Regarding the Stupid White Men

``given that the western hegemonic forces have isolated the east from the west. The Empire robbed and plundered the resources of the indian subcontinent.``

And Africa, America, South America then there was mercantilism, Colonialism, imperialism, slavery, numerous genocides, and all that sh1t America has done... Whew...

What I find funny is that many of you think like THEM, based on their rules of political correctness. For example, CLEARLY no other race has been as ``destructive`` as the white race. Now, the white man will never admit 2 this (obviously) so he gets his lil pawns (thats several of u tuxedo wearing nutz) to do his dirty work.

So now u will warp ur weak logic and say things like ``there is no such thing as race`` or ``all races have done terrible things`` or other insane diversion tactics.

Jump Paki, jump!

Prem #27 With respect to the openness of muslim society in Baghdad to scholars from India and Greece, you write: ``Three cheers for societies that were open, that were eagerly learning from others, and didn`t feel they had learnt all there was to learn.``

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

BUtthead

My quota for the year ain`t over. Aagay aagay daihkiyay hota hay kia

HOW FAR IS HEAVEN (OR HELL)

Dear Chowk People!

Recently, a friend sent me some scanned pages from a scientific journal, which I never heard of before, titled “Scientific Muslim”, which is published from Islamabad, Cairo, Istanbul, Riyadh, and several other cities in several languages, simultaneously. The reason that my friend sent it to me was that it contained an article from Dr. Bashir Mehomood, former Head of Physics Department of Quaid-e-Azam University. It is the same article, which Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy constantly lampoons in his articles and calls it psuedo-science. My friends! Now that I have read the actual paper itself, and based on my meager knowledge on the subject, acquired from reading magazines like “Discover” and “Popular Mechanics” over the years, I think Dr. Mehmood’s theory makes perfect sense. Allow me to add to this that I think our dear Prof. Hoodbhoy is a victim of professional jealousy that plagues scientific community all around the world, not just Pakistan or Muslim world but all over. Which I think is normal. But the way Hoodbhoy and his followers twist it to condemn Islam or Muslims is not only deplorable but shameful. I put forth, down below the excerpt from what Dr. Hoodbhoy has written, and below that Dr. Mehmood’s research paper. Your comments are most appreciated:

DR. Hoodbhoy writes:

[http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?phoodbhoy_dec0701

Though genuine scientific achievement is rare in the contemporary Muslim world, pseudo-science is in generous supply. A former chairman of my department has calculated the speed of Heaven: it is receding from the earth at one centimeter per second less than the speed of light. His ingenious method relies upon a verse in the Qur`an which says that worship on the night on which the Qur`an was revealed, is worth a thousand nights of ordinary worship. He states that this amounts to a time-dilation factor of one thousand, which he puts into a formula belonging to Einstein`s theory of special relativity.] End quote.

Urstruly’s Note:

Now before you start the article below, keep one thing in mind that we are “assuming” that “heaven” exists and it is extraterrestrial. Assumption is an authentic and recognized component of scientific procedure of investigation. e.g. Until the start of last century all physicists were carrying out their experimentation under the “assumption” that Ether exists.

Read on:

RECEDING HEAVEN

By Dr. Bashir Mehmood

Cosmological inquiry is ancient, but only in the past 50 years or so have we begun to understand how the universe began and what its ultimate fate may be. The crucial perception came in the 1920’s, when Edwin P. Hubble demonstrated that the spiral nebulas are not local objects but independent system of stars much like our own, and thereby showed that the universe is a much larger place than had been imagined. Hubble showed further that the entire observable system of galaxies is in orderly motion as is now well known, the nature of that motion is expansion: all distant galaxies are receding from us.

That the universe is expanding is today considered established. A question that remains uncertain is whether the expansion would continue for ever or whether the receding heaven (galaxies) will some day stop and then reverse their motion, eventually fall together in great collapse. The answer to this question determines the geometrical character of the universe, that is, it determines the nature of space and time. If the expansion continues perpetually, the universe is “open” and infinite: if it will someday stop and reverse its direction the universe is “closed” and of finite extent.
In order to choose between those possibilities, astronomers construct mathematical models of the universe and then attempt to find observable features of the real universe that would confirm one of the models and exclude all others. So far no single measurement has been made with enough precision to settle the question unambiguously. Several independent tests are possible, however, the pieces of the puzzle had been supplied by many workers employing quite different techniques. It now seems feasible to assemble the pieces. Taken together, the available evidence suggests that the universe is open and that its expansion will never cease.

Isotropic Expansion:

I detected the recessional motion of the distant galaxies through measurement of their optical spectra. The spectra of most stars (and hence of heavens) are intruppted by dark lines representing the absorption of particular wavelengths by atoms in the cooler , outer layers of the stellar atmosphere: each chemical element generates a characteristic pattern of lines whose waveengths are precisely known from laboratory measurements. When the galaxiy is moving away from the observer, the wavelength of each spectral line is increased as result of the Doppler effect, so that all the lines appear to be displaced towards longer wavelengths and in particular to towards the red end of the visible portion of the spectrum. The displacement is called a red shift, and by measuring its magnitude the velocity of its recession can be calculated. When an object is moving toward the observer, the wavelength of the spectral lines are decreased by the Doppler effect and the lines appear to be displaced towards the blue end of the spectrum, an effect called blue shift. All the distant galaxies whose spectra was measured by me and by other observers show red shifts: they are therefore assumed to be receding from us.

The recessional motion has several remarkable properties. I showed that the velocity with which a galaxy recedes is proportional to its distance from us, so that a constant ratio of distance to velocity can be calculated. The ratio is such that a galaxy 10,000,000 light years from us recedes with a velocity of 170; another galaxy twice as far away receds twice as fast, or 340 km per second. Small departures from this rule are commonly observed because most galaxies are members of groups or clusters and have orbital motions along the line of sight connecting the eartg with a galaxy. Those motions are essentially random, however, so that in any large sample of galaxies that cancel one another. Nonrandom, systematic varations from te ratio have been found only for galaxies at the most extreme distances. As well shall see, these variations do not invalidate that rule but provide important information about the history of the universe.

A second characteristic of the cosmic expansion is its isotropy: it is the same in all directions. No matter where in the sky a galaxy is found, its recessional velocity is related to its distance by the same proportionality. This observation seems to suggest that the universe is remarkably symmetrical and, what is even more extraordinary, that we happen to be at it’s a very center. The crystal spheres of medieval cosmologies were no more geocentric.

There is, of course, another explanation, which can be understood most readily by considering a simple two dimensional model of an expanding universe. Imagine a spherical balloon with small dots painted on its surface, each dot representing a galaxy. As the balloon is inflated the distance between any two dots (always measured on the surface of this sphere) increases with a speed proportionate to the distance between them. No matter which.dot is designated the center, all other dots recede from it uniformly in all directions. Thus each.dot obsrves the same exapnsion and no one of them has a privileged position. Susch an expansion has no center:; more precisely, every point is its center.

It follows from this analysis of the expansion that the geometrical configuration of the dots cannot change. A balloon bearing a picture of Mickey Mouse continues to bear the same picture as it is inflated. All distances between points on the balloon are multiplied by the same factor. Similarly, in the real universe eight galaxies that happen to lie at the corners of a cube in one epoch will remain at the corners of a cube, albeit a larger one, as the universe expands.

[Rest of the article discusses other subjects such as Big Bang, Geometric Deceleration, and The Geometric Shape of Universe, which I thought are irrelevant to what Hoodbhoy contends, therefore, not being posted here.
]

Robert Fisk: Fear and learning in America

As an outspoken critic of US policy in the Middle East, Fisk expected a hostile reception when he paid his first visit to the American Midwest since 11 September. He couldn`t have been more mistaken

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=285777

European Crusades, Christianisation, and Colonisation

What happened to India when the British arrived?

On receiving silver bullion from Spain for the provision of 4,800 African slaves, Britain had a surplus of silver which it then used for trading with India.

At Battle of Plassey in 1757 British troops commanded by Robert Clive defeated the Bengal ruler a Mughal viceroy and put in British puppet. Robert Clive said there would be little or no difficulty in obtaining absolute possession of these rich kingdoms. At this point silver was no longer needed for trading with India.

Before British rule, there was no private property in land. The self-governing village community handed over each year to the ruler or his nominee a share of the years produce. East India Company put a stop to this and introduced a new revenue system superseding the right of the village community over land and creating two new forms of property on land - landlordism and individual peasant proprietorship. It was assumed that the State was the supreme landlord. Fixed tax payments were introduced based on land whereby payment had to be made to the government whether or not crop had been successful. As one British put it we have introduced new methods of assessing and cultivating land revenue which have converted a once flourishing population into a huge horde of paupers. Indeed the first effect was the reduction in agricultural incomes by 50% thereby undermining the agrarian economy and self-governing village.

In 1769 the Company prohibited Indians from trading in grain, salt, betel nuts and tobacco and discouraged handicraft. Company also prohibited the home work of the silk weavers and compelled them to work in its factories. Weavers who disobeyed were imprisoned, fined or flogged. Company`s servants lined their own pockets by private trading and bribery and extortion. Goods were seized at a fraction of their price and resold to their owners at five times their price.

In 1770s one writer said of Bengal : one continued scene or oppression. Systematic plunder led to a famine in which 10 million people perished. Bengal was left naked, stripped of its surplus wealth and grain. Famine struck in 1770 and took the lives of an estimated one third of Bengal`s peasantry. A Commons Select Committee report in 1783 said that natives of all ranks and orders had been reduced to a State of Depression and Misery.

In 1787 a former army officer wrote: In former times the Bengal countries were the granary of nations, and the repository of commerce, wealth and manufacture in the East...But such has been the restless energy of misgovernment, that within 20 years many parts of those countries have been reduced to desert. The fields are no longer cultivated, extensive tracks are already overgrown with thickets, the husbandman is plundered, the manufacturer (handicraftsman) oppressed, famine has been repeatedly endured and depopulation ensured.

As India became poor and hungry, Britain became richer. Colossal fortunes were made. Robert Clive arrived in India penniless - activities of Company investigated by House of Commons. The Hindi word loot was introduced into English language because of the plunder of India. Colossal fortunes helped fund Britain`s Industrial Revolution e.g.:

1757 - Battle of Plassey

1764 - Hargreaves spinning jenny

1769 - Arkwright`s water frame

1779 - Crompton mule (whatever that is)

1785 - Watt`s steam engine

When British first reached India they did not find a backwater country. A report on Indian Industrial Commission published in 1919 said that the industrial development of India was at any rate not inferior to that of the most advanced European nations. India was not only a great agricultural country but also a great manufacturing country. It had prosperous textile industry, whose cotton, silk, and woollen products were marketed in Europe and Asia. It had remarkable and remarkably ancient, skills in iron-working. It had its own shipbuilding industry in Calcutta, Daman, Surat, Bombay and Pegu. In 1802 skilled Indian workers were building British warships at Bombay. According to a historian of Indian shipping the teak wood vessels of Bombay were greatly superior to the oaken walls of Old England. Benares was famous all over India for its brass, copper and bell-metal wares. Other important industries included the enamelled jewellery and stone carving of Rajputana towns as well as filigree work in gold and silver, ivory, glass, tannery, perfumery and papermaking.

All this altered under the British leading to the de-industrialisation of India - its forcible transformation from a country of combined agriculture and manufacture into an agricultural colony of British capitalism. British annihilated Indian textile industry because a competitor existed and it had to be destroyed.

Shipbuilding industry aroused the jealousy of British firms and its progress and development were restricted by legislation. India`s metalwork, glass and paper industries were likewise throttled when British government in India was obliged to use only British-made paper.

The vacuum created by the contrived ruin of the Indian handicraft industries, a process virtually completed by 1880, was filled with British manufactured goods. Britain`s industrial revolution, with its explosive increase in productivity made it essential for British capitalists to find new markets. India turned from exporter of textile or importer. British goods had to have virtually free entry while entry into Britain of India goods was met with prohibitive tariffs. Direct trade between India and the rest of the world had to be curtailed. Horace Hayman Wilson in 1845 in The History of British India from 1805 to 1835 said the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competitor with whom he could not have contended on equal terms.



While there was prosperity for British cotton industry there was ruin for millions of Indian craftsmen and artisans. India`s manufacturing towns were blighted e.g. Decca once known as the Manchester of India, and Murshidabad-Bengal`s old capital which was once described in 1757 as extensive, populous and rich as London. Millions of spinners, and weavers were forced to seek a precarious living in the countryside, as were many tanners, smelters and smiths.

India was made subservient to the Empire and vast wealth was sucked out of the subcontinent. Economic exploitation was the root cause of the Indian people`s poverty and hunger. Under Imperial rule the ordinary people of India grew steadily poorer. Economic historian Romesh Dutt said half of India`s annual net revenues of £44m flowed out of India. The number of famines soared from seven in the first half of 19th Century to 24 in second half. According to official figures, 28,825,000 Indians starved to death between 1854 and 1901. The terrible famine of 1899-1900 which affected 474,000 square miles with a population almost 60 million was attributed to a process of bleeding the peasant, who were forced into the clutches of the money-lenders whom British regarded as their mainstay for the payment of revenue. The Bengal famine of 1943, which claimed 1.5million victims were accentuated by the authority`s carelessness and utter lack of foresight.

Rich though its soil was, India`s people were hungry and miserably poor. This grinding poverty struck all visitors - like a blow in the face as described by India League Delegation 1932. In their report Condition of India 1934 they had been appalled at the poverty of the Indian village. It is the home of stark want...the results of uneconomic agriculture, peasant indebtedness, excessive taxation and rack-renting, absence of social services and the general discontent impressed us everywhere..In the villages there were no health or sanitary services, there were no road, no drainage or lighting, and no proper water supply beyond the village well. Men, women and children work in the fields, farms and cowsheds...All alike work on meagre food and comfort and toil long hours for inadequate returns.

Jawarharlal Nehru wrote that those parts of India which had been longest under British rule were the poorest:Bengal once so rich and flourishing after 187 years of British rule is a miserable mass of poverty-stricken, starving and dying people.

India was sometimes called the `milch cow of the Empire`, and indeed at times it seemed to be so regarded by politicians and bureaucrats in London. Educated Indians were embittered when India was made to pay the entire cost of the India Office building in Whitehall. They were further outraged when in 1867 it was made to pay the full costs of entertaining two thousand five hundred guests at a lavish ball honouring the Sultan of Turkey.

In India, the hunger and poverty experienced by the majority of the population during the colonial period and immediately after independence were the logical consequences of two centuries of British occupation, during which the Indian cotton industry was destroyed, most peasants were put into serfdom (after the British modified the agrarian structures and the tax system to the benefit of the Zamindars - feudal landlords) and cash crops (indigo, tea, jute) gradually replaced traditional food crops. Britain`s profits throughout the 19th century cannot be measured without taking into account the 28 million Indians who died of starvation between 1814 and 1901.

The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs

While few educated South Asians would deny that British Colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of the common people of the sub-continent - several harbor an illusion that the British weren`t all bad. Didn`t they, perhaps, educate us - build us modern cities, build us irrigation canals - protect our ancient monuments - etc. etc. And then, there are some who might even say that their record was actually superior to that of independent India`s! Perhaps, it is time that the colonial record be retrieved from the archives and re-examined - so that those of us who weren`t alive during the freedom movement can learn to distinguish between the myths and the reality.

Literacy and Education

Several Indians are deeply concerned about why literacy rates in India are still so low. So in the last year, I have been making a point of asking English-speaking Indians to guess what India`s literacy rate in the colonial period might have been. These were Indians who went to school in the sixties and seventies (only two decades after independence) - and I was amazed to hear their fairly confident guesses. Most guessed the number to be between 30% and 40%. When I suggested that their guess was on the high side - they offered 25% to 35%. No one was prepared to believe that literacy in British India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had crawled to 11%! That fifty years of freedom had allowed the nation to quintuple it`s literacy rate was something that almost seemed unfathomable to them. Perhaps - the British had concentrated on higher education ....? But in 1935, only 4 in 10,000 were enrolled in universities or higher educational institutes. In a nation of then over 350 million people only 16,000 books (no circulation figures) were published in that year (i.e 1 per 20,000).

Urban Development

It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with modern conveniences for their administrative officers. But it should be noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for the ``natives`` to enjoy. Consider that in 1911, 69 per cent of Bombay`s population lived in one-room tenements (as against 6 per cent in London in the same year). The 1931 census revealed that the figure had increased to 74 per cent - with one-third living more than 5 to a room. The same was true of Karachi and Ahmedabad. After the Second World War, 13 per cent of Bombay`s population slept on the streets. As for sanitation, 10-15 tenements typically shared one water tap!

Yet, in 1757 (the year of the Plassey defeat), Clive of the East India Company had observed of Murshidabad in Bengal: ``This city is as extensive, populous and rich as the city of London...`` (so quoted in the Indian Industrial Commission Report of 1916-18). Dacca was even more famous as a manufacturing town, it`s muslin a source of many legends and it`s weavers had an international reputation that was unmatched in the medieval world. But in 1840 it was reported by Sir Charles Trevelyan to a parliamentary enquiry that Dacca`s population had fallen from 150,000 to 20,000. Montgomery Martin - an early historian of the British Empire observed that Surat and Murshidabad had suffered a similiar fate. (This phenomenon was to be replicated all over India - particularly in Oudh (modern U.P) and other areas that had offered the most heroic resistance to the British during the revolt of 1857.)

The percentage of population dependant on agriculture and pastoral pursuits actually rose to 73% in 1921 from 61% in 1891. (Reliable figures for earlier periods are not available.)

In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in ``Public Works in India`` noted: ``Public works have been almost entirely neglected throughout India... The motto hitherto has been: `Do nothing, have nothing done, let nobody do anything.....`` Adding that the Company was unconcerned if people died of famine, or if they lacked roads and water.

Nothing can be more revealing than the the remark by John Bright in the House of Commons on June 24, 1858, ``The single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has spent a larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in the fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public works of every kind throughout the whole of its vast dominions.``

Irrigation and Agricultural Development

There is another popular belief about British rule: `The British modernized Indian agriculture by building canals`. But the actual record reveals a somewhat different story. `` The roads and tanks and canals,`` noted an observer in 1838 (G. Thompson, ``India and the Colonies,`` 1838), ``which Hindu or Mussulman Governments constructed for the service of the nations and the good of the country have been suffered to fall into dilapidation; and now the want of the means of irrigation causes famines.`` Montgomery Martin, in his standard work ``The Indian Empire``, in 1858, noted that the old East India Company ``omitted not only to initiate improvements, bur even to keep in repair the old works upon which the revenue depended.``

The Report of the Bengal Irrigation Department Committee in 1930 reads: ``In every district the Khals (canals) which carry the internal boat traffic become from time to time blocked up with silt. Its Khals and rivers are the roads end highways of Eastern Bengal, and it is impossible to overestimate the importance to the economic life of this part of the province of maintaining these in proper navigable order ....... `` ``As regards the revival or maintenance of minor routes, ... practically nothing has been done, with the result that, in some parts of the Province at least, channels have been silted up, navigation has become limited to a few months in the year, and crops can only be marketed when the Khals rise high enough in the monsoon to make transport possible``.

Sir William Willcock, a distinguished hydraulic engineer, whose name was associated with irrigation enterprises in Egypt and Mesopotamia had made an investigation of conditions in Bengal. He had discovered that innumerable small destructive rivers of the delta region, constantly changing their course, were originally canals which under the English regime were allowed to escape from their channels and run wild. Formerly these canals distributed the flood waters of the Ganges and provided for proper drainage of the land, undoubtedly accounting for that prosperity of Bengal which lured the rapacious East India merchants there in the early days of the eighteenth century.. He wrote`` Not only was nothing done to utilize and improve the original canal system, but railway embankments were subsequently thrown up, entirely destroying it. Some areas, cut off from the supply of loam-bearing Ganges water, have gradually become sterile and unproductive, others improperly drained, show an advanced degree of water-logging, with the inevitable accompaniment of malaria. Nor has any attempt been made to construct proper embankments for the Gauges in its low course, to prevent the enormous erosion by which villages and groves and cultivated fields are swallowed up each year.``

``Sir William Willcock severely criticizes the modern administrators and officials, who, with every opportunity to call in expert technical assistance, have hitherto done nothing to remedy this disastrous situation, from decade to decade.`` Thus wrote G. Emerson in ``Voiceless Millions,`` in 1931 quoting the views of Sir William Willcock in his ``Lectures on the Ancient System of Irrigation in Bengal and its Application to Modern Problems`` (Calcutta University Readership Lectures, University of Calcutta, 1930)

Modern Medicine and Life Expectancy

Even some serious critics of colonial rule grudgingly grant that the British brought modern medicine to India. Yet - all the statistical indicators show that access to modern medicine was severely restricted. A 1938 report by the ILO (International Labot Office) on ``Industrial Labor in India`` revealed that life expectancy in India was barely 25 years in 1921 (compared to 55 for England) and had actually fallen to 23 in 1931! In his recently published ``Late Victorian Holocausts`` Mike Davis reports that life expectancy fell by 20% between 1872 and 1921.

In 1934, there was one hospital bed for 3800 people in British India and this figure included hospital beds reserved for the British rulers. (In that same year, in the Soviet Union, there were ten times as many.) Infant mortality in Bombay was 255 per thousand in 1928. (In the same year, it was less than half that in Moscow.)

Poverty and Population Growth

Several Indians when confronted with such data from the colonial period argue that the British should not be specially targeted because India`s problems of poverty pre-date colonial rule, and in any case, were exacerbated by rapid population growth. Of course, no one who makes the first point is able to offer any substantive proof that such conditions prevailed long before the British arrived, and to counter such an argument would be difficult in the absence of reliable and comparable statistical data from earlier centuries. But some readers may find the anecdotal evidence intriguing. In any case, the population growth data is available and is quite remarkable in what it reveals.

Between 1870 and 1910, India`s population grew at an average rate of 19%. England and Wales` population grew three times as fast - by 58%! Average population growth in Europe was 45%. Between 1921-40, the population in India grew faster at 21% but was still less than the 24% growth of population in the US!

In 1941, the density of population in India was roughly 250 per square mile almost a third of England`s 700 per square mile. Although Bengal was much more densely inhabited at almost 780 per square mile - that was only about 10% more than England. Yet, there was much more poverty in British India than in England and an unprecedented number of famines were recorded during the period of British rule.

In the first half of the 19th century, there were seven famines leading to a million and a half deaths. In the second half, there were 24 famines (18 between 1876 and 1900) causing over 20 million deaths (as per official records). W. Digby, noted in ``Prosperous British India`` in 1901 that ``stated roughly, famines and scarcities have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years ago, and four times as widespread.`` In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31(thirtyone) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.

Not surprising, since the export of food grains had increased by a factor of four just prior to that period. And export of other agricultural raw materials had also increased in similar proportions. Land that once produced grain for local consumption was now taken over by by former slave-owners from N. America who were permitted to set up plantations for the cultivation of lucrative cash crops exclusively for export. Particularly galling is how the British colonial rulers continued to export foodgrains from India to Britain even during famine years.

Annual British Government reports repeatedly published data that showed 70-80% of Indians were living on the margin of subsistence. That two-thirds were undernourished, and in Bengal, nearly four-fifths were undernourished.

Contrast this data with the following accounts of Indian life prior to colonization:-

`` ....even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans and other vegetables, sugar and sweetmeats can be procured in abundance .... Tavernier writing in the 17th century in his ``Travels in India``.

Manouchi - the venetian who became chief physician to Aurangzeb (also in the 17th century) wrote: ``Bengal is of all the kingdoms of the Moghul, best known in France..... We may venture to say it is not inferior in anything to Egypt - and that it even exceeds that kingdom in its products of silks, cottons, sugar, and indigo. All things are in great plenty here, fruits, pulse, grain, muslins, cloths of gold and silk...``

The French traveller, Bernier also described 17th century Bengal in a similiar vein: ``The knowledge I have acquired of Bengal in two visits inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in abundance cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It produces amply for it`s own consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls, ducks and geese. It has immense herds of pigs and flocks of sheep and goats. Fish of every kind it has in profusion. From Rajmahal to the sea is an endless number of canals, cut in bygone ages from the Ganges by immense labour for navigation and irrigation.``

The poverty of British India stood in stark contrast to these eye witness reports and has to be ascribed to the pitiful wages that working people in India received in that period. A 1927-28 report noted that ``all but the most highly skilled workmen in India receive wages which are barely sufficient to feed and clothe them. Everywhere will be seen overcrowding, dirt and squalid misery...``

This in spite of the fact that in 1922 - an 11 hour day was the norm (as opposed to an 8 hour day in the Soviet Union.) In 1934, it had been reduced to 10 hours (whereas in the Soviet Union, the 7 hour day had been legislated as early as in 1927) What was worse, there were no enforced restrictions on the use of child labour and the Whitley Report found children as young as five - working a 12 hour day.

Ancient Monuments

Perhaps the least known aspect of the colonial legacy is the early British attitude towards India`s historic monuments and the extend of vandalism that took place. Instead, there is this pervasive myth of the Britisher as an unbiased ``protector of the nation`s historic legacy``.

R.Nath in his `History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture` records that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the suburbs of Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned. ``Relics of the glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond recognition..``. ``Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived``.

In the same vein, David Carroll (in `Taj Mahal`) observes: `` The forts in Agra and Delhi were commandeered at the beginning of the nineteenth century and turned into military garrisons. Marble reliefs were torn down, gardens were trampled, and lines of ugly barracks, still standing today, were installed in their stead. In the Delhi fort, the Hall of Public Audience was made into an arsenal and the arches of the outer colonnades were bricked over or replaced with rectangular wooden windows.``

The Mughal fort at Allahabad (one of Akbar`s favorite) experienced a fate far worse. Virtually nothing of architectural significance is to be seen in the barracks that now make up the fort. The Deccan fort at Ahmednagar was also converted into barracks. Now, only its outer walls can hint at its former magnificence.

Shockingly, even the Taj Mahal was not spared. David Carroll reports: ``..By the nineteenth century, its grounds were a favorite trysting place for young Englishmen and their ladies. Open-air balls were held on the marble terrace in front of the main door, and there, beneath Shah Jahan``s lotus dome, brass bands um-pah-pahed and lords and ladies danced the quadrille. The minarets became a popular site for suicide leaps, and the mosques on either side of the Taj were rented out as bungalows to honeymooners. The gardens of the Taj were especially popular for open-air frolics.....``

``At an earlier date, when picnic parties were held in the garden of the Taj, related Lord Curzon, a governor general in the early twentieth century, ``it was not an uncommon thing for the revellers to arm themselves with hammer and chisel, with which they wiled away the afternoon by chipping out fragments of agate and carnelian from the cenotaphs of the Emperor and his lamented Queen.`` The Taj became a place where one could drink in private, and its parks were often strewn with the figures of inebriated British soldiers...``

Lord William Bentinck, (governor general of Bengal 1828-33, and later first governor general of all India), went so far as to announce plans to demolish the best Mogul monuments in Agra and Delhi and remove their marble facades. These were to be shipped to London, where they would be broken up and sold to members of the British aristocracy. Several of Shahjahan`s pavilions in the Red Fort at Delhi were indeed stripped to the brick, and the marble was shipped off to England (part of this shipment included pieces for King George IV himself). Plans to dismantle the Taj Mahal were in place, and wrecking machinery was moved into the garden grounds. Just as the demolition work was to begin, news from London indicated that the first auction had not been a success, and that all further sales were cancelled -- it would not be worth the money to tear down the Taj Mahal.

Thus the Taj Mahal was spared, and so too, was the reputation of the British as ``Protectors of India`s Historic Legacy`` ! That innumerable other monuments were destroyed, or left to rack and ruin is a story that has yet to get beyond the specialists in the field.

India and the Industrial Revolution

Perhaps the most important aspect of colonial rule was the transfer of wealth from India to Britain. In his pioneering book, India Today, Rajni Palme Dutt conclusively demonstrates how vital this was to the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Several patents that had remained unfunded suddenly found industrial sponsors once the taxes from India started rolling in. Without capital from India, British banks would have found it impossible to fund the modernization of Britain that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In addition, the scientific basis of the industrial revolution was not a uniquely European contribution. Several civilizations had been adding to the world`s scientific database - especially the civilizations of Asia, (including those of the Indian sub-continent). Without that aggregate of scientific knowledge the scientists of Britain and Europe would have found it impossible to make the rapid strides they made during the period of the Industrial revolution. Moreover, several of these patents, particularly those concerned with the textile industry relied on pre-industrial techniques perfected in the sub-continent. (In fact, many of the earliest textile machines in Britain were unable to match the complexity and finesse of the spinning and weaving machines of Dacca.)

Some euro-centric authors have attempted to deny any such linkage. They have tried to assert that not only was the Industrial Revolution a uniquely British/European event - that colonization and the the phenomenal transfer of wealth that took place was merely incidental to it`s fruition. But the words of Lord Curzon still ring loud and clear. The Viceroy of British India in 1894 was quite unequivocal, ``India is the pivot of our Empire .... If the Empire loses any other part of its Dominion we can survive, but if we lose India the sun of our Empire will have set.``

Lord Curzon knew fully well, the value and importance of the Indian colony. It was the transfer of wealth through unprecedented levels of taxation on Indians of virtually all classes that funded the great ``Industrial Revolution`` and laid the ground for ``modernization`` in Britain. As early as 1812, an East India Company Report had stated ``The importance of that immense empire to this country is rather to be estimated by the great annual addition it makes to the wealth and capital of the Kingdom.....``

Unfair Trade

Few would doubt that Indo-British trade may have been unfair - but it may be noteworthy to see how unfair. In the early 1800s imports of Indian cotton and silk goods faced duties of 70-80%. British imports faced duties of 2-4%! As a result, British imports of cotton manufactures into India increased by a factor of 50, and Indian exports dropped to one-fourth! A similiar trend was noted in silk goods, woollens, iron, pottery, glassware and paper. As a result, millions of ruined artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers, potters, smelters and smiths were rendered jobless and had to become landless agricultural workers.

Colonial Beneficiaries

Another aspect of colonial rule that has remained hidden from popular perception is that Britain was not the only beneficiary of colonial rule. British trade regulations even as they discriminated against Indian business interests created a favorable trading environment for other imperial powers. By 1939, only 25% of Indian imports came from Britain. 25% came from Japan, the US and Germany. In 1942-3, Canada and Australia contributed another 8%. In the period immediately before independence, Britain ruled as much on behalf of it`s imperial allies as it did in it`s own interest. The process of ``globalization`` was already taking shape. But none of this growth trickled down to India. In the last half of 19th century, India`s income fell by 50%. In the 190 years prior to independence, the Indian economy was literally stagnant - it experienced zero growth. (Mike Davis: Late Victorian Holocausts)

Those who wish India well might do well to re-read this history so the nation isn`t brought to the abyss once again, (and so soon after being liberated from the yoke of colonial rule). While some Indians may wax nostalgic for the return of their former overlords, and some may be ambivalent about colonial rule, most of us relish our freedom and wish to perfect it - not gift it away again.

References: Statistics and data for the colonial period taken from Rajni-Palme Dutt`s India Today (Indian Edition published in 1947); also see N.K. Sinha`s Economic History of Bengal (Published in Calcutta, 1956); and ``Late Victorian Holocausts`` by Mike Davis

The Colonial Holocaust and its Legacy

Colonialism and its Contemporary Legacy in the Establishment of Western Civil Society



by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed



I. The Colonial Era: An Overview and Deprivation

Western colonial exploits commenced around 1500AD. The now famous, and even much revered, colonial pioneers included personalities such as Columbus and de Gama, who ‘discovered’ the Americas and India respectively.

Before European merchants invaded and set up trading outposts in Africa, Asia and Latin America, these continents had in fact achieved high levels of cultural and economic development. Many were civilised to an extent which at least matched those of medieval Europe - and in some ways, could be seen as possessing a sophistication and civilisation that surpassed Europe - for instance, in terms of compassion, fraternity and community (e.g. the culture of the Native Americans). However, the common notion that they were hopelessly undeveloped prior to the advent of the Western invasion that began towards the end of the Middle Ages - and would remain that way - is inaccurate. In short, therefore, ‘pioneers’ such as Columbus and de Gama, advanced upon non-European territory with the objective of establishing European dominance.

Their superior military technology endowed the invading Europeans with the material advantage over non-European populations, allowing them to impose highly exploitive trading terms, and often opening up opportunities for them to indulge in undisguised looting. Imposed trading terms usually amounted in effect to loot and plunder. Indeed, in Latin America open looting of the indigenous population constituted a substantial source of profits. The overall result was that enormous amounts of wealth from Asia, Africa and Latin America were transferred to Europe. Consequently, in the wake of intense social oppression these continents underwent vast economic decline. European nation-states eventually established full control of these lands as their own, converting the indigenous populations into their colonies. They thereby occupied, governed and adapted these continents according to their own interests in extending European hegemony.

As a result, European nation-states imposed not only economic dominance, but also political and cultural dominance following their violent acquirement of overseas colonies via conquest. Gradually, a global structure - an international system - of generic economic and political relations developed in which European elites dominated and controlled non-Western populations, exploiting them for the formers’ material profit.

In many places, a decline in population accompanied the vast loss of wealth. In Asia, the introduction of European diseases was a source of sweeping death for vulnerable indigenous people. In Africa, millions were lost to slavery. In Latin America, between 1500 and 1650, the population declined from about 40 million to 12 million, because of forced labour, malnutrition, disease and slaughter. We should consider the fact that prior to colonisation, states on each continent (such as India, China, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Java, Sumatra and South America) had socio-economic structures as advanced as those of pre-Renaissance Europe, and had already attained a sophisticated level of political development. These ended up degenerating - economically and politically - in the face of Western commerce, firepower and disease.

Once indigenous people were militarily subjugated by a combination of mass murder and enslavement, economic hegemony could be extended accordingly. Tax-systems were instituted, along with the proliferation of capitalist industries from colonialist home countries. Colonies were used as protected market outlets that were closed to rivals. In the agricultural field, colonies were moved in the direction of monoculturism while their own original industries were undermined and abolished. Greater areas of arable land on which staple foods were grown, were brought under the cultivation of one or two cash crops. Consequently, less and less of such staple foods were available for indigenous populations. Due to the fact that cash crops are highly sensitive to fluctuations in world demand, combined with the fact that the economies of these colonies were entirely dependent on only one or two cash crops, their economies would flourish and degenerate in correspondence with world demand. Colonies thus developed ‘boom and bust’ economies. This total dependence on one or two primary products continues to haunt former colonies from Cuba to Kenya to Sri Lanka, which therefore persist to suffer.

In consolidating their hegemony, the Europeans began transferring their capital, technology, methods of production, forms of social organisation, political and legal structures, and cultural and religious ideas to their colonies, which even now, some argue, constituted a positive element of colonialism. New Right theorists, such as Peter Berger, attempt to stress these allegedly beneficial aspects of the colonial imposition, betraying what amounts to an unfortunately prejudiced Eurocentric outlook. In arguing that colonialism had the benevolent effect of developing the non-European countries and bringing them into the wake of ‘civilisation’, New Right theorists only confirm their presupposition of the same Eurocentric values adopted by the colonialists: European superiority. The stark reality of colonialism is enough to demonstrate that these theorists fail to appreciate the degree of devastation, oppression and injustice of the overall Western impact, including its continuing legacy in the stark inequality between the North and the South, and within the South.

Essential to the idea that colonialism had beneficial effects on colonies is the effort to ignore the realities of this vast inequality. For the sake of justifying the colonial atrocities which have culminated in contemporary Western dominance, one has to disregard the confusion and distortion of cultures that has taken root in the East, and the ultimately narcotising fruits of political, economical and social impotence, dependence, fragmentation, despondency, corruption. If the New Right would recall the degree of confusion, helplessness and social disorder enveloping the victims of modern and postmodern colonialism, they would not be able to redundantly discuss its supposedly beneficial side-effects, relying on their presupposed notions of the superiority of Western ideologies. This is especially clear when one recalls that many of these countries prior to colonisation were fairly advanced with unique civilisations of impressive complexity, as has been indicated above.[1] Furthermore, to assert that they would not have continued to evolve and develop along their own lines is itself a baseless Eurocentric assumption.

Pakistani say arab invented algebra. Hindis say they invented zero and some stuff like that.That is fine and dandy.

Arabs do not invite us to arab nations meeting. So if arabs invented what we pakis have to pride about this. Did not get. I suggest do not take credit. We are no arabs.

We paks should not claim any thing.

I think it only shows in old times arabs were smart than present desert kingdoms and Descendents of arabs today are real stupid and semiwild barbarians compared to by gone old times.

2000 years ago hindus were smart but know India is semiliterate civilization.

So both arabs and hindus have degraded but pakistanis have atleast not gone down.We are where we were atlest no downward slide.

Mr. Newton was waise man enen though he was Jew. No community has added to science as jews. It proves number does not count. In arab land if some body is smart they always suspect to have some tint of jewish blood.

White color is not important but but helps woman to get better husband.It is reverse way also even though boy is good practicing muslim the girls deject him as he is dark and go for Naughty whitish bear drinking EXPAK.

Color of EXPAK( both sex) is getting better as even dark EXPAK gets wheatish and result is coal wheatish which is improvement. Over generations the color will be better.That is called hybrid technique.

The article seems too local` american based` could not follow no problem.

I am rational man but color I like is white. Its universal liking. We have explanation by some contributor from islamic scriptures . I will be very greateful to know is there real explanation why we all like white color. We all hope our children( sons ) go to foren and marry milkwhite and we have white grandchildren. At the same time no mother or father wants daughters to marry white to have milkwhite grandchildren.

Its intricate point. Need explanation. Like PM in Waiting Great Imran Khan married white we are proud of it, but if Great Khans Sister marry white all Pathans will not be happy and chase to kill them. Need some insight by EXPAKS.

Thank you very much.

regressive,

#7

LOL!!!

For once, I decided to read one of your posts fully, but alas, I could`nt help scrolling it quickly, as it became very obvious you are a lunatic.

Jeeze, you ``Conspiracy theorists`` have a mind boggling imagination! You come up with a theory & then scour the internet to find ``junk science`` opinions to fit into your bizarre theories, so you can spin that bizarre web of conspiracy!

OK...how about this?..the Islamic World concluded that since its population was expanding geometrically, it would need increasing amount of ``living space`` in the coming decades.

The Al-Qeeda network (the roots of which go back in the 60s) concluded that muslims were being persecuted all over the world. After the Arab-Israeli conflict, where Arabs were trounced, it became increasingly clear to intellectuals in Al-Qeeda that a new tactic should be invented to kill the infidels...subtly & slowly, without casting any suspicion on the Islamic world.

A top secret meeting was held in Medina--where oil rich financiers, muslim micro-biologists & jihadis met & came up with an ingenious solution. A biological weapon needed to be created that would selectively weed out infidels and ``false`` muslims, so that the ``true`` faithful could take over the world.

The tricky part of biological weapons is that it can quickly go out of control & kill even its creators. So a biological weapon had to be fashioned that could be linked to ``unIslamic`` behavior--so ``true`` muslims could be spared & the rest of the infidel world would die a slow, wasting death--the final curse of Allah.

Teams of fanatical Ql-Qeeda scientists worked in secret locations in Libya, Iraq & Pakistan. Finally the breakthrough came in the early 70s. A modified strain of simian virus (later called HIV) was developed by professor Al-Bozo & his team.

This virus could only be spread by infidelity, homosexuality, IV drug abuse & contaminated needles. Since infidelity was punishable with death by stoning in ``true`` muslim societies & drug abusers are expendable vermin, it was the PERFECT biological weapon for Islam.

..Africa was the first target, because it was a largely untapped continent, full of natural beauty & mineral wealth. Besides, Islam already had a firm foothold in Africa.

..A ``suicide volunteer`` codenamed mutha-e-phucka was inoculated with the Aids virus & let loose in the Dark Continent. He was bisexual. He went all over Africa, screwing prostitutes..both male & female to ``seed`` the continent.

...Aids would spread like wildfire in Africa. It would then be exported to the Satanic, promiscuous West, overcome Hindu India..& within 100 years, the entire heathen world would decay & die..so it could be repopulated by the true muslims.

Now, if youre interested & if I`m so inclined ..I`ll come up with innumerable websites that can conclusively PROVE this theory..

asim hayat

``All I am saying is that just because 8 students from Pakistan get scholarships at Stanford every eyar to study sciences and engineering is not enough given that the western hegemonic forces have isolated the east from the west. The Empire robbed and plundered the resources of the indian subcontinent. ``

.... like my daughter would say,``brown man, build a bridge and get over it``

.....stop looking a white man`s gift horse in the mouth, enjoy the wonders of indoor plumbing at stanford and stop fretting about the hegemonic forces that have robbed you of the freedom to relieve yourself by the roadside - trust me, those freedoms are highly overrated .........

...... and quit moaning about who invented algebra - it was a long time ago, and is quite immaterial ...... what is more important is who invented the gizmo that automatically covers toilet seats with sanitized plastic and the little twirrly thing that removes nose hair (i do wish that brown calculus professors would discover this device) ........so when was the last time a brown man made any contribution to civilization ? .... and i don`t mean discovering a silly quark or solving some usless mathematical riddle ..... i mean something useful - like democracy, the omelette maker, air conditioning or the swiss army knife .........

........ and stop complaining about the british ...we should be grateful to them for what little civilization we have in the subcontinent ...... if it weren`t for them we would still be running around in night gowns, riding jackasses and building marble mausoleums over dead queens .......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re : Bashir Mahmood

With all due respect I too think this guy is an idiot par excellence. Here is an excerpt of his scientific finesse exposed by the NYT.

Arrested Pakistani Atom Expert Is a Taliban Advocate Nov 11 2002

By DENNIS OVERBYE and JAMES GLANZ



Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, a nuclear engineer who was one of three Pakistani scientists arrested last week because of their suspected connections with the Taliban, is an expert on nuclear weapons production, but also a fundamentalist Muslim with unorthodox scientific views, scientists familiar with the Pakistani scientific circles said today.

During more than 30 years in Pakistan`s nuclear program, he pioneered construction of plants to produce enriched uranium and plutonium for Pakistan`s small but growing arsenal of atomic weapons. But as a subscriber to a brand of what is known to practitioners as ``Islamic science,`` which holds that the Koran is a fount of scientific knowledge, Mr. Bashiruddin Mahmood has published papers concerning djinni, which are described in the Koran as beings made of fire. He has proposed that these entities could be tapped to solve the energy crisis, and he has written on how to understand the mechanics of life after death.``

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No someone please ask this gadha how the devil is he going to tap the energy of the djinni. Out of curiosity I had posted this article on the stanford Pakistani lists. Lo and behold the usualaly inactive list, came alive with several ``Science and Engineering Pakistani students``, (generally smart people) making assertions like ``What a brilliant idea, or would it not be great if that could be further researched upon. Needless to say, I dont normally agree with Prof Hoodhbhoys speeches, while he lives comfortably in Maryland, But this time i shall let him have the benefit of the doubt given Mr Mahmood`s sterling scientific credentials as noted above.

urstruly

...now, would you also care to explain the other papers presented at the ``1987 International Conference on Scientific Miracles of Quran and Sunnah`` ...... ref. appendix of dr hoodhbhoy`s book ..... things like how the ummah can solve wapda`s problems by harnesssing jinns and calculate the angle of god by using pi and various ayahs ..... i am sure you would also be interested in finding out how to precisely calculate the quantity of sawab earned by praying yourself silly .....the appendix also contains an interesting exchange of letters between dr hoodbhoy and one of the apostles of divine science ..........what the heck, if you can believe in flying horses (or elephant nosed gods riding rats), you can believe anything .......

.... not to change the subject, but i saw this documentary on national geographic explorer about the horrible hindoo`s obsession with rats - how disgusting ! .....since we pakis are always looking for ways to feel good about ourselves, i was absolutely delighted and promptly fell on my knees to thank my ancestors for converting to something a little less ridiculous ......nothing, and i repeat, nothing, in pakistan comes close to rat worship - not even the ``incoherent babbling of defective minds``, as dr hoodbhoy calls it ..........

Urstruly, Reply #36

Further to what you have posted, here are my comments.

1. `` Hubble showed further that the entire observable system of galaxies is in orderly motion as is now well known, the nature of that motion is expansion: all distant galaxies are receding from us.``

First of all the fact that the Universe is either expanding or contracting was postulated by Einstein using his General theory of relativity. Hubble observed that galaxies in general are moving away from us, hence concluding that the universe is expanding as per Einstein`s theory.

Second, all galaxies exist in a cluster, and within that cluster these galaxies revolve around its common center of mass. Hence the notion that galaxies within these cluster have a random motion is wrong. From this observation arises the famous missing mass problem, i.e the mass required (hence the gravitational pull)to keep these galaxies in those orbits within a cluster is much larger that what is observed.

2.``A question that remains uncertain is whether the expansion would continue for ever or whether the receding heaven (galaxies) will some day stop and then reverse their motion, eventually fall together in great collapse. The answer to this question determines the geometrical character of the universe, that is, it determines the nature of space and time. If the expansion continues perpetually, the universe is “open” and infinite: if it will someday stop and reverse its direction the universe is “closed” and of finite extent.

In order to choose between those possibilities, astronomers construct mathematical models of the universe and then attempt to find observable features of the real universe that would confirm one of the models and exclude all others. So far no single measurement has been made with enough precision to settle the question unambiguously.``

One of the biggest supports for Big bang came when Cosmic Microwave background radiation was discovered by two scientists accidently at Bell labs in the late sixties. The CBR has a temperature of 2.7Kelvin with no apparent central source in the universe, i.e it is uniform all across the sky. This matches the postulate of a big bang and slow cool down of the universe due to expansion.

`` Several independent tests are possible, however, the pieces of the puzzle had been supplied by many workers employing quite different techniques. It now seems feasible to assemble the pieces. Taken together, the available evidence suggests that the universe is open and that its expansion will never cease.``

Wrong!! it has neither been proved that the universe is slowing down or continuing at the same rate of expansion. Dr. Bashir Mehmood would probably get a nobel prize if he proved either of the two.

In any case, Dr. Bshir contradicts himself in para 2. As he himself states that ``So far no single measurement has been made with enough precision to settle the question unambiguously``. How can he then claim that

``Taken together, the available evidence suggests that the universe is open and that its expansion will never cease``.

``I detected the recessional motion of the distant galaxies through measurement of their optical spectra. The spectra of most stars (and hence of heavens) are intruppted by dark lines representing the absorption of particular wavelengths by atoms in the cooler , outer layers of the stellar atmosphere: each chemical element generates a characteristic pattern of lines whose waveengths are precisely known from laboratory measurements. When the galaxiy is moving away from the observer, the wavelength of each spectral line is increased as result of the Doppler effect, so that all the lines appear to be displaced towards longer wavelengths and in particular to towards the red end of the visible portion of the spectrum. The displacement is called a red shift, and by measuring its magnitude the velocity of its recession can be calculated. When an object is moving toward the observer, the wavelength of the spectral lines are decreased by the Doppler effect and the lines appear to be displaced towards the blue end of the spectrum, an effect called blue shift. All the distant galaxies whose spectra was measured by me and by other observers show red shifts: they are therefore assumed to be receding from us.``

This was done first by Hubble himself so repeating the same calculations to conclude the samr thing does not prove anyting new. And also,

There is a catch here. A person can esily confuse the Doppler red shift with the gravitational red shift as per the general theory of relativity. Graviattional red shift occurs due to the displacement of spectra towards the red end by virtue of gravitaional pull on the photons.

``The recessional motion has several remarkable properties. I showed that the velocity with which a galaxy recedes is proportional to its distance from us, so that a constant ratio of distance to velocity can be calculated. The ratio is such that a galaxy 10,000,000 light years from us recedes with a velocity of 170; another galaxy twice as far away receds twice as fast, or 340 km per second. Small departures from this rule are commonly observed because most galaxies are members of groups or clusters and have orbital motions along the line of sight connecting the eartg with a galaxy. ``

Again he is trying to imply that he was the first one to show or prove this. Already done by Hubble.



``A second characteristic of the cosmic expansion is its isotropy: it is the same in all directions. No matter where in the sky a galaxy is found, its recessional velocity is related to its distance by the same proportionality.``

This proportionality constant is called Hubble`s constant as yet no one has been able to come up with a fixed number for this.

`` This observation seems to suggest that the universe is remarkably symmetrical and, what is even more extraordinary, that we happen to be at it’s a very center. The crystal spheres of medieval cosmologies were no more geocentric.``

This is the most ridiculous conclusion coming out from any scientist I have known i.e we are at the center of the universe. Please ask him to get in touch with the catholic church, who held this idea dearly. But my guess is that even the catohlic church has abondened this theory a long time back (after having persecuted a few scientists at that time).

``It follows from this analysis of the expansion that the geometrical configuration of the dots cannot change. A balloon bearing a picture of Mickey Mouse continues to bear the same picture as it is inflated. All distances between points on the balloon are multiplied by the same factor. Similarly, in the real universe eight galaxies that happen to lie at the corners of a cube in one epoch will remain at the corners of a cube, albeit a larger one, as the universe expands.``

True. This is the implication again from general theory of relativity. Imagine a strectched piece of thin rubber sheet with suares of equal dimensions made on it. Now keep a heavy ball in its center. You will observe that, a dpression is created due to the ball (mass) at the center, with some squares near it being stretched. If you were to keep a smaller ball near this bigger ball, the smaller ball will roll towards the bigger ball. This is what Newton called Gravitational force. Einstein explained the same force in terms of space time geometry (here, our stretched rubber sheet). So the space-time gets curved due to the presnce of mass (like the ball in our case) and this curvature allows other pieces of mass to experince a pulling force.

As yet no one has been able to calculate if the universe is going to slow down in its expansion or keep on expanding. Because this requires the calculation of total mass required to halt the expansion and start contracting again. There are too many observational hurdles to calculate mass based on luminosity of galaxies or star mass due to the presnce of interstellar/intergalactic gas and dust. And second, the farther ahead we llok in space, the fatrher back in time we peep. So to know the exact current state of the Universe is observationally impossible. You``l have to wait for a few biilion years to know how the universe looked like in the year 2002.

Overall Dr. Bashir is stating what is known and interspersing it with his remarks, which is absolutely incredible for any scientist.

Adios

P.S: I`ve tried to explain it in a layman`s language, so excuse my verbosity.

Urstruly

The article that you quoted is one of the many theories regarding the expansion of universe. However the researchers who developed it did not hypothesize any ``heaven`` or ``hell``. Let us say that ``heaven`` is another heavenly body/galaxy etc. Then this body should also be contained within the the ``expanding sphere of universe``. How do you characterize this ``heaven`` and how do you find out its distance from earth, say. Does the light emitted by this ``star`` contains any distinguishable lines on the spectrum so as to ``identify`` this body as ``heaven``. If you are taking a verse from some book to calculate the time dilation factor to derive the distance of this ``body`` therefrom, and then say that acc to Hubble`s law this body should be moving away from us at this velocity... then I would say it is a pure baloney . In science, you would first set up a hypothesis defining the nature of this ``heaven``, its characteristic properties that separate it from other stars, the lines on the spectra, say that can used to evaluate your ``characterization`` and prove/disprove your hypothesis. After proving that a body satisfying your ``characterization`` exists and its behavior can be studied, you derive from the first principles its distance and speed of movement away from us based on spectral lines or any other characterization tool developed by you. Even if you want to take what the ``book`` says as a working hypothesis, you have to ultimately prove its existence and characterize it. You know what is pseudoscience- to hoodwink unassuming people and force a speculation down their throat based on questionable premise and lacking any scientific logic.