Being Different, Blogs

A Working Multicultural Model: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Happy new-ish year. After five iterations, hopefully Analytics and OR folks are moving along a steep and positive gradient toward achieving their 2012 resolutions! If not, apply corrections to get back on track (taking into account the leap year factor).

A 2012 goal for this tab is to explore the human element in OR/Analytics practice. The OR and (applied) applied math workplace is an increasingly multicultural one. There is an increasing exchange of skilled people between countries due to globalization. Even today, many new immigrants and foreign workers continue to be flummoxed by the myriad of seemingly strange local customs, unwritten laws, etc. that confront them upon arriving at the host workplace. These differences result in a special kind of anxiety for the entrant, and to a certain extent, to his/her host, as the two parties seek a working equilibrium to get the job done on time.The challenge for people in such a workplace is to be conscious of and recognize the prevailing cultural differences (including those that we personally judge as ‘unpleasant’) in an impartial manner, while also embracing the mutually beneficial and useful commonality across cultures. Blindly resolving these differences in favor of either the host’s belief system or the entrant’s only increases this ‘anxiety’ and leads to increased stress in the workplace, which can then result in a drop in productivity and morale. Clearly, there has to be a better way to make this work for everybody (and not just a vocal majority).

What are some of the necessary and sufficient conditions that must be satisfied by a healthy, working multicultural model (MCM)? A key-phrase in the corporate and university workplace-playbook is ‘zero-tolerance’ for discrimination based on a variety of factors such as gender, race, etc. However, this only represents a bare minimum requirement. In the pan-math community, we find pure-math types who can barely tolerate applied math types, or the other way around. In the ORMS world, we will find a few academicians who tolerate what practitioners do, and vice-versa. In the tech work-place, we can spot some science PhDs tolerating engineers who in turn tolerate off-shore developers, and managers who are trying hard to tolerate these PhD scientists, and so on. Putting these people to work together on an high-profile project can be disastrous. ‘Tolerance’ is merely a necessary condition for a working MCM, but is nowhere close to being sufficient.

The ideas in this post are motivated by the writings of Rajiv Malhotra, a successful (now retired) Indian-American tech entrepreneur based in New Jersey, USA. A fundamental point raised by Rajiv (in the context of inter-faith dialog) is that mere tolerance is insufficient. A key component of the ‘sufficiency conditions’ is mutual respect. Let’s see how this works.

Mutual respect in the workplace already implies the necessary condition of zero-tolerance for discrimination. It then says something stronger: equality does not mean “being the same” or being “western” in thought, dress sense, and food habits. It is not a vector comparison. Two people can be equal and yet very different, like woman and man. If people behaved and responded in a homogenous fashion, there would be little need for revenue management or indeed, analytics. Anyone who believes that it is sufficient to tolerate a colleague who is ‘different’ should try saying it to that person and stick around for the reaction.

Mutual respect says: I don’t patronize you by tolerating you, I genuinely respect your right to your cultural and religious beliefs, some of which I clearly recognize as being very different from mine, and at the same time, I expect the same level of respect from you for my beliefs; you may well feel your way is “better for you”, and that’s cool with me as long as you don’t bug me to join your ‘better’ cause since I’m quite happy where I am. In OR lingo, a workplace characterized by mutual respect functions like a ‘KKT point’; expecting something more than mutual respect also creates conflict. Stress due to the invisible and unspoken ‘peer pressure to conform’ is sometimes an effect of working in an atmosphere (be it a high school classroom or office space) where mere tolerance prevails at the expense of mutual respect.

All this may seem obvious, but ‘implementing mutual respect’ is not always easy. In the original instance, Rajiv Malhotra tried to replace the much-venerated but ultimately trite phrase “religious tolerance” with “mutual respect for others religious beliefs” within the text of grand inter-faith declarations. The results were quite interesting. To merely tolerate our co-worker’s religious beliefs, gender, race, and sexual orientation is to feed a hypocritical feeling of superiority that is likely to manifest itself in our professional relationship with that person at some point in time. A tolerance-based approach works well for finding practical solutions to numerical math problems, but for human relationships, mutual respect is vital. Nothing more, nothing less.

By Shiva Subramanian

Read More
Being Different, Book review

V.V. Raman

This is a scholarly book from the keyboard of Mr. Rajiv Malhotra. Malhotra has had an unusually rich and influential career: With a background in science and after a very successful business venture, he turned his interests to culture, history, and the power of knowledge manipulation in the politics of the world. In less than a decade and a half he has risen to prominence among Hindu intellectuals, Indian thinkers, and Western commentators on India. An activist-scholar, he has fought successfully against the distortions, intentional or inadvertent, of Hindu worldviews in English-based schools, colleges writings, and media beyond the shores of India. The internet has contributed immensely to the propagation of his name and fame. Thanks to his relentless dedication, authors in the West have begun to take greater care in what and how they write about Hindu history and culture. No small achievement for a self-made scholar. This is because Malhotra is a passionate writer, original thinker, and powerful propagator of perspectives. He articulates his views fearlessly and with clarity.

In this substantial work Malhotra explores a variety of topics inherent to Indic culture and worldviews. He reflects on many aspects of the Hindu world. His goal is not only to dismantle misconceptions, but also to formulate a new paradigm for intercultural discourse. He presents Indic concepts often, if not always, in contrast to Western modes.
The themes that are ably and persuasively explored in the volume are the following:

1. It is a naïve and mistaken view to regard, as some well-meaning Hindu liberals do, that all cultures and religions as saying the same truths. No, religions and cultures are fundamentally different. Moreover it is far more important to be consciously aware of these differences than to trumpet their commonalty to tackle the confusions in this world.
2. India with her rich and ancient culture has been subdued and manipulated by Western intruders, to the point that even Hindu thinkers are unconsciously adopting Western paradigms in the evaluation and critique of their own culture. Worse still, many so-called educated Hindus treat their own culture with indifference or disrespect, and whole-heartedly embrace all that is Western. As a result, there is not a level playing field when India and the rest of the world (mainly the West) are engaged in debates and discussions.
3. The hegemonic Christian West has been marginalizing and diminishing the wisdom and worth of Indic visions for many centuries now, not only out of ignorance of the deeper meanings of Indic terms, symbols and practices, but also in scheming ways to achieve its sinister ends.
4. The so-called universalism of European Enlightenment which has been a dominant and aggressive global force in recent centuries must be challenged and halted. The book argues with reason that the West has no business, let alone the moral authority or the legal right, to impose its worldviews and values on the rest of the world. Indeed, on this issue,
5. Finally, and most importantly, Malhotra’s goal is to provide a dhármic framework for handing social, religious, and political problems, based on Indic views and worldviews, which will be more fruitful, more tolerant, and more meaningful in today’s world.

The book is an erudite elaboration of these points.

Malhotra begins by referring to a number of his own personal encounters with Western scholars and individuals in conferences and elsewhere to let the reader know how, through means subtle and overt, Christianity and the West have been intruding into the sacredness and integrity of Indic culture. Not that many Indians are not aware of this, but this book gives it all raw and ruthless exposure. It unveils aspects of what it sees as Western hegemonic intercultural ruses that may not be as obvious to superficial observers. These revelations are sure to jolt both unwitting Indians who may have held Western civilization in high regard, as well as scheming Westerners who may feel awkward being caught.

The chapter entitled Yoga: freedom from history is one of the best and most informative. Here one finds interesting discussions of ithihasa, adhyatma-vidya, and what the author calls embodied knowing which is contrasted with the history-centrism of Western thought.. The compartmentalized contrast between the dhármic and the Judeo-Christian visions that are presented throughout the book, can be very useful in courses on comparative religion.

In the next chapter, the book explores further the deep conceptual and doctrinal divide between the dhármic and the Abrahamic views on the relationship between the human and the Divine. The notion of integral unity is explained in this context, as also its compatibility with some of the findings of modern physics. In this context one recalls the relevant quotes from Schrödinger et al. to show the Vedantic inspirations for quantum mechanics.

In this chapter we also find an etic (outsider’s perspective) analysis of the birth and growth of Western civilization: perhaps the first of its kind by a Hindu scholar. A great many Western scholars have delved deeply into and analyzed freely countless dimensions of Non-Western cultures in legitimate and in illegitimate ways. Perhaps for the first time, a Hindu scholar has reciprocated that gesture. This chapter alone deserves to be regarded as a weighty contribution to the literature, and will most likely be appreciated by many enlightened Western scholars as well.

It is no secret that the Hindu spirit is more receptive to and generous towards Non-Hindu religious traditions than most other world systems. This fact is explained in the chapter on Order and Chaos. Here the reader will also find discussions on sacred stories, Biblical and Greek mythologies, as well as comments on ethics and aesthetics. It iffers fresh perspectives on time-honored doctrines.

The chapter on Non-translatable Sanskrit versus Digestion brings in two important ideas. First, that certain terms are culture-specific. English renderings of words like dharma, tapas, dukkha, and Kundalini can at best be approximate, at worst misleading. Moreover, the use of original Sanskrit terms not only preserves their original meaning, but also helps one in “resisting colonization and safeguarding dhármic knowledge.” This chapter contains some excellent information on Sanskrit.

The sixth and last chapter of the book, aside from the extensive and erudite notes at the end, is a dynamic call for a new worldview in the context of our current multicultural and multinational planetary predicament. That the West must not and should not be allowed to enforce its worldviews and values on others is a slow awakening that is occurring within the matrix of Western civilization also. This concluding essay is penetrating in its depth, thought-provoking as a thesis, and powerful in its arguments. The chapter marks Malhotra as a fearless thinker in the arena of culture, history, ideas and ideologies. His invocation of the Gita and the Mahabharata in this context makes him a legitimate heir to and a traditional spokesperson for the Hindu dhármic tradition: a true áryaputra, as one used to say. His homage to Gandhi is a welcome gesture at a time when Gandhiji is the target of invectives from a great many Neo-Hindus.

Prejudices and misinformation still persist in the West. The exclusivist and effective penetration of Christian missionaries, overt and subtle, into India does pose a threat to India’s Hindu cultural roots.

Malhotra’s book is profound and provocative, The tone of the book is necessary to shake up the long-persisting cultural asymmetries and injustices. But the great strength of this book lies in that it brings out, as few other books have done, the complex and sophisticated framework of Indic visions with ample historical allusions, intelligent commentaries, and incisive rebuttals. It is an appropriate and timely reflection on civilizations for the twenty first century.

This book is the work of a keen thinker whose profound reflections are bound to change the tenor of the intercultural debates of our times. Malhotra’s lucid and clarifying expositions of Indic culture are in themselves solid contributions to India studies. I am persuaded that this is a book of enormous import which will contribute to the construction of a world culture in which misunderstandings and convictions of superiority and mutual distrust and contempt will give place to greater understanding, harmony, and peace.
The world of scholarship and the voices of cultural affirmation must be grateful to Mr. Malhotra for presenting us with this most interesting book. I heartily recommend it to anyone interested in understanding in some depth the rich traditions and religions of India, and also in becoming aware of the global tensions that characterize our multicultural world.

Read More
Being Different, Book review

Ami Ganatra

Have you ever wondered why and how have Hindus and Hinduism managed to not only survive but also thrive in spite of being subjected to innumerable cultural and political assaults, physical and mental enslavement for over 1000 years? How is it that in a world where “Gods” can’t stand competition and are always urging followers to either convert or eliminate opponents, here in India over 33,000 Gods have managed to find mind space and that too without any major blood bath? How is it that philosophers like Charvak who took a complete contrarian view to prevalent moral beliefs weren’t killed by the authorities of the day for dissent and find respect even today as rishis? Even today, how if it that a muslim fakir like Shirdi Sai baba has the largest following amongst Hindus?

From Afghanistan to South East Asia, Hindu kings ruled over the sub-continent at one point in time. However, there isn’t one pogrom of forcible conversion imposed on non-Hindu subjects. Quite the contrary, Hindu kings have given shelter to religious minorities expelled from other regions – be it Syrian Christians or Parsis from Iran. These minorities have been given the space and the right to maintain their distinct identity and have been assimilated seamlessly in the Indian ethos. Why is it that we easily talk of “sarva-dharm sam bhav” (सर्वधर्म समभाव) – “equal respect for all religions”, but even after all the enlightenment, all that we get in return is “religious tolerance”?

Has it ever struck you that unlike other religions, the Hindu has no one book of law which indicts what to do and what not to? Even in Gita, Krishna after giving a discourse to Arjun on work, life and duties spanning over 700 Shloks, concludes in the end saying

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

‘History Centrism’: A Challenge to Abrahamic Faiths

So what of the Abrahamic emphasis on prophetic history? Is it possible to accept the teachings of a prophet (or set of prophets) without focusing on prophetic history?

It was a moment of crisis for Yeminite Jews. They were being persecuted by extremists of the Zaidi branch of Shiite Islam and forced to convert — with the explicit threat of death if they refused. Moses Maimonides, a widely respected rabbi in what is now Egypt, responded in the way he thought best: discrediting the prophetic tradition of the Muslim sect oppressing the Yemenite Jewish community — and Christianity, for the sake of definitiveness, as well.

In what became known as the “Epistle to Yemen” after widespread circulation throughout the Middle East, Maimonides claimed that Islam and Christianity were but distortions of the “true and divine religion, revealed to us through Moses, chief of the former as well as of the later prophets.” His strategy was clear: bolster the Jews of Yemen by discrediting the faith of those oppressing them. He then forcefully questioned whether Jesus and Muhammad had knowledge of the sacred — even going so far as to hurl epithets about them.

While his actions were considered praiseworthy by some of his coreligionists at the time, this picture of “support” by Moses Maimonides seems quite bleak, if not galling today. The 12th century is not widely known for its inter-religious interchange, but Maimonides, like many other Middle Eastern rabbis, was fluent in Arabic and even as a rabbi held a significant knowledge of Islam. Maimonides even served the royal court of Saladin’s empire as a physician and often demonstrated nuanced views of Islam, which he even defended at one point against accusations of idolatry from rabbis less versed in its teachings.

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

New Model Using History Centrism

Analysis of History-Centrism: Landing Page

This is a landing page for ongoing research work that attempts to model History-Centric Thought Systems (HCTS), the nature of its membership and how it is likely to interact with thought systems that are not history-centric, as well as its impact on cultural diversity.

This is not a finished work of research. We are just getting warmed up! Comments, criticism, corrections welcome. Suggestions on how to take this analysis forward meaningfully (without getting too sidetracked into abstract modeling) would be appreciated.

History-Centrism is one of many key terms introduced by Rajiv Malhotra in his powerful new book ‘Being Different’ to counter claims of Western universalism by ‘reversing the gaze’ and analyzing their thought system based on a Dharmic (Indian) framework. Judeo-Christianity is an instance of a membership that subscribes to a HCTS in contrast with Indic schools of philosophy that focus on the inner sciences and are non-dual in nature.

1. Necessary/Sufficient Conditions for History-Centric membership
Stipulates the requirements for becoming a member of a HCTS or get disqualified using the concept of a historical prior. It follows from this formulation that HC implies duality (i.e. with mathematical certainty).

2. Impact of HC belief and duality on stability of HC membership
We analyze the stability of membership of a HCTS and show the stable equilibrium will probably never be reached if a unique non-reproducible prior belief drives the HCTS, i.e., it creates a “proselytize or perish” response to a chronic and self-induced existential question, even in the absence of any local competition.

3. Game-Theoretic analysis of History-centric conflicts & comparison with non-dual groups
Part-A: We differentiate between active and passive duality and attempt a game-theoretic analysis of the nature of resultant conflict between:
– two rival HCTS
– HCTS and non-HCTS
– two non-dual thought systems
and classify them accordingly. The results can provide insight on the response that can be adopted by a non-HCTS to survive in such contests that often tend to be characterized by asymmetric or one-sided payoffs.
Part-B: we study the decision choices available to the participants in such contexts and examine three cases.

4. History-Centrism and Monoculture: How HCTS has motivated the creation of a global master narrative of Western universalism that is the dominant contemporary monoculture. We look at examples of how the reductionism and digestion that characterize a monoculture can suffocate diversity and diminish the authenticity of experience.

Note: The material below has been added after this new model based on History-Centrism was first featured on Rajiv Malhotra’s ‘Being Different’ book website.

5. Contradiction Networks: On how a HCTS model that is subjected to sustained scientific examination over a period of time is characterized by a maze (‘network’) of contradictions. The management of the HCTS spends more time trying to manage these chains/circuits of contradictions rather than eliminate it’s logical source.

6. Duality masquerading as Advaita : As the HCTS model attempts to manage, rather than eliminate its inherent contradictions, it is forced to appropriate useful metaphysical as well as practical self-improvement methods from Dharmic Thought Systems to re-brand itself and project a new image.

7. A programmable model of the History-Centric soul: Unlike the Dharmic Atman, the HC soul is finite, time-limited, bounded, deterministic, and programmable, and also extremely unforgiving by design. The binary end-state / output of this model is only controllable by a third-party owner and depends purely on the keying in of a collectively valid and static input password / coupon rooted in history-centrism. The fear psychosis induced by such a design is arguably the biggest reason why many followers of HC faiths (e.g. Abrahamic religions) tend to relinquish membership after a while, and also why aggressive conversions continue to occur.

8. History Centrism in Western Mathematics: Mainstream western math and science is characterized by a relative over-reliance of historical reputation driven theorems and laws that were themselves based on axiomatic mathematical truth claims rooted in theology. In contrast, Dharmic systems focus on the empirical approach that allows one to re-experience the first discovery via first principles. Rather than rely solely on metaphysical truth, DTS recognizes a pluralism of analytical approaches to the same physical problem, and that a model representation may never be perfect and it is practically useful to not obsess about the unrepresentable that is not relevant to a given context. In the modern world of computing, internet, and artificial intelligence, the DTS based approach is proving its practical efficacy over abstract deductive methods that provide little real-world insight.

9. Yoga: Freedom from History. An attempt to understand the ideas behind Chapter 2 of the book”Being Different”. Being history-centric is to be held hostage to some ancient historical prior that can never be authenticated. A double whammy effect of being history-centric is that any scope for salvation is possible only in the infinitely distant future beyond this life and cosmos. Consequently, such a person is unable to live in the present since the keys to happiness are tied to the past and the future, but never the current moment.

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

Dharmic Gaze

Hinduism vs. Christianity – Forgiveness for Sins

Christianity is often touted as a better religion because it offers forgiveness for sins and hence redemption. However, Dharmic traditions do not propose forgiveness for sins.  Does that mean Christianity is a better religion?  Are  followers of Dharmic tradition in a fix because they receive no forgiveness, no redemption?

When contemplating on this loaded question, Hindus should realize that concept of sin in Christianity is non-existent in Hinduism.  Without the burden of sin, there is no need to seek forgiveness, there is no need for redemption.  The idea of sin is a heavy burden thrust upon its followers by Christianity. To moderate its effect, Christians then speak of forgiveness.

Unfortunately, this concept brings other burdens on the already suffering.  Imagine that a lady you know was raped.  Can you ask her to forgive the rapist?  Does she have to forgive?  Does she have a choice not to forgive?

Contemplate on what the bible says regarding forgiveness.

Matthew 6:14-15

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Colossians 3:13

Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

 

Most Christian apologists defend the above biblical position by saying that forgiveness is a way to cope with bitterness.  It is not.  Forgiveness is saying that the person who inflicted the pain and suffering is freed of the blame.  There is simply nothing worse than imposing on the victim to forgive the offender: forgive or else you will not be forgiven.

Hinduism does not consider human beings to be stuck in the inescapable condition of sin. On the contrary, Hinduism considers the essence of human beings to be non-different from the Supreme Being. There is no sin but only ignorance in Hinduism.  Due to ignorance human beings are caught up in the stranglehold of Maya. Once freed from the veil of ignorance, human beings understand that Atman and Paramatman are one and the same.

 

Bhagavad Gita 4:36

Even if you were the greatest sinner, you will still cross the sea of past sin aboard the ship of (transcendental) knowledge.You need redemption only when you are stuck in the inescapable condition of being a sinner.

Read More
News

Cover Story in Swarajya Magazine

RAJIV MALHOTRA, author and Hindu
intellectual, is the man who developed
the “Breaking India” theory in his
eponymous 2011 book. Malhotra has
written prolifically in opposition to the
academic study of Indian history and
society, especially Hinduism, as it is
conducted by scholars and university
faculty of the West, which, he maintains,
undermines the interests of India “by
encouraging the paradigms that oppose
its unity and integrity”. In an interview
with R Jagannathan, he speaks about
the dangers that Indian and Hindu
nationhood face today. Excerpts:

Read More