What's new

India has more female pilots than any other country

Varun

Senior Test Player
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Runs
26,112
Post of the Week
1
In 2012 India was declared the worst of the G20 nations in which to be a woman, with misogyny and gender inequality deeply entrenched in a conservative society.

The sub-continent is, however, streets ahead in terms of the number of female pilots employed by its airlines, boasting a higher percentage of women in the cockpit than anywhere in the world.

Globally, just over five per cent of pilots are female, according to the Air Line Pilots Association International, whereas in India the figure is closer 13, more than twice as high as the proportion in a number of western countries, including the UK (the Civil Aviation Authority puts the number at 4.77 per cent) and US (the FAA says 4.36 per cent).

“It was difficult,” said Shweta Singh, a senior trainer at Jet Airways, of her road to becoming a pilot 20 years ago. “It was a male-dominated area and not easy to break into.”

Today, she told Reuters, it is much easier, with the country home to a booming aviation sector full of airlines taking part in recruitment drives. More and more Indian women want to become pilots, with a life in the sky as appealing as the benefits it offers, including union-mandated equal pay, a safe workplace and day-care services.

In a bid to encourage more female flight crew, airlines have also tackled the issue of safety on their commute, with employees offered pick-up and drop-off services, accompanied by an armed guard.

“It is the safest job,” said Singh. “Women are more protected here than in any other place.”

Airlines in the UK such as easyJet and British Airways have invested heavily in trying to attract - and hire - more female pilots, attempting to rid the role of the gender stereotypes inherited from the Second World War.

“I’ve been asked where the captain is,” easyJet pilot Marnie Munns recently told Telegraph Travel. “You’re looking at her, I say.”

The 41-year-old, who is helping to lead a charge by the budget airline to encourage more girls and women to become pilots, added: “Outside the cockpit is when you feel it more. Passengers do make comments. It’s normally extremely positive, but you do get the occasional ‘well done for landing, it was actually really smooth’, delivered with surprise.”

Munns believes the perception of pilot being a male occupation was preventing more women from entering the profession. “Society has conditioned us into thinking that only men will be interested, but it’s nothing to do with gender,” she said.

In India, however, the fastest growing aviation market in the world (domestic capacity grew 22 per cent in the first half of this year), the country’s airlines are succeeding in addressing its demand for pilots by hiring more women.

SpiceJet, a low-cost domestic airline, says 12 per cent of its pilots are women, but a target has been set to increase the ratio to 33 per cent in three years.

At the Bombay Flying Club, which has courses for commercial pilots, the number of women in the classroom has grown to about 25 percent from less than 10 percent five years ago, according to the institute’s principal and chief instructor, C. Kumar.

“The society is changing and there is more acceptance about working in the aviation sector,” Kumar told Reuters.

Because pilot pay is based on seniority and flying hours under union agreements, it is one of the rare professions in India where there is no gender pay gap.

The starting salary, including flying allowance, for pilots there is $25,000 to $47,000 a year depending on the airline and type of aircraft. That is similar to the starting salary for corporate lawyers or architects.

About 13 percent of the pilots at IndiGo, among the fastest growing airlines in the world, are women, up from 10 percent five years ago, the company said.

The company provides day care and says it offers pregnant women office duties and an allowance equivalent to what they would have earned flying, helping them “constructively stay engaged with the profession.”

Earlier this year, the publication of the gender pay gap in the UK highlighted the gulf in equality at British airlines, with all above the country average median pay difference of 9.7 per cent. Ryanair’s figure was 72 per cent, easyJet’s 45.5 per cent and BA’s 10 per cent.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/india-female-pilots/[/quote]

This is a neat stat.
 
In sub-continent, long way to go for that to happen.

You'll see odd achievement here and there but overall still a male dominated society.

Nope , Indian women are leading ..sports ,business arts they are paving the way.

Hopefully they remain focussed, check the data rather than comment.
 
Nope , Indian women are leading ..sports ,business arts they are paving the way.

Hopefully they remain focussed, check the data rather than comment.

Leading compare to western world? I highly doubt it.
 
India has more females than any other country except one. So you'd expect it to have near the highest number of female pilots. Non-story.
 
India has more females than any other country except one. So you'd expect it to have near the highest number of female pilots. Non-story.

It is 13% of Indian pilots. It is the percentage rather than total number which the article discusses. Total population is irrelevant here.
 
Only place they're safe is in the air.

Seriously speaking though, it takes guts to become one, and because of all the obstacles and oppression women face in that region of the world anyway, let alone India, that is all the more impressive.
 
Of course they are. Indian men certainly aren't.

Indian men will, given that Indian men run Tata Motors which owns Britain's premier manufacturing firm and two of the three largest firms in the world.

Get used to it dude :)
 
Indian men will, given that Indian men run Tata Motors which owns Britain's premier manufacturing firm and two of the three largest firms in the world.

Get used to it dude :)

Indian men are also known for creating mass protest in India and headlines in the rest of the world.
Seem to be more frequent occurrence.
 
How many % of Dalits in these professions ?

I'm sure these females are the same you see in Bollywood : Brahmins and other upper castes.

That's like peoples in Pak boasting about the high % of women parliamentarians, while these women are just the wives/daughters of the ruling class, so the change is just cosmetic.
 
How many % of Dalits in these professions ?

I'm sure these females are the same you see in Bollywood : Brahmins and other upper castes.

That's like peoples in Pak boasting about the high % of women parliamentarians, while these women are just the wives/daughters of the ruling class, so the change is just cosmetic.

Pretty much spot on, ordinary womenfolk won't be reassured by this info
 
Pretty much spot on, ordinary womenfolk won't be reassured by this info

They always do the same : they put upper caste peoples in all fields then show it as somehow representative. Look at cricket, until the early 2000s it was all Brahmin dominated (Tendulkar, Dravid, etc), despite Brahmins making only 2-3% of the pop (in a Pak context that would be like peoples of Gilgit Baltistan being everywhere), and even when others came in, these were either Kshatriyas (Dhoni) or even few Shudras (Yuvi), but never Dalits/Adivasis, who together make up 1/4 of the Indian pop. These peoples are invisible everywhere, including on fora like PP.

That's like in the US : they export their best (mainly south Indian) Brahmin brains (that is : the élite within an élite) but apparently they become a sign of "Hindu intelligence" as if they were Jews, and representatives of everything, incl. Dalits/Adivasis, UPites, etc. [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]
 
They always do the same : they put upper caste peoples in all fields then show it as somehow representative. Look at cricket, until the early 2000s it was all Brahmin dominated (Tendulkar, Dravid, etc), despite Brahmins making only 2-3% of the pop (in a Pak context that would be like peoples of Gilgit Baltistan being everywhere), and even when others came in, these were either Kshatriyas (Dhoni) or even few Shudras (Yuvi), but never Dalits/Adivasis, who together make up 1/4 of the Indian pop. These peoples are invisible everywhere, including on fora like PP.

That's like in the US : they export their best (mainly south Indian) Brahmin brains (that is : the élite within an élite) but apparently they become a sign of "Hindu intelligence" as if they were Jews, and representatives of everything, incl. Dalits/Adivasis, UPites, etc. [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]


Enkidu_ you have a preconceived notion about India, and I have noticed that whenever you make comments about India you do it through the prism of your preconceived notions. Just a bit of friendly advice, this obsession with India isn't doing any good to your mental health, especially when you have such fixed ideas.

You keep speaking about Dalits and other Indian lower castes. The population having fragmented into castes/communities is a feature of all of South Asia, not only India. Just look at your own country. Don't tell me that the Sindhi Wadheras don't have their serfs serving them. If anything, at least in India the lower castes have gained political power, with Dalits like Mayawati becoming Chief Minister. In Pakistan no such thing has happened, with IK's recent recruitment of "electables" essentially being a bunch of rural feudals.

Do you think the Kashmiri Pandits who converted to Islam started marrying their daughters to the lower casted Muslim converts?

Yuvi a Dalit??? He is a Sikh, and definitely not a Dalit Sikh.

You have this idea that India has the classic 4 varnas of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vyasyas and Shudras. That again is wrong. Over the last two thousand years a variety of castes have emerged. In fact many of the non-Brahmin upper castes are dominant in different areas. In Bengal for example, the Kayasthas are dominant. The Boses, Ghoshes and Duttas (higher and intermediate Kayasthas) have produced more geniuses than anyone other Indian community (Netaji, Satyandranath Bose, Jagadish Chandra Bose, Aurobindo, Vikekananda, Amar Bose etc.).

Kayasthas by some Brahmins are called Shudras, which is quite meaningless. Get over your Brahmin obsession, it isn't healthy.
 
Enkidu_ you have a preconceived notion about India, and I have noticed that whenever you make comments about India you do it through the prism of your preconceived notions. Just a bit of friendly advice, this obsession with India isn't doing any good to your mental health, especially when you have such fixed ideas.
(...)
Kayasthas by some Brahmins are called Shudras, which is quite meaningless. Get over your Brahmin obsession, it isn't healthy.

You're reassessing common knowledge to obstructe a better rationalization of the issue. In Pakistan there's no "caste system" but "biraderi system", there's a whole ethnographic literature on the subject, and in few words, the biraderi is more of clan/tribe and thus more fluid than the caste, and thus there's more upward social mobility than for the case of Dalits and Adivasis in India, who are blocked because of a traditionalist anthropology cemented by Hinduism. A Dalit CM or President doesn't change that.

You're right that in Pakistan there are Dalits, but they're basically the Christians of Punjab and the Hindus of Sindh, which explains their fragility with regards to the feudals, yet put together they make up 1-2% of Pak's pop (a bit less than the total of all Christians, and virtually all Hindus), with Adivasis being non existent. Yet the 1-2% Dalits of Pak produced at least one cricketer, Mohammed Yousuf, who's from a chuhra/bhangi background (sweepers), and who was introduced into Pak cricket as a Christian.

But how many for India, where Dalits make 15% of the pop and Adivasis 8%, more than the total Pak pop ?

In the 86 years since India attained Test status, 290 different men have played test cricket for India. However, only four belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. That’s four, instead of about 70, as it should have been per the population proportion. This is a disparity that just cannot be dismissed as insignificant.
(...)

https://thewire.in/caste/does-india-need-a-caste-based-quota-in-cricket

And about Brahmin (4%) dominance :

In a nation that has produced eight Brahmin prime ministers out of 13 (with non-Brahmins accounting for six years of rule in 55 years of Independence), a nation where despite decades of affirmative action and Mandalisation the top echelons of bureaucracy continue to be dominated by Brahmins, it should perhaps not be surprising that cricket, another national obsession, should also suffer from a similar statistical truth. However, while the Hindu scriptures-backed dominance of the Brahmins in the political, economic and cultural realms owes to their centuries-old stranglehold over power centres—despite the Buddhist, Mughal and British challenges to such supremacy—it is their dominance in a sport that seems to be an aberration.

There's no escaping the facts (see box). Through the 1960s till the 1990s, Test-playing Indian teams have averaged at least six Brahmins, sometimes even nine.

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-retreat-of-the-brahmin/218913

You can always use socio economic indicators here and there, but the conjunction of these two facts - the UNDER representation of Dalits and the OVER representation of Brahmins - offers a bleaker picture of India's egalitarianism and even its legitimacy as functional democracy. I mean even Jews haven't dominated Europe nor dominate the US and its culture like Brahmins do in India with Bollywood, cricket, science, etc

I'm sure if you do the caste-basis breakdown with these female pilots you'd get the same kind of results.
 
You're reassessing common knowledge to obstructe a better rationalization of the issue. In Pakistan there's no "caste system" but "biraderi system", there's a whole ethnographic literature on the subject, and in few words, the biraderi is more of clan/tribe and thus more fluid than the caste, and thus there's more upward social mobility than for the case of Dalits and Adivasis in India, who are blocked because of a traditionalist anthropology cemented by Hinduism. A Dalit CM or President doesn't change that.

You're right that in Pakistan there are Dalits, but they're basically the Christians of Punjab and the Hindus of Sindh, which explains their fragility with regards to the feudals, yet put together they make up 1-2% of Pak's pop (a bit less than the total of all Christians, and virtually all Hindus), with Adivasis being non existent. Yet the 1-2% Dalits of Pak produced at least one cricketer, Mohammed Yousuf, who's from a chuhra/bhangi background (sweepers), and who was introduced into Pak cricket as a Christian.

Before passing judgement on India, you really need to go to rural Sindh and learn more about your own country. The romantic view you have of rural Sindh is totally at odds with reality. If you think that the Wadheras do not dominate the countryside more than the Thakurs (who incidentally are non-Brahmins) do in Rajasthan and UP, you are completely mistaken.

Whether the division is based on caste/community or clan/biradari, it is the end result which is important. And the end result is that rural Sindh is a lot more feudal than rural UP or Bihar.

You have this quaint notion that there is no Pakistani Muslim underclass, and "thus there's more upward social mobility than for the case of Dalits and Adivasis in India, who are blocked because of a traditionalist anthropology cemented by Hinduism."

While you are right that Hinduism protects upper castes/communities, it is not as if Islam does any better. In Islam, a Muslim is destined for hell if he rebels against a Muslim ruler. Muslim countries around the world lack democracy, and consequently the levels of inequality are higher.

Your claim about upward social mobility in Pakistan is extremely dubious and needs a few good references to be convincing.

But how many for India, where Dalits make 15% of the pop and Adivasis 8%, more than the total Pak pop ?

https://thewire.in/caste/does-india-need-a-caste-based-quota-in-cricket

And about Brahmin (4%) dominance :

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-retreat-of-the-brahmin/218913

You can always use socio economic indicators here and there, but the conjunction of these two facts - the UNDER representation of Dalits and the OVER representation of Brahmins - offers a bleaker picture of India's egalitarianism and even its legitimacy as functional democracy. I mean even Jews haven't dominated Europe nor dominate the US and its culture like Brahmins do in India with Bollywood, cricket, science, etc

I am trying to tell you something but you are not listening. Did you read the bit I wrote about Bengali Kayasthas? If you completely ignore what I write, I do not think we can have a discussion.

What percentage of top positions do Jews hold in American media? Likely more than Brahmins do in India.

I'm sure if you do the caste-basis breakdown with these female pilots you'd get the same kind of results.

You think that all the women pilots are Brahmins, but more likely the majority are Kammas, Reddys, Marathas, Jats, Kayasthas etc. India is a lot more complex than your "its Brahmins or its Dalits" stereotype.
 
Last edited:
Before passing judgement on India, you really need to go to rural Sindh and learn more about your own country. The romantic view you have of rural Sindh is totally at odds with reality. If you think that the Wadheras do not dominate the countryside more than the Thakurs (who incidentally are non-Brahmins) do in Rajasthan and UP, you are completely mistaken.

Whether the division is based on caste/community or clan/biradari, it is the end result which is important. And the end result is that rural Sindh is a lot more feudal than rural UP or Bihar.

You have this quaint notion that there is no Pakistani Muslim underclass, and "thus there's more upward social mobility than for the case of Dalits and Adivasis in India, who are blocked because of a traditionalist anthropology cemented by Hinduism."

I think you misread me, I'm not in favor of feudalism at all, and I know all about Sindh and Punjab, that's how PPP/PML-N preserve their vote-bank, but it's different from the Hindu caste system, and more importantly it's not the subject.

While you are right that Hinduism protects upper castes/communities, it is not as if Islam does any better. In Islam, a Muslim is destined for hell if he rebels against a Muslim ruler. Muslim countries around the world lack democracy, and consequently the levels of inequality are higher.

Skepticism about the rebellion against a ruler has rationale in Islamic political philosophy (mainly to avoid bloodshed and civil warfare), but you say as if democracy was the epitome of human welfare ? How is that China got ahead of India ? Lee Kuan Yew wasn't a democrat either. Democracy is over rated and only applicable in a society of European standards already.

I am trying to tell you something but you are not listening. Did you read the bit I wrote about Bengali Kayasthas? If you completely ignore what I write, I do not think we can have a discussion.

Yes but we're not only talking of one region, Bengal, here, and not talking of Kayashtas but of Dalits/Adivasis.

What percentage of top positions do Jews hold in American media? Likely more than Brahmins do in India.

Yes but then Jews are the most intelligent race on earth and know how to use political and economic liberalism to their advantages. Brahmins on the other hand mainly use the prerogatives brought by Hinduism.

You think that all the women pilots are Brahmins, but more likely the majority are Kammas, Reddys, Marathas, Jats, Kayasthas etc. India is a lot more complex than your "its Brahmins or its Dalits" stereotype.

In my initial post I said "Brahmins and other upper castes". I also know about Kamma or Reddy domination in the Telugu speaking world, etc
 
I think you misread me, I'm not in favor of feudalism at all, and I know all about Sindh and Punjab, that's how PPP/PML-N preserve their vote-bank, but it's different from the Hindu caste system, and more importantly it's not the subject.

I see you posting a lot about Brahmin/Dalits and inequality in India, but not about feudalism and inequality in Punjab and Sindh. Obviously it is better to worry about one's own country first.

Skepticism about the rebellion against a ruler has rationale in Islamic political philosophy (mainly to avoid bloodshed and civil warfare), but you say as if democracy was the epitome of human welfare ? How is that China got ahead of India ? Lee Kuan Yew wasn't a democrat either. Democracy is over rated and only applicable in a society of European standards already.

Singapore was supported by Western democracies which gave it access to their markets. Without democracies it may work for some time, but then the rulers accumulate too much power and drive the masses down. Anyway, the point I was making was that while Hinduism is used by the upper castes to make the society more unequal, Islam is also similarly used. The track record of Islam isn't superior to Hinduism in this respect.

Yes but we're not only talking of one region, Bengal, here, and not talking of Kayashtas but of Dalits/Adivasis.

Obviously Bengal is a part of India, and a region I am more familiar with as I am Bengali.

Yes but then Jews are the most intelligent race on earth and know how to use political and economic liberalism to their advantages. Brahmins on the other hand mainly use the prerogatives brought by Hinduism.

That is a claim that needs to be proven. I doubt Pichai became CEO of Google or Anand won the World Chess Championship because of "the prerogatives brought by Hinduism".

In my initial post I said "Brahmins and other upper castes". I also know about Kamma or Reddy domination in the Telugu speaking world, etc

Then use the correct terminology instead of always saying "Brahmins" and saying "despite Brahmins making only 2-3% of the pop (in a Pak context that would be like peoples of Gilgit Baltistan being everywhere)". The percentage of upper castes in India is significantly more than 2-3%.

Brahmins have been living rent-free in your head for a long time.
 
I see you posting a lot about Brahmin/Dalits and inequality in India, but not about feudalism and inequality in Punjab and Sindh. Obviously it is better to worry about one's own country first.

You Indians always take the high ground with your pseudo democracy and reducing Hinduism to throw stuff during holi while pontificating Muslims on human rights at the same time, I'm just showing you the full picture.

Singapore was supported by Western democracies which gave it access to their markets. Without democracies it may work for some time, but then the rulers accumulate too much power and drive the masses down. Anyway, the point I was making was that while Hinduism is used by the upper castes to make the society more unequal, Islam is also similarly used. The track record of Islam isn't superior to Hinduism in this respect.

The point is that Singapore's economic success was done in non democratic ways whereas democratic countries of the same region haven't found the same success, it's not about democracy or not and illiberal democracy is a whole concept anyway.

Obviously Bengal is a part of India, and a region I am more familiar with as I am Bengali.

But it's not only the only part right and you spoke of the Kayashtas while we're talking Dalits/Adivasis here.

That is a claim that needs to be proven. I doubt Pichai became CEO of Google or Anand won the World Chess Championship because of "the prerogatives brought by Hinduism".

If they had the same talent but were Dalits it's doubtful they would have reached there.

Then use the correct terminology instead of always saying "Brahmins" and saying "despite Brahmins making only 2-3% of the pop (in a Pak context that would be like peoples of Gilgit Baltistan being everywhere)". The percentage of upper castes in India is significantly more than 2-3%.

Brahmins have been living rent-free in your head for a long time.

I specified Brahmins because even as compared to other upper castes they're the ones over represented.

If you put all other upper castes and Brahmins together you're still under 10% AFAIK.

And Brahmins can live in my head but I wonder if you'd find Dalits/Adivasis too "impure" for yours.
 
You Indians always take the high ground with your pseudo democracy and reducing Hinduism to throw stuff during holi while pontificating Muslims on human rights at the same time, I'm just showing you the full picture.

The point is that Singapore's economic success was done in non democratic ways whereas democratic countries of the same region haven't found the same success, it's not about democracy or not and illiberal democracy is a whole concept anyway.



But it's not only the only part right and you spoke of the Kayashtas while we're talking Dalits/Adivasis here.



If they had the same talent but were Dalits it's doubtful they would have reached there.



I specified Brahmins because even as compared to other upper castes they're the ones over represented.

If you put all other upper castes and Brahmins together you're still under 10% AFAIK.

And Brahmins can live in my head but I wonder if you'd find Dalits/Adivasis too "impure" for yours.

I disagree with "Indians always take the high ground with your pseudo democracy and reducing Hinduism to throw stuff during holi while pontificating Muslims on human rights at the same time". I am quite certain that fundamentalists all over the world believe their religion is most superior.

If you divide India only into Brahmins and Dalits, then Kayasthas would end up as Dalits.

The point is not whether Brahmins get more opportunities than Dalits, they do. However, it is wrong to say that "Brahmins on the other hand mainly use the prerogatives brought by Hinduism". Many Brahmins I have met are pretty smart, and I have met a lot more than you. Their success is a combination of genetics and opportunity.

Anyway, your obsession with Brahmins totally misses the reality of modern India. The newly minted Indian billionaires are mostly not Brahmins. The Agarwals, the Mittals, the Ambanis etc. would be called Vasyas by those who don't know better, the third of the four classical varnas. Thinking that Brahmins dominate India by reading a few articles shows a lack of knowledge.
 
If you divide India only into Brahmins and Dalits, then Kayasthas would end up as Dalits.

You're the one to have brought Kayashtas, I was talking specifically about Dalits/Adivasis. Imagine someone had a conversation about WASP domination in the US, another one brings the African Americans but then you speak of the Irish American or the Italian Americans. The latter are also not at the top of the symbolic ladder but still are not comparable to Aframs either. We don't talk of Kayashtas let alone of those of Bengal specifically. At all.

The point is not whether Brahmins get more opportunities than Dalits, they do. However, it is wrong to say that "Brahmins on the other hand mainly use the prerogatives brought by Hinduism". Many Brahmins I have met are pretty smart, and I have met a lot more than you. Their success is a combination of genetics and opportunity.

So Dalits/Adivasis lack "genetics" and "opportunities"... for the first I guess they don't have much choice, but why do they have less opportunities ? We're talking of communities equaling to 25% as compared to one equaling 4%. We can bring all sorts of explanations for all sorts of groups in all sorts of societies all around the world (in India itself why the Parsis punch above their weight, for instance), but here, 25% versus 4% and such a drastic difference there's something deeper.

Anyway, your obsession with Brahmins totally misses the reality of modern India. The newly minted Indian billionaires are mostly not Brahmins. The Agarwals, the Mittals, the Ambanis etc. would be called Vasyas by those who don't know better, the third of the four classical varnas. Thinking that Brahmins dominate India by reading a few articles shows a lack of knowledge.

Vaishyas will always dominate in a society embracing economic liberalism, like Jews will always dominate in such context, they have this type of "intelligence", hyper rationalism and group strategy for monetary gains for the community (read Kevin B. MacDonald on this subject). When aristocratic virtues dissolve into banya type materialism and metaphysics of money the Vaishyas will take the place of the Kshatriyas in the social ladder, it has not much to do with Brahmins IMO, but what's certain is that the situation of Dalits/Adivasis is not changing with the same pace.
 
You're the one to have brought Kayashtas, I was talking specifically about Dalits/Adivasis. Imagine someone had a conversation about WASP domination in the US, another one brings the African Americans but then you speak of the Irish American or the Italian Americans. The latter are also not at the top of the symbolic ladder but still are not comparable to Aframs either. We don't talk of Kayashtas let alone of those of Bengal specifically. At all.

You kept dividing India into Brahmins and Dalits. I introduced Kayasthas to show that the division is not that simple.


So Dalits/Adivasis lack "genetics" and "opportunities"... for the first I guess they don't have much choice, but why do they have less opportunities ? We're talking of communities equaling to 25% as compared to one equaling 4%. We can bring all sorts of explanations for all sorts of groups in all sorts of societies all around the world (in India itself why the Parsis punch above their weight, for instance), but here, 25% versus 4% and such a drastic difference there's something deeper.

You can spend the rest of your life arguing about "nature vs. nurture".

Vaishyas will always dominate in a society embracing economic liberalism, like Jews will always dominate in such context, they have this type of "intelligence", hyper rationalism and group strategy for monetary gains for the community (read Kevin B. MacDonald on this subject). When aristocratic virtues dissolve into banya type materialism and metaphysics of money the Vaishyas will take the place of the Kshatriyas in the social ladder, it has not much to do with Brahmins IMO, but what's certain is that the situation of Dalits/Adivasis is not changing with the same pace.

Make up your mind. Do the aristocratic Bharmins dominate India or banya type materialistic Vyasyas dominate? You keep jumping from one idea to another contradictory idea.

Your time would be better spent worrying about the oppressed in rural Sindh and Punjab than in rural Bihar and UP.

I have no need to read some Scotsman McDonald to understand what is happening in India. Nor am I a grad sociology/history students who needs to impress his professor. The Western academics can't make sense of what is happening in their own countries which are steadily going down the drain due to a lack of wisdom about life. To think that they can explain India is ridiculous, only desi intellectual slaves with a colonial hangover believe they can.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top