Why Indians don't give back to society ?

[Guest guest]

*Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?

*An article every Indian should read!**

*

Why Indians don't give back to society

By Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009

Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism

Why don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu trinity as the

creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its

eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But in

what way does our religion shape our culture?

Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US , Germany and Britain as

coming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or culture, was

missing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain .

Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing good

deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate motive:

public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.

Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.

What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our

cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.

Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism. One

good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we observe

the opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic halts

on one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming side

because there is space available there. If that leads to both sides being

blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people

behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted to

stay in his place.

The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is convinced that

the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his

instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal motoring

cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and drove

away.

We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which

there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the- world

leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights. We

form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for the

plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their boarding

announcements for Indians taking international flights.

Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective good.

Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always pick

up the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many people as

India 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but spotless.

This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.

The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state. A study

of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (Elsevier

Science/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "declining

assessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on compliance, while

"traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution

activity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled over

the fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the average of

countries with similar GDP per capita".

We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our ambiguity

extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.

Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an issue in

Indian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on

camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a court,

can hold legitimate hope of a comeback—unthinkable in the West.

The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the

success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well, even if

we can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless at

the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, which

in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent for

adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.

The question is: Why are we opportunists?

In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewards

religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife. This

is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create

sceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this in Hinduism.

Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism and

rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our

death rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from rebirth.

Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about how

not to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens his

finest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and Wittgenstein (

"The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus similarly.

Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.

Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum --

from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of his

fellow man. But why?

The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give you this,

you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the

universe's blessings towards you. God gives you something not through the

miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that

something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedic

fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religion

is about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and appeasement,

through offerings.

Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give back

to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) because

it hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian

industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth of

his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions, fighting

hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around

Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even

affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his entire

fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani

International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs 24,000

admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.

An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith or

has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question we

started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He has

nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he

already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.

[Guest guest]

I beg to differ.

The basic premise is that 80% of Hindu population is making all the litter.

That they do not do charity etc.

The truth is that there is very little "Hindu - isms" left in the Hindus of Today.

They are too confused between old culture which is difficult to understand considering the dumbing down of the population, the confused state of the economy - mixed, free or state owned and the centuries of subjugation which continues in form of dark sahab's in place of the whites.

Infact this religion sort of enforces the view that you have a good chance to be born back on earth.

He forgets that this civilization is leap frogging into the present and not all will take the jump.

I recount having read Jamshetji Tata's advise to his french engineer who was putting up Tata Steel - this telegram he sent from Pensylvania - the heart of the old US steel industry

more than 110 years ago - Be sure to build the town with wide treelined roads and gardens for children to play so that our people do not have to live in the filth that I am witnessing .....

Mr Patel need to look at the per capita consumption of materials by the western world

to realise how much junk they create.

I can write more but do not have inclination .....

I agree on one thing though that Indians have no respect for public property , but there are many other reasons for that , not just 80% of the population not giving any charity and not believing in going to heaven.

For start let us ask people who chew pan and other concoctions to carry their own spitoon, and build enough toilets on per capita basis.

Then we can discuss about Lord Brahma.

Pls do not post articles written without much thought.

Look around where you are for charitable acts by Indians , you will be astounded.

Proportionately we may give westerners a run for their charity buck.

Also examine the fact that the Temples are mostly owned by the courts in India, and the 80% spends a lot there ... knowing that it will go for charity .... not knowing where it goes. Chiranjiv --- On Wed, 29/7/09, sunil nair <astro_tellerkerala wrote:

sunil nair <astro_tellerkerala Why Indians don't give back to society ? Date: Wednesday, 29 July, 2009, 7:53 PM

*Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?*An article every Indian should read!***Why Indians don't give back to societyBy Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunismWhy don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu trinity as thecreator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, itseventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But inwhat way does our religion shape our culture?Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US , Germany and Britain ascoming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or culture, wasmissing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain .Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing gooddeeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an

ultimate motive:public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of ourcities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism. Onegood way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we observethe opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic haltson one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming sidebecause there is space available there. If that leads to both sides beingblocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over peoplebehind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted tostay in his place.The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is convinced thatthe signal is not

policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, hisinstinct is to bolt.. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal motoringcases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and droveaway.We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in whichthere is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the- worldleads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights.. Weform a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for theplane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their boardingannouncements for Indians taking international flights.Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective good.Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always pickup the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many people asIndia 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not

just clean but spotless.This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state. A studyof income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (ElsevierScience/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "decliningassessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on compliance, while"traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecutionactivity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled overthe fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the average ofcountries with similar GDP per capita".We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our ambiguityextends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an issue inIndian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt,

recorded oncamera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a court,can hold legitimate hope of a comeback—unthinkable in the West.The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains thesuccess of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well, even ifwe can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless atthe Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, whichin India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent foradapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.The question is: Why are we opportunists?In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewardsreligions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife. Thisis because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and createsceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to

this in Hinduism.Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism andrebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and ourdeath rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from rebirth.Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about hownot to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens hisfinest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and Wittgenstein ("The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus similarly.Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum --from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of hisfellow man. But why?The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give you this,you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing

theuniverse's blessings towards you. God gives you something not through themiracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging thatsomething away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedicfire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religionis about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and appeasement,through offerings.Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give backto it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) becauseit hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indianindustrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth ofhis earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions, fightinghookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (aroundRs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not evenaffect

Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his entirefortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai AmbaniInternational School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs 24,000admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith orhas our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question westarted with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He hasnothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, healready has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.

recommends that you upgrade to the new and safer Internet Explorer 8.

[Guest guest]

dear Mehta ji Thanks for ur views i would lov if u can talk tru facts and figures and even some backing with statistics frm ur ur point of view .i was in delhi i find sikhs were very very considerable in conducting even anna dan to all and in jaipur rajastan mostly jains even distributing drinkable water to all ,where as hindus were less in such activities ( it is my views ) .but i am open for discussions .pls tell me how we hindus supports our culture ,In kerala xians were supposed to giv 10 % of their total earnings to church and how much hindus may b doing other than accumulated wealth of of our religious institutions ( which is generaly donated by kings and now may b state govtmnt is controlling it ) also tell me how many hindu institutions r there for supporting poor and needy also their budget how they meet other than foriegn donations .sorry for if i am ignorent of such activities of our hindus other than calling our own brothers as untouchable or needs to be treated with harsh methods .regrds sunil nair , chiranjiv mehta <vchiranjiv wrote:>> I beg to differ.> The basic premise is that 80% of Hindu population is making all the litter.> That they do not do charity etc.> The truth is that there is very little "Hindu - isms" left in the Hindus of Today.> They are too confused between old culture which is difficult to understand considering the dumbing down of the population, the confused state of the economy - mixed, free or state owned and the centuries of subjugation which continues in form of dark sahab's in place of the whites.> Infact this religion sort of enforces the view that you have a good chance to be born back on earth.> He forgets that this civilization is leap frogging into the present and not all will take the jump.> I recount having read Jamshetji Tata's advise to his french engineer who was putting up Tata Steel - this telegram he sent from Pensylvania - the heart of the old US steel industry > more than 110 years ago - Be sure to build the town with wide treelined roads and gardens for children to play so that our people do not have to live in the filth that I am witnessing .....> Mr Patel need to look at the per capita consumption of materials by the western world > to realise how much junk they create.> I can write more but do not have inclination .....> I agree on one thing though that Indians have no respect for public property , but there are many other reasons for that , not just 80% of the population not giving any charity and not believing in going to heaven.> For start let us ask people who chew pan and other concoctions to carry their own spitoon, and build enough toilets on per capita basis.> Then we can discuss about Lord Brahma.> Pls do not post articles written without much thought. > Look around where you are for charitable acts by Indians , you will be astounded. > Proportionately we may give westerners a run for their charity buck.> Also examine the fact that the Temples are mostly owned by the courts in India, and the 80% spends a lot there ... knowing that it will go for charity .... not knowing where it goes. > > Chiranjiv > > --- On Wed, 29/7/09, sunil nair astro_tellerkerala wrote:> > > sunil nair astro_tellerkerala Why Indians don't give back to society ?> > Wednesday, 29 July, 2009, 7:53 PM> > >  > > > > *Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?> > *An article every Indian should read!**> *> Why Indians don't give back to society> > By Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009> > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism> > Why don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu trinity as the> creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its> eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But in> what way does our religion shape our culture?> > Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US , Germany and Britain as> coming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or culture, was> missing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain .> Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing good> deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate motive:> public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.> Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.> > What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our> cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.> > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism. One> good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we observe> the opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic halts> on one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming side> because there is space available there. If that leads to both sides being> blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people> behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted to> stay in his place.> > The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is convinced that> the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his> instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal motoring> cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and drove> away.> > We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which> there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the- world> leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights. We> form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for the> plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their boarding> announcements for Indians taking international flights.> > Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective good..> Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always pick> up the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many people as> India 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but spotless..> This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.> > The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state. A study> of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (Elsevier> Science/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "declining> assessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on compliance, while> "traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution> activity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled over> the fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the average of> countries with similar GDP per capita".> > We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our ambiguity> extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.> Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an issue in> Indian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on> camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a court,> can hold legitimate hope of a comebackâ€"unthinkable in the West.> > The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the> success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well, even if> we can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless at> the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, which> in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent for> adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.> > The question is: Why are we opportunists?> > In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewards> religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife. This> is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create> sceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this in Hinduism.> Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism and> rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our> death rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from rebirth.> > Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about how> not to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens his> finest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and Wittgenstein (> "The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus similarly.> > Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.> Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum --> from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of his> fellow man. But why?> > The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give you this,> you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the> universe's blessings towards you. God gives you something not through the> miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that> something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedic> fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religion> is about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and appeasement,> through offerings.> > Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give back> to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) because> it hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian> industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth of> his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions, fighting> hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around> Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even> affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his entire> fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani> International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs 24,000> admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.> > An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith or> has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question we> started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He has> nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he> already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See the Web & #39;s breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Buzz. http://in.buzz./>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chiranjiv Ji,

 

I cannot speak for all western countries but I can tell you that atleast in the US where majority of the Indians are very well off (top 10% of the tax bracket) they fall woefully short in terms of charitable contribution. I was the president of a non-profit organization called Asha-Arizona (that helped raise money for education of under priviliged children in India) for some time (before my personal problems overwhelmed me) and we had a very difficult time raising money from Indians in the US. I dont like to generalize things, but, I can honestly say that the average American is much more charitable than the average Indian in the US, despite Indians making an income well above average. Culturally there seems to be an inhibition to charitable giving.

Regards,

-Manoj

 

 

 

 

 

chiranjiv mehta <vchiranjiv Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:20:55 AMRe: Why Indians don't give back to society ?

 

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ.

The basic premise is that 80% of Hindu population is making all the litter.

That they do not do charity etc.

The truth is that there is very little "Hindu - isms" left in the Hindus of Today.

They are too confused between old culture which is difficult to understand considering the dumbing down of the population, the confused state of the economy - mixed, free or state owned and the centuries of subjugation which continues in form of dark sahab's in place of the whites.

Infact this religion sort of enforces the view that you have a good chance to be born back on earth.

He forgets that this civilization is leap frogging into the present and not all will take the jump.

I recount having read Jamshetji Tata's advise to his french engineer who was putting up Tata Steel - this telegram he sent from Pensylvania - the heart of the old US steel industry

more than 110 years ago - Be sure to build the town with wide treelined roads and gardens for children to play so that our people do not have to live in the filth that I am witnessing .....

Mr Patel need to look at the per capita consumption of materials by the western world

to realise how much junk they create.

I can write more but do not have inclination .....

I agree on one thing though that Indians have no respect for public property , but there are many other reasons for that , not just 80% of the population not giving any charity and not believing in going to heaven.

For start let us ask people who chew pan and other concoctions to carry their own spitoon, and build enough toilets on per capita basis.

Then we can discuss about Lord Brahma.

Pls do not post articles written without much thought.

Look around where you are for charitable acts by Indians , you will be astounded.

Proportionately we may give westerners a run for their charity buck.

Also examine the fact that the Temples are mostly owned by the courts in India, and the 80% spends a lot there ... knowing that it will go for charity .... not knowing where it goes. Chiranjiv --- On Wed, 29/7/09, sunil nair <astro_tellerkerala@ .co. in> wrote:

sunil nair <astro_tellerkerala@ .co. in>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Why Indians don't give back to society ?ancient_indian_ astrologyWednesday, 29 July, 2009, 7:53 PM

*Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?*An article every Indian should read!***Why Indians don't give back to societyBy Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunismWhy don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu trinity as thecreator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, itseventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But inwhat way does our religion shape our culture?Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US , Germany and Britain ascoming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or culture, wasmissing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain .Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing gooddeeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an

ultimate motive:public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of ourcities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism. Onegood way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we observethe opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic haltson one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming sidebecause there is space available there. If that leads to both sides beingblocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over peoplebehind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted tostay in his place.The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is convinced thatthe signal is not

policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, hisinstinct is to bolt... In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal motoringcases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and droveaway.We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in whichthere is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the- worldleads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights.. Weform a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for theplane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their boardingannouncements for Indians taking international flights.Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective good.Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always pickup the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many people asIndia 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not

just clean but spotless.This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state. A studyof income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (ElsevierScience/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "decliningassessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on compliance, while"traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecutionactivity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled overthe fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the average ofcountries with similar GDP per capita".We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our ambiguityextends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an issue inIndian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt,

recorded oncamera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a court,can hold legitimate hope of a comeback—unthinkable in the West.The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains thesuccess of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well, even ifwe can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless atthe Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, whichin India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent foradapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.The question is: Why are we opportunists?In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewardsreligions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife. Thisis because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and createsceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to

this in Hinduism.Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism andrebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and ourdeath rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from rebirth.Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about hownot to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens hisfinest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and Wittgenstein ("The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus similarly.Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum --from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of hisfellow man. But why?The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give you this,you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing

theuniverse's blessings towards you. God gives you something not through themiracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging thatsomething away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedicfire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religionis about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and appeasement,through offerings.Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give backto it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) becauseit hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indianindustrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth ofhis earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions, fightinghookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (aroundRs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not evenaffect

Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his entirefortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai AmbaniInternational School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs 24,000admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith orhas our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question westarted with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He hasnothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, healready has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.

 

recommends that you upgrade to the new and safer Internet Explorer 8.

[Guest guest]

How is this article related to the research in astrology? Are we not focussing?

 

--- On Thu, 7/30/09, renunw <renunw wrote:

renunw <renunw Re: Why Indians don't give back to society ? Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 1:33 AM

Dear Sunil ji,An interesting article! The 'opportunism' mentioned here sounds so familiar...may be something not alien to Sri Lanka too. Taking just one example in the article, I can vividly visualize the impatience, selfishness, and the urge to break through traffic lights thus breaking through all the barriers our sacred books have imparted on us. I don't see much of a difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.... the most liberal religions/philosoph ies. If we adhere to the moral guidance shown by our ancestors/religious leaders, our countries would be a model to rest of the world, our countrymen would be the most compassionate, most generous and most unselfish beings in the world. Yet, it does not seem to be so. The majority acts just the opposite.Why? Why are we like this? Where and what has gone wrong? It is indeed very sad...why is it that a raped girl is cornered in our society and the rapist is protected?

Where are those ardent followers of Hinduism/Buddhism when such things happen? Why are they silent? 'Ah...that's none of my business'. Do we care? Oh...no. Why should we? As long as our needs are satisfied why bother about the other?Recently at a funeral house, it was seen the daughter of the deceased father, revising and questioning from a school text book from her 7 year old daughter in a corner of the hall where the body was kept. Why? Because the school tests were going on....and for this lady the priority was to prepare her child for the rat race and not to pay due last respects to her dead father! This is only one example out of many.....but this is another kind of opportunism.Sorry, for the non astro post. But it pains to see opportunism corrupting all our esteemed values inherited from our religions and culture. blessings,Renuancient_indian_ astrology, "sunil nair" <astro_tellerkerala wrote:>> *Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?> > *An article every Indian should read!**> *> Why Indians don't give back to society> > By Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009> > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism> > Why don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu> trinity as the> creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its> eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But> in> what way does our religion shape our culture?> > Weber explained the

success of capitalism in the US , Germany and> Britain as> coming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or> culture, was> missing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain> .> Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing> good> deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate> motive:> public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.> Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.> > What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our> cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.> > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism.> One> good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we> observe> the opportunism in the behaviour of the

Indian driver. Where traffic> halts> on one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming> side> because there is space available there. If that leads to both sides> being> blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people> behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted> to> stay in his place.> > The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is> convinced that> the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his> instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal> motoring> cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and> drove> away.> > We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which> there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the-

world> leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights.> We> form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for> the> plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their> boarding> announcements for Indians taking international flights.> > Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective> good.> Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always> pick> up the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many> people as> India 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but> spotless.> This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.> > The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state.> A study> of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India

(Elsevier> Science/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "declining> assessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on> compliance, while> "traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution> activity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled> over> the fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the> average of> countries with similar GDP per capita".> > We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our> ambiguity> extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.> Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an> issue in> Indian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on> camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a> court,> can hold legitimate hope of a

comeback—unthinkable in the West.> > The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the> success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well,> even if> we can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is> peerless at> the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory,> which> in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent> for> adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.> > The question is: Why are we opportunists?> > In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the> rewards> religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife.> This> is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create> sceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this

in> Hinduism.> Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism> and> rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our> death rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from> rebirth.> > Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about> how> not to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens> his> finest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and> Wittgenstein (> "The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus> similarly.> > Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.> Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum> --> from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of> his> fellow man. But why?> > The

Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give> you this,> you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the> universe's blessings towards you. God gives you something not> through the> miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that> something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the> Vedic> fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another.> Religion> is about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and> appeasement,> through offerings.> > Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give> back> to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you)> because> it hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian> industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always

gave a tenth> of> his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions,> fighting> hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around> Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even> affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his> entire> fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani> International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs> 24,000> admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.> > An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith> or> has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the> question we> started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He> has> nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe,

he> already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

We are not charitable...,

 

The reasons are :

 

1) High ppopulation density and lack of opportunities have made us

very competitive & 'self-centric'. Our universe starts and ends with our family.

 

2) While growing up, we have not received or seen such largesse from

soceity. So, we don't have much ideals to enumerate.

 

3) Lack of opportunities for growth has made us very short sighted.

We always calculate "what is there for me ?" in every scenario. So,

giving donations etc., is not there in our minds. This also made us going

for short--cuts in every scenario. We adulterate everything for short-term

gains. As the saying goes"Dhanda mein sab chalta hain" (Everything is

fair in business)

 

4) An affluent soceity which is rooted in a place and have a sense of belonging

do go for "giving it back". Many of our affluent businessmen do give charity.

 

5) Sometimes we search for a reliable instrument for giving charity. However,

except few religious institutions, we don't have many such instrument.

Even in last Tsunami, we gave whatever we could. Later we came to know

that many of our donations are either abandoned, or misplaced or going

somewhere else.

 

But I have seen many self-less charities in life. many of my colleagues

provide food for people going for Satsang / Teerth-yatra. Generally the scenario

is like this...

 

People who are going to such holy places by train and crossing Mathura ....

my colleagues do provide food (generally breakfast or meal)...provided that

the teerth-Yatri-s are from same locality. The nos. of meals may 100-200.

And my colleagues don't advertise that either.

 

regards

 

P L Chakraborty

 

 

renunw [renunw] Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:03 AM Subject: Re: Why Indians don't give back to society ?

Dear Sunil ji,An interesting article! The 'opportunism' mentioned here sounds so familiar...may be something not alien to Sri Lanka too. Taking just one example in the article, I can vividly visualize the impatience, selfishness, and the urge to break through traffic lights thus breaking through all the barriers our sacred books have imparted on us. I don't see much of a difference between Hinduism and Buddhism....the most liberal religions/philosophies. If we adhere to the moral guidance shown by our ancestors/religious leaders, our countries would be a model to rest of the world, our countrymen would be the most compassionate, most generous and most unselfish beings in the world. Yet, it does not seem to be so. The majority acts just the opposite.Why? Why are we like this? Where and what has gone wrong? It is indeed very sad...why is it that a raped girl is cornered in our society and the rapist is protected? Where are those ardent followers of Hinduism/Buddhism when such things happen? Why are they silent? 'Ah...that's none of my business'. Do we care? Oh...no. Why should we? As long as our needs are satisfied why bother about the other?Recently at a funeral house, it was seen the daughter of the deceased father, revising and questioning from a school text book from her 7 year old daughter in a corner of the hall where the body was kept. Why? Because the school tests were going on....and for this lady the priority was to prepare her child for the rat race and not to pay due last respects to her dead father! This is only one example out of many.....but this is another kind of opportunism.Sorry, for the non astro post. But it pains to see opportunism corrupting all our esteemed values inherited from our religions and culture. blessings,Renu , "sunil nair" <astro_tellerkerala wrote:>> *Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?> > *An article every Indian should read!**> *> Why Indians don't give back to society> > By Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009> > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism> > Why don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu> trinity as the> creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its> eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But> in> what way does our religion shape our culture?> > Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US , Germany and> Britain as> coming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or> culture, was> missing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain> .> Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing> good> deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate> motive:> public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.> Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.> > What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our> cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.> > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism.> One> good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we> observe> the opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic> halts> on one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming> side> because there is space available there. If that leads to both sides> being> blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people> behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted> to> stay in his place.> > The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is> convinced that> the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his> instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal> motoring> cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and> drove> away.> > We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which> there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the- world> leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights.> We> form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for> the> plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their> boarding> announcements for Indians taking international flights.> > Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective> good.> Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always> pick> up the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many> people as> India 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but> spotless.> This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.> > The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state.> A study> of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (Elsevier> Science/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "declining> assessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on> compliance, while> "traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution> activity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled> over> the fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the> average of> countries with similar GDP per capita".> > We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our> ambiguity> extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.> Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an> issue in> Indian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on> camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a> court,> can hold legitimate hope of a comeback—unthinkable in the West.> > The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the> success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well,> even if> we can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is> peerless at> the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory,> which> in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent> for> adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.> > The question is: Why are we opportunists?> > In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the> rewards> religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife.> This> is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create> sceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this in> Hinduism.> Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism> and> rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our> death rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from> rebirth.> > Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about> how> not to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens> his> finest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and> Wittgenstein (> "The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus> similarly.> > Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.> Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum> --> from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of> his> fellow man. But why?> > The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give> you this,> you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the> universe's blessings towards you. God gives you something not> through the> miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that> something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the> Vedic> fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another.> Religion> is about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and> appeasement,> through offerings.> > Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give> back> to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you)> because> it hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian> industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth> of> his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions,> fighting> hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around> Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even> affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his> entire> fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani> International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs> 24,000> admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.> > An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith> or> has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the> question we> started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He> has> nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he> already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.>This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

[Guest guest]

dear Gopalakrishna iyer ji what is astrology after all ,is it not abt karma ??means good deeds ( as dharma ,artha ,kama ,moksha is related to astrology also ) so dont u thinK such discussion and giving awareness abt good deed s will lead to bettermnt of nativs and hence will help them too to make a better living and better society ,better country ,better religion ( which is a must ) as astrology the roots is based on karma theory and finaly better re birth or No birth hence Moksha other wise if u hav a diffrnt opinion u can illuminate us rgrds sunil nair , Gopalakrishnan Subra Iyer <subragops3 wrote:>> How is this article related to the research in astrology? Are we not focussing?>  > > > --- On Thu, 7/30/09, renunw renunw wrote:> > > renunw renunw Re: Why Indians don't give back to society ?> > Thursday, July 30, 2009, 1:33 AM> > >  > > > > Dear Sunil ji,> > An interesting article! > > The 'opportunism' mentioned here sounds so familiar...may be something not alien to Sri Lanka too. Taking just one example in the article, I can vividly visualize the impatience, selfishness, and the urge to break through traffic lights thus breaking through all the barriers our sacred books have imparted on us. I don't see much of a difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.... the most liberal religions/philosoph ies. If we adhere to the moral guidance shown by our ancestors/religious leaders, our countries would be a model to rest of the world, our countrymen would be the most compassionate, most generous and most unselfish beings in the world. Yet, it does not seem to be so. The majority acts just the opposite.> > Why? Why are we like this? Where and what has gone wrong? > > It is indeed very sad...why is it that a raped girl is cornered in our society and the rapist is protected? Where are those ardent followers of Hinduism/Buddhism when such things happen? Why are they silent? 'Ah...that's none of my business'. Do we care? Oh...no. Why should we? As long as our needs are satisfied why bother about the other?> > Recently at a funeral house, it was seen the daughter of the deceased father, revising and questioning from a school text book from her 7 year old daughter in a corner of the hall where the body was kept. Why? Because the school tests were going on....and for this lady the priority was to prepare her child for the rat race and not to pay due last respects to her dead father! This is only one example out of many.....but this is another kind of opportunism.> > Sorry, for the non astro post. But it pains to see opportunism corrupting all our esteemed values inherited from our religions and culture. > > blessings,> > Renu> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "sunil nair" <astro_tellerkerala wrote:> >> > *Subject:* [Why Indians don't give back to society ?> > > > *An article every Indian should read!**> > *> > Why Indians don't give back to society> > > > By Aakar Patel, Mint, July 4, 2009> > > > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism> > > > Why don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu> > trinity as the> > creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its> > eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But> > in> > what way does our religion shape our culture?> > > > Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US , Germany and> > Britain as> > coming from their populations' Protestant faith. This ethic, or> > culture, was> > missing from the Catholic populations of South America , Italy and Spain> > .> > Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity' s message of doing> > good> > deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate> > motive:> > public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US , from John D.> > Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.> > > > What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our> > cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.> > > > Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism.> > One> > good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we> > observe> > the opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic> > halts> > on one side of the road in India , motorists will encroach the oncoming> > side> > because there is space available there. If that leads to both sides> > being> > blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people> > behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted> > to> > stay in his place.> > > > The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is> > convinced that> > the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his> > instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal> > motoring> > cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and> > drove> > away.> > > > We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which> > there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the- world> > leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights.> > We> > form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for> > the> > plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their> > boarding> > announcements for Indians taking international flights.> > > > Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective> > good.> > Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always> > pick> > up the rubbish we throw. Thailand 's toilets are used by as many> > people as> > India 's toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but> > spotless.> > This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.> > > > The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state.> > A study> > of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (Elsevier> > Science/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "declining> > assessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on> > compliance, while> > "traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution> > activity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled> > over> > the fact that " India 's income tax performance (was) below the> > average of> > countries with similar GDP per capita".> > > > We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our> > ambiguity> > extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms.> > Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an> > issue in> > Indian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on> > camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a> > court,> > can hold legitimate hope of a comebackâ€"unthinkable in the West.> > > > The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the> > success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well,> > even if> > we can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is> > peerless at> > the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory,> > which> > in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent> > for> > adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.> > > > The question is: Why are we opportunists?> > > > In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the> > rewards> > religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife.> > This> > is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create> > sceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this in> > Hinduism.> > Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism> > and> > rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our> > death rites and beliefs -- funeral in Kashi -- seek freedom from> > rebirth.> > > > Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about> > how> > not to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens> > his> > finest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and> > Wittgenstein (> > "The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus> > similarly.> > > > Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is.> > Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum> > --> > from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of> > his> > fellow man. But why?> > > > The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give> > you this,> > you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the> > universe's blessings towards you. God gives you something not> > through the> > miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that> > something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the> > Vedic> > fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another.> > Religion> > is about bending god's influence towards you through pleas, and> > appeasement,> > through offerings.> > > > Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give> > back> > to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you)> > because> > it hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian> > industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth> > of> > his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions,> > fighting> > hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around> > Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even> > affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his> > entire> > fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani> > International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs> > 24,000> > admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.> > > > An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith> > or> > has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the> > question we> > started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He> > has> > nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he> > already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.> >>