Altercation due to gravity

It was sad to discover that people who call themselves “intellectuals” or “intelligentsia”- to be precise- were not able to draw a difference between Dinanath Batra and G. Madhavan Nair. It is not their fault. After all these years of preaching others to be broad-minded, they themselves have become so narrow-minded that they’re not ready to buy a definition of broad-mindedness other than their own. One word in praise of ancient Indian culture and they at once conclude that you’re praising Hinduism or its modern form “Hindutva” of RSS. Well, I do not intend to write for those who keep Aryabhata, Kanaad, Bhaskaracharya, Nagarjuna, Brahmgupt, Varah Mihir and Sushruta in the same category as Asaram Bapu. I also do not intend to write for those to whom, every scholar of Sanskrit or Vedic studies is a supporter of BJP or RSS or VHP.

To those who are objective, who believe that everything contains something good and something bad and who are not diehard cynics, I, as a student of Physics, as a son of a professor of philosophy and as a grandson of a professor of comparative religion, dare to say something.

To those who are still skeptical about my inclinations and think that I’m drifting towards the right of the Centre, I want to make it clear that I know there are scholars whose sole aim is to prove that ancient Indian knowledge was better than the Western knowledge, or that Indians thought about it first and not the Westerners. To such people and to those who think otherwise, I only say that knowledge has no nationality, caste, religion, race or political inclination. I’m unable to understand the necessity of proving that whose knowledge is better, ours or theirs, when both essentially say the same thing. Is Aryabhat’s gravity different than Newton’s gravity or is Einstein’s relativity different than Nagarjuna’s relativity? So why the debate that we thought about it first and hence we’re greater? Well, clearly, this was not the intention of Mr Nair when he said that Aryabhat knew about gravity before Newton. Although he might have said so without naming Newton at all and then perhaps a criticism wouldn’t have ensued.

But, habitually, the leftists pounced upon him without knowing what exactly he said. I’m happy that, till now, no one from the saffron camp has come forward to defend him otherwise the poor scientist would have been pulling his hairs.

Mr Nair is a renowned physicist and former chairman of Isro. He has contributed a lot in the Chandrayaan project and as he said, Aryabhat’s equation was used in Chandrayaan. He is a well-read man and if he said something then we should at least have thought about it before training our guns on him. I don’t know how many of those who are criticizing him and considering his statement to be Newton’s insult have read Aryabhateeya (Aryabhat’s book) or Newton’s Principia Mathematica or both. But those for whom life on earth begins with 14^th century Europe do not care about listening to others’ argument as they’re so busy in imposing their thoughts. They demean Aryabhat only because he was born in the India before foreign invasion and praise Newton only because he was born in the Europe which was awakening to renaissance. What Aryabhat wrote in Aryabhateeya and what Newton wrote in Principia matter little to them. Their mind is so full of prejudice and cynicism that knowledge finds little place to enter.

As a matter of fact, Aryabhat was not a religious leader. He did not praise any god in his book nor did he frighten people with heaven or hell. In fact, what he wrote was clearly opposite to the religious beliefs of those times. He can be considered as India’s Galileo because he broke the myth behind eclipses. He dared to say that Rahu or Ketu do not “eat” Sun or Moon as was widely believed at that time.

Aryabhateeya is a thin book with 4 chapters. In the first chapter, Aryabhat introduces his way of referring to numbers with letters. For example, the letter Ri represents 10,00,000. However, this method makes translation or decoding of his shlokas very cumbersome as Sanskrit shlokas consist of too many combined letters and it’s a mammoth task to separate them and draw a meaning in terms of numbers from them. This sometimes also leads to contradictions.

But, patient researchers, using this method, have even found the accurate radius of the earth and the distance between the earth and the sun implicit in the first Hymn of Purusha Sooktam.

Subsequently in the second chapter, Aryabhatt explains simple geometry and trigonometry with the formulae to calculate area of a square, rectangle and circle; perimeter; the method to draw circles, triangles and squares; formula to calculate area of a cone; to calculate length of a shadow based on the angle of depression it makes with the source of light; to compare similar triangles; the distance formula and Shulva Sutra (also known as Pythagoras Theorem); the formula of (a+b)²; solution of indeterminate equation of first degree and even the formula to calculate rate of interest.

In the next chapter he describes the calculation of astronomical time and it is the last chapter in which he comes to describe properties of the earth and space. He explains eclipses, earth’s rotation and its consequences (gravity being one), how the rotation of earth affects its radius, why we see the sun and stars rising in the east and setting in the west, 4 points in 4 directions on the earth who are at 90 degrees from the line of equator, and calculation of properties of the sun, the moon and other planets.

Can such a rich document be dismissed as a mere religious one which is based on religious superstitions? Well, I leave it the profound discretion of my communist friends.

Nothing in this world is perfect. This goes for all the ideologies. So thinking that our knowledge, our beliefs and our ideology are greater than those of our neighbours is not correct. Simultaneously, it is not correct to dismiss a thought only because it doesn’t suit your ideology. Everything enlightens us if seen from the right perspective. As famous Sufi Saint Kabir has said, “Saar, saar ko gahi rahe, thotha dehi udaaye” (Wise men imbibe the good from everything, and reject the bad).

(PS: Criticism with only logical arguments is accepted. Arguments like why should I believe that there was an Aryabhat existed at all? Why should I believe that he wrote Aryabhateeya and not some RSS leader in the 19^th century? Why should not you burn all such religious books which are sanskritising the society by promoting brahminical thoughts etc. etc. will not be entertained. But I can extend my sympathy to such people)

Delhi's daredevil verdict

So Delhites rejected an offer which even Barack Obama couldn’t, viz. Chalo Chalein Modi ke Saath (Let’s go with Modi). How many elections has India seen, even during the Nehru years, when the people left only 3 MLAs out of 70 in Opposition? They believed in someone who was relentlessly being defamed and being called “I run man” or “Bhagoda” by the opponents. On the other hand, they ruthlessly ignored that party and people who have recently grown all the more powerful and were winning elections after elections. Given the fact that a good portion of Delhi’s administration is shared by the Centre, such a verdict can only be called Delhi’s daredevil verdict. It is a daredevil verdict also because believing in a party that has no or little experience of being in the government is not always easy for the people. That too when the powerful PM launched a tirade against the party’s convener calling him "irresponsible”, “anarchist” and even a “Naxal”.

There must be some strong reasons why the people of Delhi ignored all the accusations leveled against the AAP and its chief and decided to give him a second chance. With my limited political understanding, I’ve decided to list a few reasons which took AK-49 to AK-67.

Face vs. No face

The BJP seemed confused when they were apparently seeking a face to confront Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi. Why did they need a face in Delhi when they were fighting all the previous elections in the name of Mr Modi, only they know better. They won in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand and performed well in Jammu and Kashmir without a face against the established leaders of the parties in power. The Prime Minister campaigned in all the elections and the party’s performance was attributed to his “charisma”. After winning the elections, local, lesser-known leaders were picked up to be the CMs of the respective states. When not having a face against Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Prithviraj Chavan, Hemant Soren and Omar Abdullah didn’t make a difference then how does it matter in the case of Mr Kejriwal? Was the BJP not confident? Perhaps they wanted to poach AAP’s voters by fielding a candidate who had a long association with the party and the anti-corruption movement, but it backfired.

In fact, the reason for BJP’s victory in all the elections was not actually Mr Modi’s “charisma” (although it contributed a lot), but the local workers of the Sangh Parivar. Only the social media campaign cannot bring so many votes. It was the word of mouth that spread in village after village against the incumbents and in favour of BJP’s policies that attracted the voters. And the local partymen played a huge role in ensuring such a high turnout in favour of the BJP. But what BJP leadership did in Delhi irked the local workers. They ignored those who were preparing for elections for over a year and made an “outsider” their chief ministerial candidate. However eligible the candidate might be, a victory without the support of local rank and file is impossible. And that’s what happened. During the campaign, when they realised that their decision was being proved wrong, they pushed Kiran Bedi on the backseat and the PM again took control. But this time it was too late. The voter had sensed the discontent in the saffron party’s camp and decided to junk them.

Negative campaigning

We’ve seen the Presidential-style campaign for Lok Sabha elections. We saw campaigns for various state elections. But there was something different in the BJP’s campaign during the Delhi elections. Voters could sense the arrogance of its leaders, including the PM. After the US President’s visit, the tone of Mr Modi’s speeches was even more changed. They put all their resources in defaming AAP and Mr Kejriwal. Ms Bedi mocked Mr Kejriwal for not being invited in the R-Day parade while she herself got a front-row seat. The common man was watching, and he could see the same attitude developing in the BJP leaders which caused the rout of Congress. On the other hand, the mufflerman’s camp was busy in going door to door, apologising for their mistakes, bringing out a well thought-out manifesto and refraining from personal attacks. In the end, the humble wins.

Toeing the Congress line

Like the Congress gives credit to the family and especially Rahul Gandhi for all the good works done by its governments and tries to find scapegoats for the setbacks, the BJP is doing the same by indirectly blaming Ms Bedi for their loss. Why don’t Amit Shah or Mr Modi come forward to take the responsibility of the defeat like they took the credit for all the previous victories? What happened to their “charisma” and “strategy”? Do they want to say that Ms Bedi was so incompetent that even Mr Modi’s “charisma” and Mr Shah’s “strategy” could not fetch votes? If Mr Modi and Mr Shah do not blame themselves for the loss, then their “mission” for Congress-free India would be in vain as they themselves would be behaving likewise.

Delhi’s daredevil verdict has put a huge burden on AAP’s shoulders. In a way, it will also help distract the people’s focus from Central government’s failures and they will be more concerned about AAP’s delivery. It is to be seen, now, that whether the Centre fulfills its promise of cooperating with the Delhi government. Whatever might be the future, the only thing required from the common people is pragmatism in reviewing the works of AAP. If they fail to fulfil a promise, the people should consider all the reasons behind it before blaming them.