They keep talking about "structural discrimination." (Of course as copy cats of Western theory.)
But they are mum about the biggest state-based structural discrimination. Where by LAW, a non-English speaker can't plead in High Courts, SC, study in IIM, IIT, AIIMS, be a doctor...
It's a fraudulent argument to preserve English hegemony.
How does saying non-English speakers must be able to plead in Higher Courts, be able to study to be a doctor, engineer deny anyone? It is about creating access.
People don't *want* English medium. They want good jobs, they want access to technology, to Courts, to competitive exams. The govt denies them this.
The elite don't want them to rise. So instead of access, they say "let them learn English." That preserves English supremacy.
English-medium in rural areas *doesn't work.* Ask English elite if they'd send their kids to Chinese medium schools, where they don't know language, can't help.
Rural children in English medium are *worse* off. It *ensures* hegemony of English elite.
Parents are "wanting" English because in India's #EnglishApartheid system they see English as the barrier. But they don't know their kids will be worse off since they won't understand anything; will merely be fit to be chaprasis of the English elite.
How @theliverdr pushes ideologically motivated garbage.
In a long post he claims that “science says” Giloy caused liver toxicity; in the same post he dismisses a study on Ashwagandha as garbage.
For the case against Giloy his reference is the propaganda rag, @thewire_in! 😏
The Wire article further references an “observational study” which has a total sample size of 6 people!
No doubt this study is conducted by other Liver doctors trained in allopathy alone; and specifically targeting Giloy “twigs.”
Other than the limited sample size, the AYUSH response states that it is very easy to confuse Giloy with a similar, but toxic, plant; the “scientific” study didn’t actually even check if the correct plant was used.
So this 6-person study with any randomized control or double-blind test, where motivated researchers isolate a perhaps pre-determined conclusion is called “science.” Now let’s see what this doctor calls “underpowered garbage” which was “never done methodically.”
Europeans, particularly Germans, were so desperate for an “Aryan” identity based on Hindu texts because they had very little history or identity of their own.
The Germanic tribes were barbarians with little durable language or culture. To lay claim to Sanskrit and related knowledge allows them to attach to a glorious history.
The Germans weren't successors of Rome. The Italians had history, the Greeks had history, even the British could harken to a Celtic history, what did the Germans have?
This is how they became "Aryan" laying claiming to Sanskrit and Indo-European origins.
Some direct excerpts from the translation of "al-jabr" by Mohammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, from which the term Algebra comes.
Note this translation is from 1831. After 1857 British and Western scholarship started denigrating Indian knowledge as an explicit policy.
Firstly, the translator Frederic Rosen makes explicit that Al Khwarizmi did not invent Algebra, and that this was "well-established" in scholarship, but that he was the "first Mohammedan" to write upon it. 2/
That Al Khwarizmi did not invent Algebra is attested by many, and even by the Al Khwarizmi himself in the preface where he states that the Caliph Al Mamun, encouraged him to write a popular work on the topic, implying that there were existing works he would use. Which were these?
Translator himself concludes that "at least part of the information is drawn from an Indian Source", based on his knowledge alone.
Many "modern" medicine are also extracts of herbs. But the pharma industry relies on dismissing the original because it can't be patented and yields much less profit.
And they'll attack scientific studies which don't fit their prejudice and pocketbook.
Here is an example of @theliverdr misleads and misreads even their own research in even simple things like whether drinking more water is helpful for health.
With his initial list of "debunking" why drinking water doesn't help, he cites the following article: