It is sad that concerted efforts are being made by quite a few to discredit Indian mythology as being a set of fairy tales and a figment of the imagination (Editorial, “Tall claims insult the past”, and “Plea to remove aviation paper for ISC proceedings,” all Jan.6). What these scientists and intellectuals must realise is that there is nothing called absolute truth. Scientific feats and discoveries made in the past are great and commendable. Just because there is no documented proof of things of the past, it doesn’t make them any less believable to the masses. While these intellectuals who are now making an issue of this have a right not to subscribe to such beliefs, it is their arrogance and prejudice that are just as uncalled for. Everybody has a right to believe in what they feel is true as long as it doesn’t hurt another person.This false sense of superiority over our ancestors and the past will only make us less open to our great heritage and wisdom.
Varun Vijaykumar,Thrissur
The Iron Pillar of Delhi, the 7.3-metre tall column that has withstood corrosion for over 1,600 years, is an example that underlines the need to explore the knowledge and skills that were once there but the link to which has been broken with time.
There is a misconception about Sanskrit (Editorial, Jan.6) as being only a language to chant mantras in temples and at religious ceremonies. What about the major part of it that deals with other aspects of life and where it is a repository of knowledge encompassing almost every walk of life and a diverse range of subjects? We need a serious study of Sanskrit literature in order to unravel the knowledge in ancient texts, to protect our Intellectual Property Rights, to explore new avenues of innovation and to lead India on to the forefront of a knowledge-driven world. However, such a study should be driven by a scientific temper, reasoning and logic. Opposition to observations and papers that do not pass comprehensive scientific scrutiny may be fair, but total opposition to the study of science in Sanskrit itself is unwise.
Avuthu Srihari,Hyderabad
When somebody talks about interplanetary travel in the Rigveda, there must be some archaeological evidence. In the absence of any such possibility, the scholars concerned could have posed another question to themselves: what fuel did the Vedic people use for their airborne vehicles? The suggestion is that it is mercury. The text, “Lohasarvasva”, dealing with metallurgy, has recommended methods that can be verified in a metallurgy department, thereby upholding or rejecting its claims. Sanskrit scholars at the science congress showed no academic discipline while elaborating on the fantasies they seemed to believe in. There is enough in ancient Indian tradition that could make one proud, for example the methodology that Charaka insists on for the science of medicine or the geometry of the Shulba sutras or the astronomy of Aryabhata and Brahmagupta. There is even a scientific method to study the history of science that was ignored.
G. Ramakrishna,Bengaluru
The “Indian Science Congress” is supposed to be a platform where recent advancements or technological achievements by Indian scientists must be discussed and brought to public attention. With scientific institutions and organisations dotting every corner of the country, this would have been an ideal occasion to highlight the work being done by versatile and unsung scientists in our country. What kind of an example are we setting for the next generation? The happenings at the science congress show that science and politics need to be kept poles apart.
Kilambi Bhavana,Solapur, Maharashtra
If we fail to make a distinction between the wishful plans of Jules Verne, in a novel, to reach the moon and Newton’s imagination leading to the laws of physics or Einstein’s gedankens, then we are faltering with our comprehension. I do take pride in the fact that Indians have made innumerable and significant contributions to science, mathematics, medicine and so on in ancient times which, unfortunately and surprisingly, have dried up. I am afraid of the prospect of us being misled about the theory of existence of a flourishing aviation technology in ancient India on the basis of a mere mention of flying objects in some text.
I believe posing such theories and the ones of an existence of cosmetic surgery and in-vitro fertilisation before the rest of the world will be detrimental to whatever credentials we have for our ancient scientific contributions. We should be cautious about misinterpreting wishful fantasy and calling it science.
Siddhartha Lahon,New Delhi
