one's limits.

People usually don't compete on bases they understand or grant - most would allow that wealthy, famous and powerful are above. Beauty might invoke jealousy and hatred, and accusations of ridiculous sort, but I am used to high levels of beauty and take them for granted while not requiring as a condition of any contact, except of heart - a sincere person is valuable. And if one wishes examples of how malice may destroy beauty, examples galore in various films and television shows - from family films of few decades ago to Keya Patar Nouko more recently.

The less measurable things are of mind, heart and soul, and here is where people can be arbitrary, which is why the caste related castigating is usually vicious against one and only one caste and that too in India, while other high castes of India and elsewhere get away with every horrible behaviour and not merely ego, because people recognise wealth, fame and power and bow to those.

Aajie often said, one can pretend anything but money. Her words are precious in several ways, one small factor being her language. Her turns of phrase.

The other part in all this is about interaction. The colleague who criticised the professor once asked what I thougth of myself, and I said that was none of his or anyone else's business as long as I was civil in interaction. I don't ask what he thinks of himself and don't care, but it matters if he is civil or not, I further said.

Later I read about Audrey Hepburn being told by her mother when she was a teenager "it does not matter how you feel, it matters how you behave" - this was aristocracy of Europe and this dictum matches the best first rules of civil interaction.

Once in Germany our language teacher said something about how Germans feel, and I told her (taking extreme examples to make it clear) "it is ok if they don't want to marry non-Germans, we don't want to marry you either, but being courteous in social interactions is necessary for civil discourse" - she was quite startled that others might not be lusting after them, a completely new thought!

Recently I was attacked on internet by someone who has no idea what or who I am, and the points where it stuck was related to this - he was about indicting India in general and us in particular on an issue where guilt belongs really to others just as well if not more, and India has been victimised with a particular group targeted for aim of destruction of India, a policy, thought up by Macaulay and set in writing and published (how else would I know?) and adopted by the British empire after 1857 to avoid all possible risk of losing India.

So this person ignored all wider perspectives and more that I set forth, and went on repeating the attacks set up by that policy on India, and made very personal attacks. When pointed out that he was ignoring a wider perspective even within India, he further became vicious and wanted to know why I suddenly found love for the others I was pointing at. I stopped this only by declaring I was going to ignore him, and did, although his poison continued.

None of what I said was particularly my invention or discovery except for myself, that is, others might and must have known all of that, but most now are afraid to say it except in private secure surroundings. I wrote it up again and saved it as a note.

And I refused to defend against the attack from him, because it was no use - it would be pathetic trying to declare how one is good. Especially to those only interested in attacking until one is silent, whether alive or dead.

Gajanan Kaka once related a conversation he had with his cousin and said, quoting what he had told the cousin, that it was not of much use telling someone something that person was unwilling to hear. This was not as obvious as might seem, and that part was clear immediately.

Women in Positive Roles on Screen

Someone asked this question, and it is a good one, so the write up.

Various shows come to mind, from Ally McBeal to Practice to Good Wife - I am sure there are a lot of others - and Friends does show Monica as leading the group in a mother of the group role (without her providing the space and food there might not be a setting so comfortable where so much happens). Even Penny in Big Bang Theory is intelligent enough to match the scientists and more, just not grown up in circumstances that would encourage her to pursue a more intelligent career, but the other two are more than a match for the males, and so is Leslie who looks down her nose at Sheldon quite openly because she is able to correct him. Mayim Bialik who plays Amy is by the way actually a neurologist with a doctorate.

West Wing has the two women rise up from relatively junior positions to what they deserve. Scandal obviously has several of them. Brothers and Sisters has several, and Revenge at least one (Emily Van Camp). Even Three Is Company and its original English Man About The House had Janet the smart one.

Films, begin with Courage Under Fire, I don't offhand have a list but there are more. Mona Lisa Smile is a good one. Catherine Hepburn had a few, then there is Ingrid Bergman's Joan of Arc.

Hitchcock's first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much had a woman expert at shooting who saves her daughter due precisely to this skill. That was set in English background, where it was normal. Later he remade the film in US and accordingly dumbed down the mother who saves her son by singing but needs to be put under sedation by the husband to begin with.

Ingrid Bergman's Notorious has the woman play a very crucial role in fighting for allies using her life. The film about Christina the queen of Sweden (hope I am right about the names here) has Greta Garbo in a good role, and her Ninotchka is pretty good.

The films I saw about Catherine of Russia - Young Catherine, perhaps television movie - and Elizabeth I were good generally, the characters being inspiring.

Divine And Scientific Spirit

Dawson and other general community of atheists is usually reacting to social pressure of authority, whether church or merely parents as in case of India, to defy them and assert oneself in that if it is not perceivable and reasonable or provable, one would not go with a blind belief; this is perfectly reasonable.

But often they stumble further, and assert not only this much but that if they do not see it or are not given scientific proof of it (whatever it is), it is thereby impossible and proved false. This is scientifically incorrect thinking, but no one in science is usually likely to point that out, most are busy fighting church authority. (Or trying to not look ridiculous to those that might look down on anyone from India.)

A true scientific spirit does not go "this is not possible, therefore it cannot be, because nothing I know can justify this". Unfortunately many supposedly rational or scientific thinkers do this and do not realise how unscientific this logic is.

A true scientific spirit is to observe reality and gather data and find correlationships, possibly with a new theory or even with a discarded one that one might have not agreed with, but not by throwing out data that does not fit pet theories.

When a final, conclusive, decisive proof one way or another is not yet at hand, a scientific spirit leaves it as undecided and unknown, the only possible respectable scientific conclusion, and perfectly acceptable.

So a true scientific spirit could very truthfully say "I don't know, but neither do most" when it comes to theism vs atheism; after all belief is not something unfamiliar to anyone, if only one gives a moment of thought to something no one would like to think about.
..................................................................................................................

Belief in the knowledge of one's blood is what most of us (those not geneticists) can affirm, not knowledge, actually; only a geneticist could possibly really know who one's parents are. As for the rest they have to take someone's word for it. If this were not so, anyone expressing doubts about one's parents would not involve anger or worse. One does not get angry if someone says "hey, you have only two fingers" when one can perfectly well see and hold out ten.

This is true about much of knowledge discredited, whether evolution by creationists or homeopathy by scientists of west. Ayurveda, Acupuncture, Yoga, Astrology, ... reincarnation, .... Gods, ....

At one pole of possibilites Dawkins does not know, and if and when he does he will be reasonable about it. At the other he could be right. Doubt the latter but that does not diminish his logic and scientific methods applied to thought and perception.
..................................................................................................................

The story about a normal person tumbling into a valley where everyone is blind, and finally needing to escape few days before his wedding to someone (he had decided to stay on due to falling in love), because they mandated he needed to be normal like them and not delusional about this thing he called sight which was impossible, comes to mind. So the one with sight escaped before they could remove his eyes with surgery.

While it seems unbelievable they could do surgery without sight, what we consider normal might still be able to inflict a great deal of harm to people they perceive as extraordinary in any way, because people usually don't tolerate anyone superior.
..................................................................................................................

A colleague of mine who was of the supposedly rational mind (did not believe anything that could not be proved scientifically, and asserted it was impossible, out of question) once was asked "what if I told you there is someone who can block off a part of your brain (without any touch of anything physical, just with use of mind)?" and he promptly with not an instant's hesitation replied hotly "I will break his head".

I laughed and asked if he realised that this meant he thought it was possible, else he would not have this reaction, and simply would laugh and shrug it off, or even better, invite anyone to try. (Better only in the sense of how strong his belief in impossiblility of scientifically not proven things was, not in the sense of someone blocking his brilliant mind. )
..................................................................................................................

Aarya, caste, race, India

Theory of "Arya" referring to a race is not Indian, in India it refers to civilisation and to those that embody the code of the civilisation (somewhat like but not exactly that of code of Europe re knights or chevaliers), irrespective of colour, while racism requires colour and other physical specifics to differentiate people. Aryan is a word in Europe, and identifying it as a race is a European idea, false in India.

Also, race has nothing to do with castes in India, where regions have somewhat identifiable sets of features (not precise or complete) and colour can be dark or fair not only in the same region or caste but also in the same family, with no difference of communities of parents, perfectly traditional marriages arranged by elders and nevertheless some children with lighter colours than others. Variety does not amount to class or caste or region in India, and colour is a poor choice of indicator of anything. Try boarding a local train in Mumbai or even standing at the gate at say Dadar at rush hour and identifying males by race, caste, region - chances are unless they wear something indicative you cannot be accurate about their religion either.

Theory of Aryan invasion was invented according to Macaulay's explicitly advised, accepted by the empire, and well published doctrine of dismantling and destroying society and psyche and culture of India, for which dividing the society was extremely necessary, as was demolishing anything good about it by badmouthing it relentlessly. Much that was said against Brahman is in fact true of policies of church and in particular Rome, while Brahman were and are free not institutionalised and thus required to follow orders from above. Example, Ekanaath and his bringing his thought into practice.

Theory of Aaryan invasion was convenient for the colonial rulers to justify their looting of the nation, but it has been majorly debunked even by professional historians, unless someone is a blind hater of all things Indian and blind follower of all things western of colonial era. It simply does not hold.

Moreover the colonial rulers wrote off all Indian works as mythology, while insisting on bible as literally fact and their own views of history as entirely accurate (proven false for example when Troy was discovered and Homer's work was conceded to be more historical than until then avowed as pure fiction); but much of Indian well known legends is since vindicated, for example Himaalaya rising from oceans and the fact that Dashaavatara is precisely parallel to Darwin's evolution (try arguing evolution with anyone with faith in church, especially from bible belt but even from south India).

Anyone not from India views Sindhu (Indus) as the major river, obviously since historically that was the only way unless one was willing to risk perils of Himaalaya passes or oceans. In psyche of India it is not the major river, only about sixth major or so, and stays on the outer periphery of consciousness (India did not need to look outside the country generally, and crossing Himaalaya was the more routine way), with Himaalaya and the two main eastern flowing rivers being huge in the conciousness. Ask your grandparents and ask what their grandparents thought.

Learning from everywhere is good, but blind adherence to those that would turn you into sheep is likely to get you jumping off cliffs to prove your obedience and slaughtered when it suits them.
...................................................................................................................




As for caste -

Caste is an English word, originating in German where it relates to box. It was not invented for India, which ought to tell you castes exist everywhere, they have just dropped that word to refer to their own castes so India can be pointed at. Galsworthy mentions the word in relating to them in his works about England, and various other works show how rich separated from poor even as to have separate church (separate building, not different faith). At the very least, front pew if not separate facility.

The major difference between India and everywhere else is about the baiss for castes - elsewhere power and money, land ownership and race are the key factors that determine castes, and the rung of a particular caste, on the social ladder, with royals and their relatives at the top (money replaces royalty where monarchy is done with).

India has a different scheme. Basis for caste here was the categorisation of work, and that defined one's ideals and life and duty, as it does without anyone telling you what one should do. Knowledge and its keeping was the top, physical power and protection of society next, and so on. Money or physical power was not the top, making it different.

Another major difference is that spiritual life is open to everyone, and not only that includes being a monk (saadhu, sanyaasi) but achieving unity with Divine, and what is more latter does not require leaving the world behind, either.

That the castes got fixed by birth was due more to onslaught of foreign attacks and rule that prohibited indigenous schools teaching students (aashram system) which in turn made it possible for people to teach only their own progeny in privacy of home.

Anyone dislikes caste, and they should, realise that determining ''women's role'' or their work is just as much caste; if men are not allowed to learn from their fathers or pass on their own professions to their sons, why require girls to limit to mothers and mother in law? That is caste in its most entrenched form.

Anyone who follows and likes caste and untouchability (which really is about hygiene more than anything - European system of emptying buckets of soil into streets in morning obviously says little about how clean one could expect to be unless on a horse or in a carriage, and Europe still is not used to bathing more than once a week or even changing clothes for that matter, from personally testified details from various acquaintances) - know this:- if you eat out, or touch paper money, and do not fully cleanse yourself ritually (not just a bath but a praayaschitta) every time one does either of that, well you have been untouchable and just did not know or bother to think!
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

India, to be Fair

Far too many people in print and in person have been questioning if India is racist, what with marriage markets asking for "fair" matches and "fairness" creams now being sold. There are personal grievances of those traumatised by being called dark, and there sense gives way to generalisation of unviable sort.

Added to that there is the latest Miss US of Indian origin - and some stupid person declaring she would never have made it in her ancestral land. Trust Indians and their colonial heritage to make some westward looking Indians always going "we too" whenever there is something going on in west, as if every crime is fashionable when originated in west.
Hence this refuting.

If India as a whole really had a colour preference for light skin or other things like hair and eyes, roster of top stars of Indian cinema would be very different - Kabir Bedi instead of AB, Prithvi instead of SRK, Sarika instead of Rekha and Zeenat, Mandakini instead of Madhuri, and as for Karisma she would rule forever with Kajol and Priyanka and everyone else far behind. As it is the fair ones - fair by standards followed in west, that is - had it harder, and not due to lack of talent or even due to discrimination against them.

If India were racist, the list above would not have missed but instead would be dominated entirely by the children of Shashi Kapoor, what with their blond heritage of Kendall blood and blue eyes of their Kapoor grandmother along with extreme good looks of Prithviraj Kapoor ensuring their pink blond blue eyed colours adding to the Kapoor beauty, and their Kendall heritage of theatre topping their Kapoor theatre and film heritage. Sanjna Kapoor alone would have ruled among female stars last quarter of century, with her brother Karan leaving no space for other males what with his gold hair adding to his Shashi Kapoor's photocopy features. As it is, they had a fair chance, and chose other paths, but not because of discrimination by viewers one way or other due to colour.

If India were racist, Sangam would be ridiculous with the damsel falling for the tall dark educated silent gentleman while the fair pink blue eyed lover is spurned on and on and on.

If India were racist Madhubala would not be the beauty in Mughal e Azam, rather it would be the light eyed fairer damsel whom most people not only don't notice but have no clue when reading this what I am referring to. Anyone from west with a racist mindset on the other hand would not only notice first and foremost this one but ask why she was not the heroine, or did the prince prefer dark women.
If India were racist Meena Kumari would not be top heroine never mind her supreme talent, fearless Nadia would.

If India were racist Rajanikant would not be the huge star that he has been, and Tom Alter would sweep all film industries in every part of India. As it is he has had a fair share of roles including some Indian characters.

As for personal criticisms faced by various people who were dark shared here, hey, if you were all pink you would face some other point of criticism, because it is only an excuse for people to be mean to make you feel bad about yourself. If you are as beautiful as Aishwarya is, guess what, people find excuses galore anyway to talk rubbish. You can have beauty, education, intelligence, friendliness, all you can imagine, they would still do it some way. More if you are a woman, but even if you are a man they would do their best to make you feel like garbage, just so you are in their power. AB faced this too, and so do most people.

Except those with clout of particular kind. Perhaps.

Or may be not.

But even on personal and social levels, who do you think anyone's parents and grandparents would prefer - a person of one's own culture with education albeit dark skin, or a blond blue eyed person of another culture and questionable culture or education? We all know the answer, and that is, most relatives would prefer the indigenous darker one over the other, unless there were overwhelming other factors equalising them. (What the young person prefers for oneself has nothing to do with racism, it is about personal choice dictated by youth and falling in love.) Such overwhelming factors are likely to be educational superiority of huge kind in favour of the outsider, for one thing, or something unpalatable against the desi one, for another.

For a true racist behaviour try reading Tehmina Durrani's autobiography and particularly about her ancestors marrying European women only to whitewash the progeny; not Indians! Acceptance of outsiders, yes, not easily, but such preference for sake of results of fair children, no, not Indian way.

As for skin products, they are neither better nor worse than other cosmetics now India and the world takes for granted - lipstick, powder, rouge, mascara et al, not to mention hair colouring that is now almost compulsory if one wishes to not be taken for a rural bumpkin. None of these products are any more necessary for anyone than the hugely sold cola drinks, so they have to advertise to sell, so they have to make people feel inadequate without them. Profit by guilt, much like the industry devoted to trimming people down by constant hammering at psyche so women starve and rich go get surgery. Health is not their concern, it is something you should need to worry and pay yet more to get over your health damage caused by starving or surgery or other stupidity.

Never mind the cosmetics and people and other stuff - and look at ancient Indian concepts and epics if one is looking for what India thinks or feels. Beloved Krishna was dark, whether born or due to running around after cattle, as was the revered and loved Raam, but more to the point, the whole war of Mahaabhaarat was fought over a beauty whose hue was dusky. Indian concepts of beauty have to do with geometry - large eyes, acquiline nose, delicate lips, long hair, well shaped body (which is not skin and bone of size zero of today's idiocy but rather explicitly visible in temples of yore), and no particular preference for colour in gradation of beauty.
...............................................................................
.............................................................................. ...............................................................................
...............................................................................

Label of Equality for tool of denigration

Equality is held up as an attractive concept - usually by those that have not achieved it - to equalise those above; needless to say it rarely applies to themselves being equal to others on lower rungs of ladders they are not willing to discard. "One should not be so proud of (quality x)" is usually the pious statement expressed in private whispers by those that either do not possess it or are on the lower rung from those they would equalise - and usually it applies not to those in power that could vanquish those that profess this.

Thus those that profess equality between members of a faith usually assume that their own superior quality due to race is understood and won't be overlooked by those they are attempting to convert or have converted, just as the women who complain about other women assuming superiority of beauty don't go about embracing those obviously far less - and if they do, generally it is due to a confidence of a contrast showing them in better light. As for equality between categories where they might lose superiority, forget it.

No woman who is seen as owner of a house (due to living rent free until death of the owners makes her de facto owner) would admit to equality with one who happened to work away and pay rent life long, and lose on the ownership of the family property. No woman who either is popular or happens to have a clout due to some position would stoop to admitting equality with one who is without.

Not that different, this "equality", from the "all women are equal" stance used often merely to pull down some achievers who happen to be women, while no such equality is presumed by those professing this equality between all women to exist between either all males (no woman would admit to her husband or father or brother being only as good as the poorest man on street), or even between females that possess old fashioned tools of power and those that don't for the moment, whatever the said tools - a house, a husband, a son, a car ...

"Now that we all have (degree x) aren't we all equal?" asks one - and uses a logical reply to malign one that negates this with good reason. Perplexed about this malicious usage of a truth I turn to S finally after years, and he clears it up with a "that would make you equal to Einstein" - the ridiculous extension of a false proposition that is clear only when taken to this level.

But of course, those that need a cross to hang someone they hate don't deal in facts, reason, logic - theirs is to gossip and shoot arrows, dodge if you can.

And so an ugly relative blames a beautiful one for pride of beauty while a less literate one blames the same person for achievements academics. A glimmer of the true reason comes through only with the "a fly won't fly off her nose" comment by one, which the placid one in privacy of her family makes light of with a "they of course have flies fly off their noses all the while", but not in confrontation with one who makes the first comment.
................................................................

About Cows, Being Vegetarian, and answering "Why Don't You Eat XYZ?"

 For years while living in places other than India one had to face questions about what one eats, and why one does not eat this or that. All that was, one thought, part of general curiosity and seeking information, thirst for knowledge of the world cultures and what the other person thought, how they lived. 

Never occurred to wonder why everyone not from India questioned why India has something against eating cows, and why India allows them to be as free as humans to roam about in towns and cities - just thought they did not understand. 

Now, thinking over by turning tables, it is clear. If your values are war and taking lives and things that belonged to those you killed, your precious species are horse and dog, and anything else that can kill you is to be revered too. That is when you are unlikely to understand respect for species that give and sustain life in another, but are less use in war than in civil life - cows, moms, grandmothers, ..... 

...........................................................................................................................

 Being vegetarian should not have to be explained any more than such life choices as wearing cotton, wool, but not leather. Few people today wear leather except as shoes, and that is going out too. A good many wear a variation of what was called sneakers in the beginning when they were introduced, and today they have evolved and exploded into a mind-boggling variety of specialised activity oriented different footwear. Fact is they are much more comfortable than any other footwear, though I have been fond of pumps until I got used to this comfort, and still find them elegant - but now comfort and health take precedence. 

 Still, even when I was wearing pumps and even if I could have afforded it then, I doubt I would have particularly gone to spend exorbitant amounts on shoes, either a la prep - the ultimate prep being a small street somewhere in central London, as usual - or any other way, say, a fresh baby croc or something. Now everyone can understand that it is not to say I love crocs - who can? They are scary and not even likely to evoke anyone's admiration, and I always felt that those who are making much of them would do so with any orphan that did not get any coddling from anyone. Which might be a virtue, but that amounts to this - if you don't want to take life of something or someone it is not necessary you are fond of them. Converse of course is a different story - if you like something or someone then to kill that for your pleasure or even need has to be a question about your philosophy of life. 

 I am also with someone since last decade and more who does not approve of leather or silk used in any forms but does not impose that on anyone else including me - and I still have leather wallets, since it is difficult to substitute them with some other wallet of good quality and durability, it is not easy to say the least. If denim would be available it might be an obvious choice, but it is not common. And silks are simply too fabulous to avoid, but one can make statements by buying only those that don't need killing to obtain the cocoon, which is quite possible - just more expensive. Avoiding silks in India is to give up all the beauty of walking museums of art everywhere - the women in silks, that is, with all the variety of colours and weave. Not that cottons are any the less beautiful, and then there are the very precious weavers with their expertise too, dependent on their wares to be marketed, or else a great part of India might be extinguished - no, if anything needs conservation this is high on the list, all the ancient crafts of India that survive and live today with all the beauty. 

 I have found furs attractive too, not always but sometimes. Today there is a big movement since last nearly three decades to ban furs, and there is some truth in it being linked to wildlife concerns, since most of the creatures - the beautiful ones that the attractive furs come from - are not reared large scale on farms (or else furs would be far cheaper and far more affordable for everyone). Not that when someone describes the torture of farm-reared fur creatures I can react "oh that is all right, as long as I get the fur" either. But the whole point is sort of away, partly due to there being hardly any need of fur in most places in the world, and it being either naturally or kept artificially very high price an object to posses and wear; and even if you have that much money, give a thought to how many orphans, how many poor might get a meal for a day, and resist the price. 

 When one lives in the remote arctic regions though, say Siberia, and lives with nature rather than commerce with humans most of the time, then it is a different story. Few do that, and wearing furs came to be a way of life only because it was much needed in the winters when the lifestyle did not include central heating, much less artificial fibres. Then, hunting involved a danger and the hunter and hunted were on par much of the time, too. Before rifles made it a non-sport it was a mark of bravery to get a major predator, and not lose life in the process. 

 And need of non-vegetarian food too belongs to the same - the cold making it necessary to consume food that gives warmth more and longer, and short seasons of harvest making it necessary to supplement even stored grains with sustaining nutrition or else one would not survive the cold winters, especially the young that need food not only to survive but also to grow. I was told the story of a family with identical twins age seven that shifted from India to cold part of Canada, and how one child observed and realised he should eat like his peers and his parents agreed and he grew well, but not the other one who could not bring himself to do the same. The latter suffered from problems of various sort since he was simply not getting enough nutrition to survive and grow and also fight cold. 

 If there was another reason for the difference in growth and health problems of the one who remained vegetarian, it is possible; it is quite possible that the doctors were biased and did not look for the real cause - but then again who would be willing to experiment with children? And as for animals they have no possibility of switching diets that easily, any shift from their natural way of life affects them adversely. Recent problems with cattle was largely due to the unnatural horrible feed they were given, for an example; for another various others - cats or chicken and other fowl - are used to eating certain natural grasses and such when left to nature, that they do not get the needed elements from otherwise as housebound pets or caged fowl and suffer consequently. 

 So it is not possible to experiment with animals and children and arrive at some universal conclusion - and what for? Not that the effects of diet are unknown, far from it - Aayurveda (Life-Knowledge), Indian medicine, evolved over centuries and millenia of past, is a system that involves knowledge of diet and lifestyle, and effects of intake on body; Indian (indigenous) cuisine is inseparable from inseparable from Ayurveda, as is the whole lot of various parts of lifestyle - massage, oiling of hair, application of ointments for problems. It is unlike allopathy in that there are universal principles but individual treatments, depending on person and other factors around the person. 

 So vegetarian diet is not prescribed for everyone either, and different people traditionally have evolved different habits according to the regions they have lived in, and often ancient traditional occupations, due to effects of various foods on body and health on the whole. The first needs little explanation - what grows naturally in the region one lives in is what nature provides, and when it provides is what is good for health to have it at the height of season. It is only a variety and temptation or luxury to do otherwise but not wise to make it a lifestyle, as a rule. 

 India being a large country, this amounts to well over a dozen different cuisines evolved naturally through all history, even apart form those of the various conquering and occupying ruler from abroad. Most of the indigenous cuisines are not usually seen or available outside India in restaurants, and within India not so commonly in regions other than their own; what is commonly known abroad as Indian food is what is commonly served in restaurants there and it is primarily the rich Mughal (Farsi name for Mongols, who conquered and stayed on, to rule for a few centuries and to live on here afterwards) cuisine, itself having absorbed central Asian influences on the way to India, combined with robust Panjaabi (Punjabi) cuisine, adapted finally to local needs or whims. Few other varieties are served in restaurants - or at least were when I saw, in U. S. or in U.K, but if you tried Southall, or one of its various avataars closest it your home, you might find some variations, in not so expensive places where you might see more of genuine Indian gourmet and less of big spenders. Dosa or idli, for instance, might be around; those are of southern origin from Udupi, ubiquitous in India and equated with southern food in north, though the equation is far from correct. 

 Home cuisine is not that rich, even in Panjaab; there it is richer than many other regions but not as much as restaurant stuff. The reason for this is that guests are offered better than everyday, from heart; and how can one serve any less than the best one can offer a guest? So it is rich in cream and so forth. At home, spices are used in just the right amount, sparingly, and so is butter and its various avataars - cream, ghee, yogurt - even in Panjaab or that other rich cuisine, Aandhra. 

 What has occupation - traditional or otherwise - to do with it? 

 Occupation is an integral part of life, as every adult would know. If you do work and not merely pretend to do so it affects your life, your mind, and body and health as well. If anything affects you in a way that interferes with work, one has to give up one of the two; in case of a diet anomaly that is obviously what needs to be done without. That is obvious. It is equally obvious that certain effects of food, such as anger and heat due to eating certain foods and living in tropics where there is no dissipation of those, are only suitable to certain occupations and obstructive in others. Certain foods produce an effect that might be soothing or calmness or lethargy, depending on various circumstances. Coconut is soothing and cool for tropics but not for colder climates during winter, where one had better use mustard oil instead, and what we call "garam masaalaa" which is literally "hot spices", a combination that produces heat within, which is to say combats effects of cold and is unsuitable for summer. When I lived in northeast U.S. I found myself really wanting certain foods depending on seasons - line juice with salt and pepper (and jaljeera,ooooh) in summer, and chhole in winter - an in really cold weather, an omelet the way I learned from various people there, with tomatoes and mushrooms and cheese, which is as far with non-vegetarian food as I could get near to without having to ask myself not to react in an unseemly way, without having to put a wall within to block the natural feelings. 

 Getting to eating an omelet was no small deal for me. My mother always told how finicky I was even as a baby and in spite of all her trying to feed me a boiled egg, since it would be more "nutritious" (there was no other reason, we were traditionally vegetarians and any suspicion to the contrary would have driven away most of relatives and so forth from ever visiting us, but the parents experimented away form home and liked it) during the northern cold weather. She was trying once as I was less than four and Sgk, less than a year old, sitting next stared and stared until mother asked her, what are you looking at? She pointed, so mother explained it was an egg, and asked if she wanted it. Mother was amazed at her - she finished the whole egg and had no contrary reaction. To the day we are split even in the siblings, first and third were always of delicate system and moving vehicles made us puke as do certain smells wish we could; the other two eat all they possibly can without being Chinese. 

 Mother asked me to try to learn, and I tried all I could until I realised there is no need to torture myself, and it is never going to happen that I would be hungry and want to eat any food other than vegetarian. And since I was not living in a place where there was any problem procuring foods suitable nor had it affected my health adversely, I stopped the effort. Living in India, in Europe or in even the coldest parts of U.S. with a home where one could cook, it has never been a problem. It can be a problem only when one travels and the local cuisine is heavily non-vegetarian, but if one is willing to eat vegetarian food of other than one's own tradition, it is quite possible to manage. 

 I have not had to live in a place where eating non-vegetarian food would be necessary or inevitable - say, Siberia or Greenland or Antarctica, where little or nothing grows, and one does not wish to spoil those places with modern facilities for the purpose; in tropics where earth is plentiful in producing food if only one knows how and when and where to find it or to sow and harvest it, and while U.S. is not all tropical it is still true of the land. 

 It is funny, though, that the first and last question people always asked is not about vegetarian food per se, but only about cows - cattle, rather - and funny because it is not as if they are there for plucking of a tree any more than other animals. I have tried to explain in terms of asking back why those of Europe would not consider eating a cat or a dog, or horse, but intransigence in the ones asking and arguing could only mean that there was an effort to break down the spirit of a person of a culture other than their own. No one asked in Europe, though those asking intransigently in U.S. were not only European origin they were visitors from Europe. They always found their own sensitivity towards cats, dogs or other such natural, and had no intention of considering another another culture that might have other sensitivities. One, an east Asian, went on until I was exasperated and asked if in exactly the same circumstances that he insisted we in India should eat cattle, he would eat his family; that stopped that conversation. 

 Chinese cuisine has no milk, no butter, no cheese or yogurt. We not only have them but it is the most integral, the most precious part of our food, diet, cuisine, everything. Our fields are tended to with help of oxen and so is all of the preliminary transport at village level, carrying things to and from market, transporting people. The oxen often bring the cart home without anyone awake to drive them, if the driver is exhausted and fallen asleep. The cattle live in intimate proximity next door and the cows know people. My grandfather had large number of them, but one cow in particular would never let anyone other than my grandmother touch her to milk her, and was only calm and willing to allow milking if grandmother went. And more than anything it would be sheer ingratitude, not to mention folly on supreme scale, to kill one who gives milk as a mother gives for one's own baby and to destroy the source of economical base, respectively. We don't wish to end up with no milk and so forth and we are neither where they could survive theft and slaughter on large scale nor where it is impossible survive on what the earth gives, supplemented by what the cow gives without being harmed. 

 If you don't like or love or find any gratitude in your heart to your cows that is entirely your lookout - our cattle are more precious, more beautiful, intelligent and sensitive, and we value them. In fact most single men go eat a burger when they arrive on other shores and explain it by saying "their cows are not holy". We do not browbeat or bend anyone's elbow about why they do not eat pigs or other various objects either. 

 Vegetarian ethos has developed over millenia, and it was not always so; it is therefore all the more right and precious at least for us, if not for the whole planet as a more viable way of survival for all - which it might very well be for all that. Pound for pound it takes much more to feed a non-vegetarian of U.S. than a vegetarian of India in terms of how much corn harvest goes into feeding pigs and so forth to get you your bacon while many, many more people in India survive on that amount of harvest of grain. 

 Once waiting in the line for supermarket checkout counter I looked idly at a magazine cover and wondered why anyone would find it attractive to look at a huge cup of chocolate with a more huge dollop of cream on it, and suddenly it was clear - a predominantly red meat diet gives you all the salt and so forth you need and you need the sugar you are not getting, and that is even without the cold winter when one wants to eat all those apple pies, cherry pies, etc - whereas a vegetarian gets natural sugar through the food and needs salt and spices to add. Our fun food is not cake, it is peas-and-potato samosa (with appropriate spices) and its many, many cousins.

 ............................. x .......................... 

 Someone asked how one could be vegetarian and use leather or fur. Really it should be asked the other way round. Obviously if you need leather to save your feet effectively from thorns and so on, you don't need to kill any animal in youth or productive age, and those that die of old age or accidents or even disease are good enough - but are you going to wait for roadkill to eat non-vegetarian food, or eat those animals that die of disease? Don't even think of it. 

 As for those that love cats and dogs and horses and eat cattle - you are just a casteist, and you are creating castes within animals. Worse actually - you kill those that give most as a mother would (cows) or help you shoulder burdens of farming (oxen) as your family men - father, brothers, sons - would, and keep those that despise you actually (cats) or are more or less servile (dogs). Not that we wish anyone to harm those either, in any way. 

 Incidentally - haven't there been incidents in various countries, in U.S. and in Europe, of pet dogs mauling infants and children?

……………………………………………………………………………….. 

Never occurred to wonder why everyone not from India questioned why India has something against eating cows, and why India allows them to be as free as humans to roam about in towns and cities - just thought they did not understand.

Usually it was colleagues in US who were from everywhere in the world, and we were usually asking about one another’s countries, expanding our horizons, and so on – so it was merely part of the natural conversation. It only got tiresome when someone refused to hear of any reason for not eating a particular species, and I was too polite to remind them some of us did not eat any meat at all, which was mostly true on a day to day basis for most of India, from choice and health needs rather than mere poverty or unavailability. After all it takes much less trouble and wherewithal for poor to let animals breed and feed on their own roaming about and eat one every so often. But a developed cuisine based and connected to medicine in an integral way, and it all connected to the very fabric of life, unlike the separation of religion and medicine and food of west and generally those that asked the tiresome “why don’t you eat …”. 

Then it was visitors to India – and those that had visited that I met in their own home countries, or in India – that asked different questions or expressed surprise, about having seen cows roaming about in cities and towns of India, freely. It took a while to understand they were holding back their disapproval, until someone asked if anyone could grow a mango tree anywhere. Why not, I asked. He had no answer, but it became obvious on thinking that he thought fruit trees belonged in orchards far away from where people lived, as they do in most of US. 

But we had been to Europe where things are a bit more natural and one not only sees fruit trees in yards around neighourhoods, and lining roads smaller than highways, but also hears about what qualifies a man – and planting an apple tree seems to be part of the qualification in some places, along with growing sons. It takes a man to have daughters and plant a cherry tree and feel confident of his manhood. 

This brought back the cows roaming and connected – the visitors were not appreciative, or merely wondering; and also, I began to wonder if they had not seen animals roaming about in cities anywhere else, including their own home countries, home towns. We had not only seen pets – especially cats – roaming about, we had been officially warned in driving school to the effect that in a housing neighbourhood or towns in general one might come across a cat suddenly crossing the road, at whatever speed the cat chose, so it might spring suddenly or saunter across at leisure, and one must mind not to hurt the cat.  

(Why we needed to experience a driving school after having driven across US is, in some places in Europe a driving license from another country is only valid for a short while, and one must do the whole course to qualify for the local one, in some places – expensive, time consuming, and the driving instructors are not above treating one like a free taxi driver while doing their errands and putting one down to remind one who is paying whom, before one realises a lesson is not an hour but only half that, and one was being taken literally for an expensive ride and being cheated on the whole.) 

So I wondered what was wrong with cows instead of cats – or rather in addition to cats, dogs and all sorts of other animals one may see in cities of India, and why they had not remarked about those – horses, donkeys, camels, elephants, monkeys, and more. Why only cows excite them became a question. And the answer was, lack of respect for the species they viewed as source of food and not as life, much less as anything more. 

Also it became clear they did not see that another way of life and point of view could be, were, equally or more valid. After all anyone of US ought to be aware of the law and practice re horse thief being hanged in west until recently, and the horror it evokes if someone is discovered having eaten or served a horse, or dog or cat. So why such extreme reaction , such insistence on changing others, when they come across a country where a culture of regard, of reverence for cattle is ingrained deep in the nation’s psyche? After all India does depend on cattle majorly – for milk for children and for general sustenance of a chiefly vegetarian populace, to begin with; and then there is the agriculture and transport in rural areas, where oxen are a matter of life and death – a poor farmer depends on his cattle of either gender for very life of his family. Why was this not accepted as a reason for taboo against consuming the very species one lived with in mutual dependence for life, far more than a horse and a dog anywhere in the world? 

Now, thinking over by turning tables, it is clear. If your values are war and taking lives and things that belonged to those you killed, your precious species are horse and dog, and anything else that can kill you is to be revered too. That is when you are unlikely to understand respect for species that give and sustain life in another, but are less use in war than in civil life - cows, moms, grandmothers, ..... 

And it connects – their insistence on everyone must eat cattle connects well mom calling being a joke for them.  

....................…………………………………………………

……………..........…………………………………………..