local Hindi

I do speak Hindi, especially at home or when I am with friends from UP. But I generally prefer to stick to English when talking to anyone else. Hindi may be what a lot of my friends think it to be - the "national" language, but for me, it has been a very local language and every time I am in India, it seems to be getting more and more localized. I see a very compelling reason to speak Hindi only to people from UP. There is a certain flavor to Hindi of UP, that only people from the region can appreciate. A lot of times, the vocabulary uses so much of Urdu or Sanskrit, that it is practically a language different from that of Bombay or Delhi. Hindi in UP is not just the language of city-talk, but it also has been the language of law and business. Yet is the other "mainstream" form of Hindi - the variety that relies on English for sophistication but keeps the only "local" aspects for Hindi expression - that has been welcomed and accepted. Much as I like to distinguish this form of Hindi from the one I speak, there is a certain music and nonchalance to this city-hindi that I find amusing. The Mumbai-Hindi is really the best example; it is spoken in a city inhabited by everyone from around India - the bhaiyas, the madrasis, the ghatis and the bongs. They are all there and they use the mishmash of Hindi and English to go by. The nonchalant "masti" of the life in the city- whether it be impoverished or elite - is expressed very well in the form of Hindi that has evolved in the city. Hindi of Mumbai might have the same syntax as that from UP but it derives a lot of words from Marathi and other local languages, apart from, its Mumbaiya character.

Delhi has its own form of Hindi - yet again - influenced by neighboring states. The Punjabi and Hindustani are so close in syntax and mood, that for me it has always been difficult to distinguish Delhi Hindi from Punjabi. If I were to speak the Hindi of Delhi I would rather choose Punjabi because I think there would be a lot more justice served that way - both to Hindi and to Punjabi. It is hard not to acknowledge the role that a common syntax and general appreciation of poetry that Urdu has provided to the whole of North India. If there is one language - with its variants loosely similar to each other - through North India, then it is mostly because of influence of Urdu. However, the influence of Urdu as well as the usability of a common Indian language has declined over last century to the extent that Hindi is only a shallow reminder of the past. Hindi is not used for any purpose except admittance of unyielding local ways. An average North Indian speaks Hindi only as long as he or she is describing his "local" feelings. The moment there is need to be assertive or to say something pithy - the language unconsciously switches to English. the only exceptions are those who have accepted English completely and never choose Hindi to communicate with anyone. If you don't believe that, do a very easy experiment. Just start disagreeing with a Hindi speaker and tell him that he is wrong about everything he is saying. Most likely the Hindi speaker would re-tell you everything in English - only expecting you to find it all more authentic, reliable and convincing. Such is the Hindi that has flourished in the cities of India. Despite its charm and amusement, there is really little that it has to offer. It would not be incorrect to say that the Hindi of big cities is really a local flavor of English, rather than that of Hindi.

a crisis of beauty

There is that essential charm in theology - the story of Christianity. The effect of religion is at least as deep rooted as is human history - partly because religion itself is a record of history.

There is this beauty in religion that it can explain everything - even things that science cannot. Nothing comforts more than when all nature is explained through a simple story. It is really the story that makes religion so graspable and far reaching.

There are many other things woven into religion but primarily it is the the human story that forms most of its appeal. Religion stands time, the future - and our being outside of the realms of time is pondered over and is explained convincingly by religion. Nothing else nearly achieves that.

The feelings of love, family and other values can be easily irreversibly tied together with this story. The story only provides beauty and its only the beauty itself that religion is tied to. Unfortunately we tend to claim more than beauty from assertions of our religion. That is where the beauty of religion fails to converge with the nature of its appeal. This is the crisis that we deal with.

being capitalist or socialist

Reading a book on history of conservatism in America, I feel that the reason for someone to agree with Socialism or it's opposite- Capitalism is purely circumstantial. If one sees Socialism in his past, then he tries to revolt and put personal freedom in front. On the other hand, when one is withered with the power-driven society, then the way to revolution is mostly about forming communities and sharing the benefits. In our times, of course there is a sort of convergence between the two tendencies, even though is not uncommon to see either of the extremes in media. I think all civilizations have had a dualism of some kind ; the particular case of capitalism and socialism is indeed the most remarkable of them all. The causes of two world wars in last century might seem to be rooted in racial strife or manic dictators, but they probably have had more to do with the conflict between these two economic philosophies.

I recently learned about the book "Road to Serfdom" by Hayek, an Austrian economist, who along with others in the Austrian academia who have had limited freedom during the war years, equated socialism with totalitarianism and claimed that authoritarianism is inherent in socialist ideals. In the back-drop of failing socialist policies in Europe and later due to the failure of Stalinism in USSR, the works of Hayek influenced many neo-liberals in America.

Ottoman Empire

I have recently started reading about Ottoman Empire. As usual taking notes on the way.

-The basis of Ottoman rule in Albania was a feudal military system of landed estates, called timars, which were awarded to military lords for loyalty and service to the empire

पाणिनि

पाणिनिविरचितव्याकरणपुस्तकपठनम यत्नम करोमि|

http://www.archive.org/details/ashtadhyayitrans06paniuoft

Taiping Rebellion

Religion in China has always been a mystery to me. It is hard to find a neutral and comprehensive account of modern China. The exoticism in most of the books on contemporary China doesn't appeal so much to a non-westerner like me. I think that due to lack of free media, the massive language barrier and the unwillingness of Chinese people to discuss current events on the country, it is somewhat difficult to have a general sense of religion in China. The official theory of "no-religion" in China didn't sound very much plausible to me. Having grown up in India I do think that "not having a religion" doesn't necessarily mean a lack of religious conviction. In fact most of the societies that were conquered (and partly humiliated) by West at some point have witnessed radicalization of the "religion" to some extent. An interesting event is the Taiping Rebellion. This was a religious movement but ironically enough was suppressed by the Western forces. It seems like the feudal system of China had given in to the Western forces. The Qing rulers having been of Manchu origin (most of the Chinese people are of Han origin) might have helped quite a bit in getting support for a rebellion against the rule. It is hard not to compare this with the 1857 sepoy mutiny in India. It happened about the same time and was in some way a repercussion of the new Western control. It is remarkable that in India, the rebellion was initiated by sadhus - a group of religious people who could never have been supported by the Moghul ruler (Muslim). But still the mutiny was later headed by a Moghul ruler. In other words, the mutual opponents had united against the Western forces. Most Indians seem to have had little trouble in considering the Western forces as their enemy. In the Chinese context this would be similar to Qing and Hans attempting to unite against the British. However the "mutiny" can hardly be compared with the Taiping rebellion. The mutiny was neither as widespread nor as deeply entrenched in society as the Taiping revolution. About 20 million people are known to have died in the rebellion. The fact that the rebellion was started by someone who wished to be a part of the civil (imperial) services alone suggests that China was indeed being governed much better than India and that China's was a much more integrated society unlike India, where Muslim rule never influenced the rural Hindu population. It is not surprising that the Taiping rebels had clear ideas of governance after dislodging the Qing rule.

For those reasons, the rebellion does seem more similar to Russian revolution. When the feudal Tsar system had failed to govern the country and was losing wars in foreign excursions (Japan) the Bolsheviks party emerged and attempted to overthrow the Tsar rule. The difference of course is that there was no Western interference in Russia. Chinese "Gordon" defeated the short-lived government of the Taiping rebels. It took more than a decade to wipe out the rebels. The other major difference is the unique religious nature of the rebellion. The fact that a "foreign" religion was used to root out a feudal system is quite remarkable. The rebels were primarily Hakka ( a migrant newcomer group among Hans) and Zhuang and both were economically disadvantaged. Christianity definitely has had the appeal to the common people. Chinese case would've been no different. That Christianity wasn't seen as a foreign religion suggests that the differences between Eastern and Western religion were either not obvious or immaterial to the average people in China. In modern China, only about 10 % of the total population is atheist. Confucianism is deeply entrenched in Chinese society. As things were Buddhism was an inquiry and skepticism to Confucianism. For the most part things are still the same. Only 3-4% of Chinese are Christians. The ancestral worship and spirit-worship might be widespread but such ritualism is accepted both by Christians and Buddhists alike in modern day.

pilaf

I used to think that the similarity of words pilaf and Hindi Pulao is because of a recent exchange of recipes from the East. But apparently rice was grown in the central Asia when it was imported from South Asia in ancient times. The Muslim traders returned to South Asia what we know today as Biryani. The modern Hindi word pulao comes from Sanskrit pulaaka (which means a lump of rice, ref. A Sanskrit-English dictionary , Monier-Williams).

The word pilaf is found in Turkish, Greek, Armenian and some other Central Asian languages.