Q)What have been the impediments of growth of science in India?
Ans)By the end of Eighteenth century Indian science was at the same level as science anywhere in the world. In particular it was at the same level as European science, upto about the middle of the sixteenth century. But, then European science took big strides forward and left the Indian science way behind in the period that followed.In fact, the British were able to subjugate this country and make it their colony on the basis of science and technology that had developed there.
There is and old saying that necessity is the mother of all invention. In spite of periodic wars between the rulers of various regions and states in the country, there was a considerable stability in the Indian society. Population was small, the land was fertile and even from small land holdings Indian peasants were able to meet the requirements of subsistence. They could feed and cloth themselves.Although there were poor people, poverty and hunger of the kind that we see today did not exist. The deprivation that we see today is largely a result of British policies imposed on us. The hold of religion, particularly in rural areas, and the existence of the caste system, contributed both to a certain reconciliation with fate, and an acceptance of a social hierarchy. There was a fascination with the idea of an infinitely old universe condemned to an endless cycles of deaths and rebirths, in which nothing fundamentally new could ever happen.What can be called a peculiar kind of satisfaction prevailed, which did not allow pressures to build up for either enhancing production through technological innovation , or to change the society.
Another reason was that those who worked with their hands did not contribute to the stock of knowledge. An those who possessed even out-dated knowledge never had to test it on the touchstone of practice. Either the kingdoms fought wars or settled down to long period of piece.It seems natural to think that in such a society there was no clamor to develop new products or new processes. Social stability and stagnation can easily go hand in hand. The rich had no need for change, the poor had no power to bring about a change.
When Islamic influence entered India in successive waves it intended not to disturb the life of the common people who lived in rural communities. It did not interfere with the prevailing religious ethos, which remained predominantly Hindu with its ideology tolerant of great variations, but at the same time protecting the caste system which was well established in India. At the level of administering the country, and in the armed forces there was mutual support there was mutual support between the higher strata of people in the two communities . Muslim kings with Hindu commanders-in-chief and Hindu rajas with Muslims at the head of their armies are known to have fought and defended each other. Naturally there was give and take and intermingling of cultures. What we call Indian culture today is a result of centuries of interaction between our people and those who came and settled down here in different periods.
At the level of religion, there was coexistence between Islam and Hinduism, perhaps out of necessity, since the Muslims were in a small minority. They could certainly not afford a confrontation with the vast majority if their rule was to last in India and was to be extended in the centuries to come.This was also because priests had a great hold over people and any interference in each other's affair's would have had serious political consequences.It could have led to turmoil.So, each steered clear of the other. Further the priests of the two communities were well off, and satisfied with their economic condition. Within the two religious systems too, there were no active controversies and no strong movements of reform. The bhakti and the sufi movements did arise in the medieval period. These movements did preached religious tolerance and were highly critical of the caste system. However they did not make a wide impact as their word did not reach far.
This was perhaps due to the absence of printing.Typically when a printed book was presented to Jahangir, he is said to have thrown it away,saying that it was unaesthetic as compared to the beautiful calligraphy in which they prided.He little realized or was perhaps little interested in the possibility of enriching people's life on a large scale through the availability of cheaper books. This was in contrast to the sixteenth century Europe where the availability of printed word greatly helped the spread of knowledge that created a wider and deeper impact for bringing about social change.
In India education was, by and large, limited to religious teaching and the intellectual atmosphere was not in favor of challenging the established ways of thinking, or of propounding new theories. In such an atmosphere few would venture to propose freedom of thought. It was still more difficult to accept such new things as a sun centered universe demonstrated by Galileo.For, the new theory changed the order which was believed to have been established by God to give the abode of man a central position in the entire creation. Indeed, astrology was, perhaps esteemed enough to let astronomy go on!Alchemy still held some promise of converting base metals to gold, howsoever mysteriously or irrationally, to allow dabbing in chemical techniques! The reign of the orthodoxy with its belief in eternal or revealed truths never allowed free thinking and imaginative adventure of ideas. To put it in another way, the learned had fixed ideas which they did not need to change. And those whose social status was low and who were exploited by the feudal had no access to learning.
If it was not for these factors, we had a tremendous advantage over Europe in the sense that the strong streams of Arab and Indian science coexisted here and we should have been miles ahead of Europe.In Europe comprehensive books of Arab authors like Compendium of Astronomy by al-Fargani, Howi Liber Continens by al-razi, the Canon of Ibn Sina tha the Colliget of Averroes(all medical treatises) were used as text-books in the seventeenth century.All these books were available in India and could have been used, but they were not. The exciting advances made in science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, such as works of Copernicus , Galileo and even Newton did not attract widespread attention, since they were not close to the hearts of the scholarships in India that existed in India at that time.Due to this indifference and neglect and the other factors mentioned earlier, we lost the race.
Ans)By the end of Eighteenth century Indian science was at the same level as science anywhere in the world. In particular it was at the same level as European science, upto about the middle of the sixteenth century. But, then European science took big strides forward and left the Indian science way behind in the period that followed.In fact, the British were able to subjugate this country and make it their colony on the basis of science and technology that had developed there.
There is and old saying that necessity is the mother of all invention. In spite of periodic wars between the rulers of various regions and states in the country, there was a considerable stability in the Indian society. Population was small, the land was fertile and even from small land holdings Indian peasants were able to meet the requirements of subsistence. They could feed and cloth themselves.Although there were poor people, poverty and hunger of the kind that we see today did not exist. The deprivation that we see today is largely a result of British policies imposed on us. The hold of religion, particularly in rural areas, and the existence of the caste system, contributed both to a certain reconciliation with fate, and an acceptance of a social hierarchy. There was a fascination with the idea of an infinitely old universe condemned to an endless cycles of deaths and rebirths, in which nothing fundamentally new could ever happen.What can be called a peculiar kind of satisfaction prevailed, which did not allow pressures to build up for either enhancing production through technological innovation , or to change the society.
Another reason was that those who worked with their hands did not contribute to the stock of knowledge. An those who possessed even out-dated knowledge never had to test it on the touchstone of practice. Either the kingdoms fought wars or settled down to long period of piece.It seems natural to think that in such a society there was no clamor to develop new products or new processes. Social stability and stagnation can easily go hand in hand. The rich had no need for change, the poor had no power to bring about a change.
When Islamic influence entered India in successive waves it intended not to disturb the life of the common people who lived in rural communities. It did not interfere with the prevailing religious ethos, which remained predominantly Hindu with its ideology tolerant of great variations, but at the same time protecting the caste system which was well established in India. At the level of administering the country, and in the armed forces there was mutual support there was mutual support between the higher strata of people in the two communities . Muslim kings with Hindu commanders-in-chief and Hindu rajas with Muslims at the head of their armies are known to have fought and defended each other. Naturally there was give and take and intermingling of cultures. What we call Indian culture today is a result of centuries of interaction between our people and those who came and settled down here in different periods.
At the level of religion, there was coexistence between Islam and Hinduism, perhaps out of necessity, since the Muslims were in a small minority. They could certainly not afford a confrontation with the vast majority if their rule was to last in India and was to be extended in the centuries to come.This was also because priests had a great hold over people and any interference in each other's affair's would have had serious political consequences.It could have led to turmoil.So, each steered clear of the other. Further the priests of the two communities were well off, and satisfied with their economic condition. Within the two religious systems too, there were no active controversies and no strong movements of reform. The bhakti and the sufi movements did arise in the medieval period. These movements did preached religious tolerance and were highly critical of the caste system. However they did not make a wide impact as their word did not reach far.
This was perhaps due to the absence of printing.Typically when a printed book was presented to Jahangir, he is said to have thrown it away,saying that it was unaesthetic as compared to the beautiful calligraphy in which they prided.He little realized or was perhaps little interested in the possibility of enriching people's life on a large scale through the availability of cheaper books. This was in contrast to the sixteenth century Europe where the availability of printed word greatly helped the spread of knowledge that created a wider and deeper impact for bringing about social change.
In India education was, by and large, limited to religious teaching and the intellectual atmosphere was not in favor of challenging the established ways of thinking, or of propounding new theories. In such an atmosphere few would venture to propose freedom of thought. It was still more difficult to accept such new things as a sun centered universe demonstrated by Galileo.For, the new theory changed the order which was believed to have been established by God to give the abode of man a central position in the entire creation. Indeed, astrology was, perhaps esteemed enough to let astronomy go on!Alchemy still held some promise of converting base metals to gold, howsoever mysteriously or irrationally, to allow dabbing in chemical techniques! The reign of the orthodoxy with its belief in eternal or revealed truths never allowed free thinking and imaginative adventure of ideas. To put it in another way, the learned had fixed ideas which they did not need to change. And those whose social status was low and who were exploited by the feudal had no access to learning.
If it was not for these factors, we had a tremendous advantage over Europe in the sense that the strong streams of Arab and Indian science coexisted here and we should have been miles ahead of Europe.In Europe comprehensive books of Arab authors like Compendium of Astronomy by al-Fargani, Howi Liber Continens by al-razi, the Canon of Ibn Sina tha the Colliget of Averroes(all medical treatises) were used as text-books in the seventeenth century.All these books were available in India and could have been used, but they were not. The exciting advances made in science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, such as works of Copernicus , Galileo and even Newton did not attract widespread attention, since they were not close to the hearts of the scholarships in India that existed in India at that time.Due to this indifference and neglect and the other factors mentioned earlier, we lost the race.
