working towards a peaceful, prosperous, and hate-free South Asia
home | events | resources | press | about | contact

The Father, the Son and the Unholy War

Talk given by A. P. Shukla
IACS, 29 July 2005

"The unequal division of property and labour, the difference of rank and condition among mankind, are sources of power in civilized life, its moving causes and even its very soul."
Humphry Davy (~1800 A.D.)

"Every generation aptly discovers something to condemn in the moral record of its immediate ancestors." - Mary Douglas (~2000 A.D.)

Dear Friends,

I must thank IACS and Prof. Mukherjee for having given me this opportunity to share my views and confusions with you. Further, it is an honour to be asked to give the first Samarendra Nath Sen Memorial lecture. For this honour I thank IACS, and particularly Prof. Samar Bagchi who put me in touch with IACS.

Little that I know of Prof. Sen and his work, what has impressed me most is his commitment to write history of science in ancient India in Bangla. Writing scientific literature in one’s mother tongue is very important part of one’s professional commitment, woefully neglected by the vast
majority of the scientific community in our country. I consider the firm resolve of the minority to undertake this task, a part of the ongoing cultural revolution. Pioneer like Prof. Sen are a great source of inspiration. This activity is an important part of People’s Science Movement (PSM). Much of my talk will be about the complex, and ever evolving relationship between the cultural revolution and PSM.

Now a bit of introduction. First about the terms used in the Trinitarian title of my talk. The father, of course, is the famous Prof. J.D. Bernal with whose work in PSM most of us must be familiar. The son is Martin Bernal, the not-so-famous author of the book (Vol. I in 1987 and Vol. II in 1991) Black Athena : Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985”. The unholy war is the Globalized Communist Revolution, for which I’ll repeatedly use the acronym GCR.  The cultural revolution is a part of GCR, a particularly hot episode of which was the Chinese GPCR of the sixties and seventies. Now, my own identity. For the present purposes I’ll describe myself as  a biologically superannuated, progressive scientific worker. Lastly, for the choice of the title. It was when I met Prof. Bagchi on his visit to Kanpur a few months back, that we both had common appreciation for the insightful and controversial book of Martin Bernal. Then, when I had this opportunity to share my views on critique of science, PSM and cultural revolution with you, I decided that I’ll make the sharp shift in these processes at the end of World War II, the central
theme of my presentation. The generation gap dimension of this transition has been described well by the above quoted statement of Prof. Douglas.

My main concern is scientific modernity, a very important aspect of which is globally networked scientific practice. I mark the beginnings of its long journey as the scientific revolution starting with the 30 - year war (1618-48), and its culmination in the present stage with cultural revolution. A convenient, though some what arbitrary marker for the latter is William Hinton’s book “The Hundred Day War”, dealing with a decisive, 1967 episode of the Chinese GPCR. Here, I’ll limit myself to the 20th century interval of this protracted process of scientific modernity, with special emphasis on the sharp transition in the middle of the century. We will further confine ourselves to the problem of left initiative in PSM, an aspect both of scientific practice, and that of cultural revolution. Bernal Sr. is a pioneer in the earlier phase of this process, at least, for the science-in-English practitioners, which includes us. Generally, Euro-centrism, and more particularly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) exaggeration of modern scientific practice is being seriously questioned from a variety of sources. For convenience, I’ll use the phrase WASP model for this retrogressive exaggeration. At least in certain quarters the movement against it has become much stronger during the current phase of post-world war II globalization. Martin Bernal’s work has helped it by challenging the dominant Aryan Model of Ancient Greece, and provocatively calling it a fabrication. In the present wave of G-Americanism (Globalized Americanism), there is a crying need to dispute this irrationality. But, it should be noted that there are several alternatives. I neither subscribe to the super-power nationalist option, nor to the religio-fundamentalist revivalism of the past. I consider these retrogressive negativities.

What we need is an affirmative choice. I believe that it lies in rationally discovering, imaginatively inventing, and boldly fabricating and forging a vision of progress using the method of critical optimism, which is a variant of the 150 year old, omnibus method of dialectical materialism. The more we succeed in validating by practice this alternative vision of global networking of scientific practice, more we will be able to liberate ourselves from the debilitating dead weight of the three negativities mentioned above.

Now as regards my credentials to talk on a messy issue like radical left initiative in PSM. I’ve been participating, somewhat seriously, in the left movement in IIT Kanpur for the last 35 years, first in the Karmachari trade union, and then as a part of PSM, as well as various other mass activities. From this what I consider worth sharing with you is my academic work on critique of science. Much of this developed around an elective course taught several times by Prof. P.R.K.Rao and me to B.Tech. students. This work has continued in fits and starts even after my retirement from IIT, through informal contacts with academic and non-academic people. This has helped me to ponder over the principal contradiction of PSM practice defined by the two contending poles, namely, science-By-the-people, and science-For-the-people. Not that we are anywhere near having resolved this knotty problem, but my engagement with it has enhanced the meaning of my professional and personal life enormously.

Thus what I will do now is to describe some of my practice-generated observations and conjectures in the context of the conflict between popularizing science on one hand, and integrating scientific modernity into a common man’s practice on the other.


One of the weaknesses of the WASP model of modernity is its simplistic and incorrect dealing with the future. It claims to “rationally” reconstruct the past, and integrating it with the present, tries to mechanically predict the future by extrapolation. The success of this procedure arose from the observation of, and experimental manipulation of inanimate nature. With profitable technological applications, and with the integration of scientific modernity with ruling class ideology, it resulted in, explicitly or implicitly, applying this logic of mechanistic determinism to human affairs. This unscientific practice works strongly in favour of the continuation of the status quo.

The rational procedure instead demands a synthesis of the empirical practice in the present with the two abstractions of past and future. They relate with the present very asymmetrically; while a very significant part of the past can be discovered by reconstruction, the future must be imaginatively invented. Thus while the conception of the past has a large rationalist, objective component, that of the future is riddled with arbitrariness. Much of one’s optimism derives from his expectations of the future; so one’s motivational vigor and vitality critically depend on his perception of future goals, which has a large element of conjectural subjectivity.

Another important aspect of our vision of the future is the exponentially accelerating integration of our practice into a globalized process. But this very fact must make us resolutely oppose what is called “globalization”, but is actually a new imperialism of finance capital dictating its terms of profitability on all movements of goods, labor, services and people. This has been playing havoc in our country for the last 15 years. Our conception of globalization is radically different. I call it progressive globalization and it is a new human synthesis based on empowerment of labor. An important fact of this process is the division of the globe into two large land-masses. Historically, the Afro-Eurasian land-mass has dominated progress, and populates more than three fourths of mankind. The American land-mass gained importance only during the last century, and that domination reached a new stage with the shift of the centre of capitalist-imperialist power to USA after World War II. We are living through this highly unstable phase of development, when a nation of ~6% of people consumes ~40% of the resources. The future of progress must be in the rapid development of the backward regions of the Afro-Eurasian land-mass.

Half the population of this region lives in the Indian subcontinent, China and Russia. These are some of the largest economies of the globe. Each of them has played a decisive role in the 20th century  upheavals of globalization. And all of them have been of central importance for the evolution of GCR. Like much of the remainder of the globe, the revolutionary thrust of GCR has collapsed in each of them during the last few decades. This stalemate has demoralized many progressives and one of the aspects of inventing a vision of the future is to be able to find hope and strength on the basis of concrete action to improve this state of affairs. This I see in getting integrated with the process of liberation from the trammels of G-American (Globalized American) WASP model of modernity. I firmly believe that the agency that will accelerate this process in the solidarity of the people of these countries. But people must know how to unite, and democratically act against the corruption of their states, and against the exploiting classes of their countries. The most sophisticated modernist rationality discovered and invented using most advanced methods of research are needed to release the power of these forces of progress. Familiarity with the long and diversified 150 year old tradition of GCR, the successes and failures of the revolutions, starting, say, with the French revolution, and a critical realization of our strength and weakness starting from the individual to large collectives are our guides. Only to the extent that we can translate these ideas into our lives, do we have any right to cast aspersions on WASP model of modernity.


Progressive power of any class, whether capitalist or proletarian has three components - economic, political and cultural. My vision of future is a synthesis of progress through these movements as autonomous and disparate parts of GCR. I express this belief in the following conjecture :-

Political power grows and develops out of the barrel of the gun, if and only if it is firmly based on economic power of new forces of production, and cultural power crawls on the tips of grass-root class struggle at the family and neighborhood levels.

Even a cursory look at the history of GCR shows that it has been long on the war against economic exploitation, but very, very short on its struggle against patriarchy. Any meaningful democratic life is possible only with a serious struggle against this ailment of society, which is as old as the disease of exploitation by private property. Much of what is known as the left consists of an orthodoxy, a ‘men only’ affair, largely confined to work-place conflicts, and with an age restriction of 20 or older. This excludes some three-fourth of the population from active participation, a very serious weakness indeed. A sharp realization of this problem came to some of us while working to integrate the movement of a worker’s cooperative in IIT, Kanpur, with movement for social change. Three of us with a middle class background, worked with this small
organization of about hundred workers for about ten years. The organization is confined largely to economic issues, and is growing exponentially in size due to the reputation of its leadership being
‘honest’. All our efforts to sensitize this small number of workers, aimed at democratizing their organization and their family lives fell on deaf years. From the ordinary members to the top leadership, no one found these efforts of any value. This indifference to cultural initiative breeds an
atmosphere of competitive, consumerist economism. We were convinced of the dire need for a strong cultural initiative against the patriarchal hierarchy, so dominant in the traditional way of life. The superficial liberal modernity confined to the workplace only hides this backwardness. G-American WASP modernity while championing the cause of gender democracy is steadily weakening the family, causing a serious emotional crisis. This orthogonality, and complementarity between economic exploitation, patriarchal oppression, and political liberation is crucial for the future synthesis of human practice, a precondition for any meaningful progress. Search for this synthesis is a great challenge for scientific modernity. I must admit that in our best efforts, we have failed to find a solution. My guess is that  healthier human nature grows and thrives in an environment which has an appropriate proportion of each generation and both genders among its population. Mary Douglas’s statement quoted in the beginning points to the role of generation differentiation in the evolution of morality, as well as, to the complexity of  generation interaction for affirmative growth. The fast rise of nuclear family has made the problem so much the worse. Broadening the social base of the family by its integration with the neighborhood leading to a modernist and more rational sharing of resources can help correcting this distortion.

Another aspect of culture is a conscious and critical integration of the ultimate in life, both individually and collectively. At the present juncture the 3-fold conflict is between almighty God, almighty dollar and almighty labour power, the third having been added to the list by GCR. Unfortunately, its 150-year history shows that this culture is very weak. One reason could be that the cultural transformation is much slower than economic or political transformation, and so it is more evolutionary than revolutionary.


“A member of the middle class is at once both bourgeois and man of the people. He glorified contradiction because contradiction is the essence of his existence. He is simply social contradiction in action. And so he will form an integral part of all the impending social revolutions”.
- Marx (1846)

I’ve been greatly impressed by the insightful overarching generalization of young Marx about our (and his own) middle class identity even before he and Engels wrote the manifesto. The quote above is an abridged and a slightly adapted version of Marx’s polemic with Proudhon’s middle class sentimentality. Much water has flown down Volga, Ganga, Amazon and other symols of vitality, over the last 150 years, and yet the perpetually growing, evolving, omnipresent and ‘omniscient’, if not omnipotent middle class is conditioning social change, whether status quoist or revolutionary. Humphry Davy, Bernal Sr. and Bernal Jr. all are typical members of their middle class milieus and their works point to different phases and contexts of power struggle between the ruling classes at one pole, and the exploited classes at the other. Much that is visible and recorded in the GCR is also made public consciousness by members of the middle class, and so is very strongly coloured by our class interests. From the progressive vantage point, here I wish to talk about only one aspect of these interests, and the attendant contradiction. Most of us are armchair politicians pontificating on the miserable state of the society; ‘the point however is to change it’ Our dilemma is that most of us lack the courage to do heroic things; and believe that, obviously, doing small things is only frittering oneself away. So we end up blaming the circumstances, which alone have been responsible for our inability to make history.

An inspiration from the scientific method has helped me fight this dilemma. A scientific worker has a firm and unwavering commitment to his professional paradigm, learnt through a prolonged period of rigorous training. The paradigm must claim much and think big to fire the imagination of the youth, and to make them persevere over some length of time. With all this promise, the practitioner picks some small, but precise puzzle, and uses all his skills to resolve it. Being assured of a solution, his motivation is high. The emotional security and self-confidence achieved by successfully solving such small puzzles arises from the integration of the individual with his community of experts. Kuhn, and following him many others including Bernal Jr. point out very well the importance and limitation of this puzzle-paradigmatic research.

Adapting this mode of practice, the crisis of meaning of our middle class identity can be resolved by realistically articulating an individual’s relationship with the movement-for-social-change at all, but highly differentiated levels. Practice is complexly networked from the individual to the global scale. This helps one face his weakness as honestly as one’s strength. With an emotionally secure appreciation of one’s limitations, one can relate democratically with poorer citizens around him, who are just one notch below him in class hierarchy. The science-BY-the-people movement is essentially about this democratic practice; the style of work of the science-FOR-the-people movement is that of patronizing the poor citizens with our expert superiority middle class conceit. Our democratic sensitivity is enhanced by the realization that in a class divided society one of the functions of the middle class is to act as a buffer between the mass of poor citizens and the ultimate law, be it the realm of economic, political or cultural struggle. If we do not have a concrete realization of the above kind about our class position in society, we end up being saddled with the implicit, default option which is that, come what may, we must defend the status quo, in some role of a power broker. The above quote of Marx points to the possibility, and the inevitability of our participation in the process of revolutionary change.

Instead of talking generalities let me share some personal experience. Some where along the line I discovered that my  most appropriate role in the movement-for-social-change can be in the field of modern scientific rationality. My option got further narrowed down by the Chinese cultural revolution of 60s and 70s that I talked about above. I found that to work effectively in the science-BY-the-people movement I needed two things. Firstly, I must be competent to talk about science-based modernity without being simplistic or superficial. My training, first as a physicist, and then as a scientific worker helped this. Secondly, I needed to understand the complexities of the left movement, namely, the available options and the deviations. My participation in the left movement from 1970 onwards helped me in this. Now I will talk about this in more detail.

A big hurdle for a middle class person to participate in the progressive PSM is the orthodoxies of the left. I will describe two of them. The first one I call Marxist orthodoxy, which believes that the all powerful formulations of Marx got derailed because of inapt theorists like Engels, and opportunist politicians like Lenin, and barbarian dictators like Stalin etc. If we can cleanse Marxism of these distortions and mistakes, Marx’s ideas can be saved and updated, and a new world can be ushered in on their basis. This is like Martin Luther trying to save Christianity from the corruption of the Church by going back to Bible. The WASP model makes much of this exaggerating the importance of the Protestant movement.

I call the other left orthodoxy,  Bolshevism which has many variants. These ‘Bolsheviks’ believe that the only way to create a communist society is by armed overthrow of state power by waging armed struggle competently and heroically. Thus they make a great virtue of  conspiratorial organizational methods. My view is different. I believe neither in going back to Gandhi, nor to Marx, nor to the Vedas. I believe that the key to our liberation from the misery of our middle class contradictions lies with the 21st century citizens - first at the national level, and then at the global level. A very important aspect of the empowerment of 21st century citizens is the process of forging a united front between the poor citizens and the middle class citizens with our baggage of all the contradictions. The concrete nature of this united front, along with many other social institutions and processes, will be essentially determined by a radically new constitution. The objective and subjective aspects of this process are beyond the scope of the present discussion. To carry the argument further, it is best that I should share with you some of my local experience. The fast collapsing state machinery in our Ulta Pradesh, most visible and closest to the citizens in its municipal functions such as civic amenities (electric power), health, education, sewage disposal, and law and order is well advertised. But I find it to be a blessing in disguise, because it forces the need of neighborhood and community solidarity on at least 90% or more of the citizens. This grass-root initiative in a hi-tech socio-economic environment must be integrated with the cultural revolution, as well as the science-BY-the-people movement. We must learn to protect ourselves from the vote-bank wallahs, the NGO wallahs and the ‘Kranti’ wallahs. We the people very much includes us the propertyless middle class, with our heavy burden of contradictious, which makes us walking and talking lies of the G-American social order.


Above I talked about some political aspects of the transition from Father phase to the Son phase. Now I’ll discuss some of its natural philosophical aspects. Before the transition, the dominance of the discipline of physics over the rest of scientific profession was nearly complete. It is this arrogance that is reflected in Rutherford’s statement about two kinds of science, namely, physics and stamp collecting. I enumerate now some of the quarters from where the ‘solid’ foundation of Newtonian mathematical physics were shaken:-

(1)    Gödel’s theorem of 1931 is a landmark in logic. It led to serious doubt on Aristotelian logic’s basic law called “the law of the excluded middle”. What this law implies is that formal logic can uniquely settle the truth status of any logical proposition, namely, whether it is true or false. This made proof by contradiction a very useful tool for proving theorems of mathematics and mathematical physics. But Godel showed with his theorem that it is possible to formulate a third category of propositions, namely, those whose truth or falsity is undecidable. This weakened the scope of application of deductive logic seriously.

(2)    Sir Karl Popper published his book “Logic of Scientific Discovery” in 1934, overthrowing the almighty ‘inductive logic’, and replaced it with ‘falsificationist logic’ as a procedure for scientific progress. In one blow the scientific profession was deprived of the solid bedrock of absolutely true natural laws. The revolutionary claim that popper made was that no scientific law can ever be proved to be true. All that the scientific community does is, trying to prove that a hypothesis proposed by a scientist as a law is false. Thus Popper succeeded in saving the ‘logical’ supremacy of hard sciences, headed by physics, in the hierarchy of disciplines, and dismissed Darwinian biology, Freudian psycho- analysis, and GCR’s diamat as non-sciences, even though each one of them has a very significant number of practitioners in their respective areas of social activity. Popper was equally assertive with his political conservatism, when he went on with his anti-communist propaganda in 1944. This was a time when GCR was locked in a survival struggle against the Nazi attack on Soviet Union.

(3)    Lord Keynes bought Newton’s non-scientific manuscripts and ‘saved’ them from being carted away to America. After he donated them to the Cambridge University, academic scholars got a first glimpse of the darker side of their 300 year old hero. The fact that their impeccable icon wrote much more on magical science and theology, than he did on mathematics and physics, was a rude shock to the champions of WASP modernity. For some the simple truth stood naked that ‘science sells itself by selling its heros’.

(4)    Persevering as Einstein was, through the EPR paradox of 1935 he sharpened his attack on what, according to him, were the shortcomings of quantum mechanics. The authors of EPR claimed that the quantum mechanical formalism violates local realism, which to them was an all important, inviolable concept of the physical world. The way I look at their objections is as follows. The particles like photons or electrons can interact in a manner so that a part of their interaction does not decrease with increasing distance. This implies that in such situations foundational concepts of  Newtonian mechanics like free particle and inertial frame of reference are no longer true. This was one more blow against the claims of universality of Newton's laws.
(5)    The doctrine of DNA got started in 1953 with the work of Crick and Watson. The molecular structure of DNA explained the mechanism of replication of biological molecules very successfully. This went a long way in demystifying biological concepts like genes, and provided a very effective molecular explanation for inheritance in biological reproduction. But it also initiated a very powerful professional and cultural consensus among biologists which some have termed as ‘all-in-our-genes’ doctrine. This reductionist molecular biology opened the flood gates for a billion dollar industry of genetic engineering. These excesses resulted in the polarization of the community of biologists into a reductionist camp headed by Dawkins, Wilson etc., and the other pole of synthetic evolutionary biologists headed by people like S.J. Gould, E. Mayr, R. Levins, R. Lewontin and others .

I’ve just described some events and processes which help understanding the nature and depth of the transition from the Father phase to the Son phase. Now I’ll describe  the work of Mayr, Kuhn and Bernal Jr. as examples of pathways pointing to the nature of the scientific synthesis in progress
during  the Son phase.

Mayr’s dissatisfaction with the old philosophy of science in the context of biology is given below in his own words:-

“Classical physical sciences, on which the classical philosophy of science was based, were dominated by a set of ideas inappropriate to the study of organisms: these included ESSENTIALISM, DETERMINISM, UNIVERSALISM, and REDUCTIONISM. Biology, properly understood comprises population thinking, probability, chance, pluralism, emergence and historical narratives. What was needed was a new philosophy of science that could incorporate the approaches of all sciences, including physics and biology.                                                 E.MAYR (1997)
(emphasis added-APS)

I formed the acronym RUDE rearranging the 4 categories Reductiomism, Universalism, Determinism and Essentialism considered by Mayr to be the most important aspects of classical philosophy of science. Further, the six categories, namely, population thinking … etc. that Mayr considers as the basis of a new synthesis of all the sciences, provides an effective starting point to critique the RUDE science, a very important aspect of WASP G-Americanism.

Kuhn’s work on philosophy of science is well known. Here I wish to point only that a very important feature of his work is the fact that a significant part of valid scientific knowledge is the collective subjectivity of the community of experts. This claim leads to a rejection of the WASP myth of absolute objectivity, which resulted in the strong school of positivism. The realization of the importance of subjectivity, obviously, does not means a free license of anarchist conceptions like ‘anything goes’. The correct method is the resolution of the complex contradiction between objective and subjective ontologies, which is highly context-specific. Correct solution of this puzzle will be a significant advance in dialectical materialism.

Now I will elaborate two aspects of Bernal Jr’s work which he emphasizes in his book mentioned earlier. First is the resistance of the community of experts in critically debating his provocative thesis. This lack of open mindedness is partly a product of professional inertia, and partly due to the professional insecurity in accepting the innovations of a new-comer. The second point relates to the socially injurious prejudices born out of plain and simple vested interests; this is what is called class antagonisms in the parlance of GCR. The case discussed by Bernal Jr. is that of the banal racism of the 19th century Victorian era of imperialism.
Earlier I discussed some instances of the 20th century development in the critique of RUDE philosophy of WASP modernity. What I aspire for as an alternative is the dialectics of population practice as the language and method of conscious change in the context of GCR. The earlier discussion makes it amply clear that we have a long way to go.


I’ll like to conclude with the problem of progressive PSM. It is about integrating scientific modernity into our social milieu. Earlier I argued that there are two varieties of scientific modernity – the WASP variety and the GCR variety. Both have powerful traditions, but the former has the military might of imperialism at its disposal. An explicit expression of the same is in the statement of Humphry Davy quoted at the beginning. With the onset of GCR 150 years back, the polarization has sharpened, and there is less room for hybrid modernities mixing up the tradition with modernity. In the recent past the Nehruvian tradition, and the Hindutva-based modernity have been two examples of such hybrids. Here as in much else of my talk I will confine myself to the WASP and GCR varieties which define the polarization. Generally, scientific modernity is concerned with consciously changing nature to our advantage. The WASP variety does this through technology. And the main support for science comes as a means to creating ever more powerful technologies. The control of our lives by military
and consumerist technologies is a result of this dominance of WASP modernity.

In contrast the GCR variety is concerned with the well-being of the vast majority, and so its aim is improvement of population practice in all walks of life. For this it depends on the method of revolutionary change. Unfortunately, a simplistic understanding of revolutionary change as exclusively armed political struggle has led to great misfortune.  I’ll give some of my thoughts on this.

The changes can be divided between discrete and continuous. The WASP variety of modernity heavily rests on the physics of continuous change. So it is only natural for it to claim that any discrete change is undesirable. This applies specially to discrete political changes. On the other hand, in the GCR variety discrete change, including political revolution, plays an important role. At times this has been exaggerated with disastrous consequences as mentioned earlier.

Fortunately, the 20th century developments have thrown up a wide variety of discrete changes. Thus we have a whole spectrum of revolutions such as politico-economic, paradigmatic-scientific, cultural, philosophical etc. Two other sources of discrete changes with sophisticated theorization have been in quantum mechanics, and with the development of computer technology which is based on switching of electromagnetic field, and networking of far and near computers. These changes have made revolutionary change more acceptable to many people. Yet, GCR is a consensus among a small minority of people, and it has a difficult road to travel, to win the support and enthusiasm of the majority.

To end my talk on an optimistic note, let me quote from a poem of Shaheed Paash of Punjab which draws sharply the distinction between the WASP variety and the GCR variety mentioned earlier :-

“Where does this journey start?
Or what is the ultimate goal?

Or how many colors of dust
one encounters during the journey?
Or any other question.
Please go and ask some sophist
scholar like Plato.

I’m a plain inurbane traveler.
And I can say only this
that in the dictionary of travelers
the word farewell does not exist.
Travelling is pure joy without any pain.
In the journey death is not a halt ,
And the concept of  goal is meaningless.”

(My adaptation of an abridgement from the English translation of the poem “Safar” by Shaheed Paash)


GCR               Globalized Communist Revolution

G-American    Globalized American

PSM               People’s Science Movement

RUDE            Reductionism, Universalism, Determinism, Essentialism

WASP           White Anglo-Saxon Protestant



1.   H. DAVY:-  In the article “The Scientist and the Underdeveloped Countries”, by P.M.S. Blackett, on p. 42 of the book “The Science of Science: Science in the Technological Age”, ed. By M. Goldsmith and A. Mackay, Published by Souvenir Press (1964)

2.  M. DOUGLAS:-   In the article “Traditional Culture – Let’s Hear No More about It” by M. Douglas on p.85 of the book ”Culture and Public Action”, ed. By V. Rao and M. Walton, Published by Permanent Black (2004).

3.  K. MARX:-    In a letter “From Marx to P.V. Annenkov”, on p.39 of the book “Selected Correspondence”, by Marx and Engels, Published by Progress Publishers (Moscow).

4.  E. MAYR:-    On pp. xiii-xiv  of the book “This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World”, by E. Mayr, Published by Belknap Press of Harvard University (1964).

5.  SHAHEED PAASH:- On pp. 72-73 of the Hindi translation of the collection of his poems titled “Beech Ka Rasta Naheen Hota”, Published by Rajkamal  Prakashan (1989).

© 2006 - Friends of South Asia (FOSA). Site hosted by