Most religious orders have places of worship. Temples and churches are probably the two most common terms. Christians have churches, Hindus and some others have temples.
Mormons (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) have both - Temples and Churches. They both serve different purposes. Mormon Churches are for public worship, and anyone can go in. Mormon Temples are for private worship, and have restricted attendance.
Does this definition apply to Hindu Temples and other Christian Churches too? While people use Churches for private worship too, their main purpose is public worship - usually the once-a-week Sunday service. And, while people use Hindu Temples for public worship too, their main purpose is private worship.
Does this also underscore a difference between religions? Hinduism is primarily focused on private worship, and Christianity on public or group worship?
And, what about Mosques and Synagogues? I don't know enough to say whether they are for public or private worship. The dictionary states them both as houses of worship.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Indian Muslims in the US
Why are there so few Muslims from India in the US?
According to a recent news report, there are more Muslims from Pakistan - which itself has fewer Muslims than India*. This is a bit surprising, when we believe that the Indian educational system trains well, and that there are equal opportunities for everyone.
Is it that Muslims are not using their opportunities in India? Or, that they are not choosing to come to the US?
Or, is the number misleading; in other words, is the percent of Muslims in the Indian immigrant population in the US roughly the same as the percent of Muslims in India (16.4)? If this is the case, then immigration from Pakistan must be higher than that from India - as a percent of its own population.
Any other explanations?
* Total population of Pakistan in 2007 - 169M (of this, 96% are muslims)
Number of Muslims in India in 2001 - 174M
According to a recent news report, there are more Muslims from Pakistan - which itself has fewer Muslims than India*. This is a bit surprising, when we believe that the Indian educational system trains well, and that there are equal opportunities for everyone.
Is it that Muslims are not using their opportunities in India? Or, that they are not choosing to come to the US?
Or, is the number misleading; in other words, is the percent of Muslims in the Indian immigrant population in the US roughly the same as the percent of Muslims in India (16.4)? If this is the case, then immigration from Pakistan must be higher than that from India - as a percent of its own population.
Any other explanations?
* Total population of Pakistan in 2007 - 169M (of this, 96% are muslims)
Number of Muslims in India in 2001 - 174M
Model for Unity - Maharashtra Style
During the recently concluded Presidential Elections in India, Shiv Sena declared that they will support Pratibha Patil (the eventual winner), regardless of her political affiliation. The reason? She is from Maharashtra.
Kudos to Shiv Sena for rising about party politics. When will others in the country learn to do the same?
And, when will Shiv Sena lead us to the same model for the country as a whole, rather than just for a region.
Kudos to Shiv Sena for rising about party politics. When will others in the country learn to do the same?
And, when will Shiv Sena lead us to the same model for the country as a whole, rather than just for a region.
Saving children - one baby at a time
In a small town in Northern India, they have come up with a unique way to address the issue of abandoned infants.Rather than dumping unwanted babies in strange places, parents can merely place them in one of the "baby baskets" placed by an NGO in different parts of town.
The real process begins after the basket door is shut. Automatic phone calls are made to different volunteers' home. One of them picks up the baby and takes it to the hospital for a physical examination. Once that is done, the baby is handed over to an agency.
Task done, everyone can breathe in relief!
In the last six months, they have save four babies. Even greater sense of pride is that in this era of female infanticide, only the fourth one was a female.
I just hope this project continues, rather than get vandalized by unsocial elements. After all, the baby baskets are unattended facilities, with technology in them.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Farmers - 60% of India's Population
The Financial Times in one of their editions in June 2007, (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ed531a4c-1add-11dc-8bf0-000b5df10621.html - can read it on-line only if you subscribe to ft.com) states that 60 % of India is in agriculture.
India does not have an appreciable food surplus or deficit. That means that 6 families are working to provide food to 10 families. Or, each one family lives on income it generates from providing food to 10/6 = 1 and 2/3 families. One of them is their own family. So, each family lives on income it generates from providing food to 2/3 of another family.
Doesn't sound very good. It is even worse than this:
1. The farmers get their money from selling to the first of many middle-men, so they get much less than what what we pay at a retail store.
2. This money is used for all their non-food expenses - living, education, retirement, ...
3. This is the average amount. So, broadly speaking, about half the families get less than this. My guess is that it many more than half get less than this amount.
One way to do something for India, is to increase this ratio of 2/3. So, if each family provides food for even 2 families, they increase their earning by a factor of 3.
Doable?
India does not have an appreciable food surplus or deficit. That means that 6 families are working to provide food to 10 families. Or, each one family lives on income it generates from providing food to 10/6 = 1 and 2/3 families. One of them is their own family. So, each family lives on income it generates from providing food to 2/3 of another family.
Doesn't sound very good. It is even worse than this:
1. The farmers get their money from selling to the first of many middle-men, so they get much less than what what we pay at a retail store.
2. This money is used for all their non-food expenses - living, education, retirement, ...
3. This is the average amount. So, broadly speaking, about half the families get less than this. My guess is that it many more than half get less than this amount.
One way to do something for India, is to increase this ratio of 2/3. So, if each family provides food for even 2 families, they increase their earning by a factor of 3.
Doable?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Musical Instruments - simple vs. mechanical
I compare the musical instruments that my children and their friends use in the US, with what I used as a child in India.
My flute was a bamboo tube with a few holes in it; each finger movement covered or uncovered a hole. The Western flute is a sophisticated mechanical device with a large number of levers.
The shehani was an analog of the bamboo flute. Its Western equivalent, the oboe, seems as sophisticated as the western flute.
Clearly, the cost of producing a shehnai is much less than an oboe. And, there are fewer things to go wrong, and tune-up in the shehnai.
What does this mechanical sophistication, and increase in cost, do? Does it make it easier for the musician? Or, does it allow the production of better music? Or both?
My flute was a bamboo tube with a few holes in it; each finger movement covered or uncovered a hole. The Western flute is a sophisticated mechanical device with a large number of levers.
The shehani was an analog of the bamboo flute. Its Western equivalent, the oboe, seems as sophisticated as the western flute.
Clearly, the cost of producing a shehnai is much less than an oboe. And, there are fewer things to go wrong, and tune-up in the shehnai.
What does this mechanical sophistication, and increase in cost, do? Does it make it easier for the musician? Or, does it allow the production of better music? Or both?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Indian Economy Moving Towards Organized Sector
What percent of the Indian economy is in the "unorganized sector?" Numbers ranging from 60% to 97% are talked about.
With big corporations gradually moving into this space (e.g. Reliance getting into retailing), a significant part of this economy is going to be turned on its head. Do we understand the social implications?
- Many small businesses will be driven out. Their employees may find employment at large corporations, doing the same things, but under better working conditions. However, a significant majority of these business have no regular real employees - it is all family-run. What happens to these families?
- Cost structures of many of these are very low - almost insignificant profit margins. While large buying entities may reduce cost of acquisition, there will be additional corporate costs.
- Corporations will be able to flex their muscles to extract very low prices from suppliers. And they will dis-intermediate the middle man.
The quality of life of buyers, on the other hand, will improve substantially.
- Easier access to many things under the same roof. What you had to go to 5 stores to buy, and took and entire morning, can now be bought at a single store in half an hour.
- Their employees will have better working conditions.
Social implications are huge though.
With big corporations gradually moving into this space (e.g. Reliance getting into retailing), a significant part of this economy is going to be turned on its head. Do we understand the social implications?
- Many small businesses will be driven out. Their employees may find employment at large corporations, doing the same things, but under better working conditions. However, a significant majority of these business have no regular real employees - it is all family-run. What happens to these families?
- Cost structures of many of these are very low - almost insignificant profit margins. While large buying entities may reduce cost of acquisition, there will be additional corporate costs.
- Corporations will be able to flex their muscles to extract very low prices from suppliers. And they will dis-intermediate the middle man.
The quality of life of buyers, on the other hand, will improve substantially.
- Easier access to many things under the same roof. What you had to go to 5 stores to buy, and took and entire morning, can now be bought at a single store in half an hour.
- Their employees will have better working conditions.
Social implications are huge though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)