Here is an excerpt from a book: "An Indian on his visit to Holland went out one evening with his host for a walk to get some milk. They walked to a dairy. The dairy had over a hundred cows and only one woman looked after most of the operation. The cows were milked mechanically; the milk came into a boiler and was sterilized. There was no sales counter and no salesman. The host opened the boiler’s tap and filled his jug with milk. Then he took out a twenty guilders note, picked up a bowl (full of money) from a window, put his money into it, helped himself to change, turned around, and started walking back. The Indian stunned and said “If you were an Indian, you would take the milk and the money.”
If people who buy the milk were not honest, then the diary owner will have to hire a salesman. The price of milk would go up. They would have less milk for the same amount of money. And if the customers were dishonest, why should the salesman or the dairy owner be trustworthy? If they were Indians, they would add water to the milk. Then we would have costly and impure milk. People would agitate and would demand the state to appoint milk-inspectors. And who would have to pay for them? In any case the customers and suppliers are dishonest, why should the inspectors be honest? With their powers they will not do anything unless appeased with bribes. And ultimately it ends with substandard milk at a higher price."
Maybe in one way we can think and admire the uncanny ability of an Indian to create job opportunities. But the more important issue is; have we lost our moral values and our integrity?
There was once an article in the newspaper: "Ambani brothers and Mittal plans to Indianise Europe by 2015." Is the situation from the story, the creation of jobs at the cost of losing integrity, called Indianisation?
What is Indianisation? It must be some quality, something different which makes India different and for which India is known for.
Someone said, “The difference between the west and India is that in west people do not believe in God whereas in India people don’t know which God to believe.”
So then does Indianisation mean the confusion of a society with numerous deities? Lets assume here that that is called Indianisation, I will consider only the negative aspects of India culture here.
If you see the young generation of India, the degree of the influence of western culture is enormous. Western culture and philosophies are propagated not through books these days but through music and movies, through the media which portrays their lifestyle unceasingly. We now think that using slang when you talk is cool, flirting is fun, divorce as a necessary part of marriage, premarital sex educative for post marital life, extra marital affairs a must for all married people, religion are for non-intellect and atheism for the intellect. One could think this age to be “the age of westernized Indians.”
This is what westernization is today. Although the term westernization was originally used to refer to the use of right reason in all spheres of life which moulded the western world during the times of Abraham Lincoln, etc.
We like criticizing Americans that they have no culture but in reality what is happening is that we are losing our culture to their so called no-culture. It’s a fascinating relation.
Culture + no-culture = no-culture
Why do we think of only the bad characteristics and qualities of a culture when we talk about the influences and effects of Westernization and Indianisation? I guess it’s just for the simple reason that it is easier to accept and imbibe them by and into another culture. And I am sticking with that thought henceforth. Although there are great qualities in both the cultures but unfortunately we can't adopt it.
In India, my assumption is that the root cause of losing culture and getting westernized can be attributed to the espousing of the atheistic worldview by the Indian youth. Just because westerners did we think we also should. We think that to be known as an intellect one has to be an atheist. If you ask one why he chose to be an atheist his reply will evidently be; because we cannot get a proof of the existence of God from religion. But have they found the proof of the non-existence of God intellectually (scientifically)? Hardly anyone will bother to investigate their claims neutrally from both sides.
Aldous Huxley said: “I wanted to believe the Darwinian idea, I chose to believe it, not because I think there was enormous evidence for it, nor because I believed it had the full authority to give the interpretations to my origins but I chose to believe it because it delivered me from trying to find meaning and freed me to my own erotic passions.”
Science is the god of an atheist and scientists are the messengers of the god called science. We have become so complacent and ignorant that we believe whatever science dictates is true.
Atheism means there is no God. But an Indian atheist will say: I believe there is no god. It’s yet another belief. An atheist will not know the reason why he is an atheist similar to most theists who will not know the reason for their beliefs. But an atheist is more dogmatic than a theist. Because his whole idea is that life is meaningless and it is meaningless to find the truth because the truth which he ultimately might find is that “life is meaningless.” India has added another deity to its long list of deities.
India is better because it had espoused a moral law giver who defines what is good and evil and that one will be judged according to ones action. But in the west, life itself is meaningless, there is no such thing as good and evil, it all depends on feelings. If they feel it is good then it’s good even though it is evil for someone else, if they feel it is an evil then it is evil. Good and evil are judged and distinguished based on feelings. What was the result? The implications of atheistic worldview are horrible; teenagers killed their own parents without any remorse, rape of young innocent girls, father killed child, child killed mother, mother killed father, etc, burglary, murders in drug deals, murders in street, divorce, extra-marital affairs, and not forgetting suicides, and the prevailing horrors of Auschwitz; killing of millions innocent babies through abortion every year. Even history cries out at the outcome of atheistic views.
If more and more Indian youth continue to embrace these atheistic ideas, it will be worst than Auschwitz. I am sure someone will think it to be an option for population control. Let that someone think the same thing when he becomes the victim or some of his loved ones become the victim. One thing for sure, abortion rate will increase exponentially. Again someone will think the money he can make in running a clinic. Let that someone imagine killing his own child. Westernizing India will have serious consequences. Watch out!!!
Finally, it appears that Western culture and Indian culture lack the sting and the answer to man’s question on origin, meaning, morality and destiny remains unanswered. And these question arises again; is there meaning to life? Is there a truth? Can we know the truth?
An atheist will say there is NO meaning although deep within himself he is hoping and wishing that he is wrong.
A theist will say there is meaning to life although he himself might be hoping that he knows the meaning of what he is affirming.
Allow me to conclude with sarcasm. According to an evolutionary atheist I think we can expect that lions will later evolve in their moral values and intelligence and by that time humanity will be extinct killing each other. They will be like us, the human today; they will use their mind to think. But the most amusing thing will be that even though a group of lions is collectively known as a “pride”, they will not have the pride to reject the presence of their very creator contrary to the pride of humanity which is rejecting it and is leading itself to its own destruction. Those unlucky human that survives will be kept in the zoo and the papa lion will tell the baby lion: there is man, “the king of his own destruction.”
Ps: feel free to disagree with me like I disagree with you in your blogs.