92.WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM THE GREATS?

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

92. WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM THE 'GREATS'?

Society has generally respected people considered great. Greatness might be achieved in any field, and greatness itself might be defined differently by different societies or at different times, but it has been a general human trait to accord respect to those considered great.

One sign of this respect is for people to look up to the great people for inspiration, ideas , guidance. It is seen that truly great people have  something to say to help and inspire others, no matter their own field of activity or achievement. 

 Pran , the famous Hindi film artiste , who was usually cast in negative roles, was once presenting a program on AIR. He related an advice he  had received from his father years ago; his father had told him: Son, when you go up in the ladder of life, salute every one  on the way,so that when you come down, there will be some one to say "hello". Pran was in the field for over 40 years and we know what made him last that long! We also know of so many 'stars' who achieved fame, but when they fell, they were alone!

Great people are taken as role models. But in these days of media hype, 'image' is often a media creation and it is difficult to judge greatness.Leaders once taken as great are found to be hollow in course of time. However, popular figures or people in big positions or leadership roles  are looked up to , and the media also gives them vast coverage. 

With the passing of R.K.Laxman, our greatest Cartoonist recently, media is writing about him: his views on God, Religion, his own beliefs and practices, etc. It is said that he did not practise formal religion, that he thought that religion had not contributed to human happiness, etc. The secular English language press had given prominent coverage to such features. 

R.K.Laxman was no doubt a great artist and writer. Does it mean his opinions on religion are valid or correct? Or, his attitude worthy of admiration or emulation? He might not have followed any religious rituals, but does it follow that he followed no rituals at all? Look at the way he worked: occupying the same room in the office, not letting people into his room, never taking work home,  and settling with a drink in hand in the evening at home, etc. Are these not rituals?

Look at  Einstein, for a contrast.I give below some of his remarks on God, Religion and Philosophy.

The suprapersonal content conveyed by religion, primitive in form though it is, is more valuable, I am convinced, than Haeckel's materialism. I believe that even nowadays, eliminating the sacred traditions would still mean spiritual and moral impoverishment- as gross and ugly as the attitude of the clergy may be in many respects. 1920

My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty and belief  in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony that we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly.

My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).

I am not an atheist.

I will call it the cosmic religious sense.This is hard to make clear to those, who do not experience it,....; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and the marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought.

I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery ....that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.

The scientist is possessed by a sense of universal causation.....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous  amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of  human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection......It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

The present difficulties of his science force the physicist to come to grips with  philosophical problems to a greater  degree than was the case with earlier generations.

Philosophy is like a mother who gave birth to and endowed all the other sciences. Therefore one should not scorn her in her nakedness and poverty, but should hope, rather, that part of her Don Quixote ideal will live on in her children so that they do not sink into philistinism.

I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, in so far as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent,science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.

I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.

What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion.....the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

Albert Einstein, 1921.
Ferdinand Schmutzer [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons.
These quotations are taken from: 1." My Views" Published by Rupa & Co, 1976.
2.The New Quotable Einstein, edited by Alice Calaprice.
Published by The Princeton University Press and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005.
 I urge all serious readers to go through these books fully. 





The problem is that religion, like art and science, are understood at different levels. There are religions and Religion. A genuine religion understands the differences in the capacities, competence and aptitude of the people and prescribes appropriate ways for each. One who can appreciate Shakespeare should not ridicule a beginner who struggles to read a small poem.. One may follow what appeals to one, but the same food does not suit all, or is not relished by all. There are those who think of the Impersonal, Attributeless, Formless. There are those who can only think of a Form. Both are right. (The Gita: 12.3-4)

The Bhagavad Gita declares:

Yadh yadhacharati sreshtas
 tattadhe vetaro jana:
Sa yat pramanam kurute
 lokastadanu vartate                     3.21

Whatsoever the superior person does , that is followed by others. 
What he demonstrates by action, that people follow.


Therefore, such a person has a great responsibility to set a good example, and not unsettle the mind of the less developed.

Na buddhibedham janayet ajnaanaam
 karmasanginaam
Joshayet sarva karmaani
 vidvaan yukta: samaacharan.          3.26

One should not unsettle the understanding of the ignorant, (who are) attached to action. 
The wise one, himself steadily acting, should engage the ignorant in all work.
( He should just set an example by acting without attachment.)


Prakrutaer guna sammoodha:
Sajjante guna karmasu:
Taana krutsnavito mandhaan
krutsnavinna vichaalayet.                  3.29

Men of perfect knowledge should not unsettle the understanding of people of dull wit and imperfect knowledge, who deluded by the gunas of prakriti attach themselves to the functions of the gunas.

Painting of Krishna-Arjuna,1823
 Public domain via Wikimedia Commons


There are of course fakes and bogus religious persons. But is it not true of all fields? Are all scientists of the calibre of Einstein, or all cartoonists like Laxman? It takes all sorts to make the world.

Is there any universal standard by which greatness can be understood? Every PhD is not a great scientist or scholar. Every famous figure is not great. We cannot go by externals. In these days of media hype and managed publicity, any new book may be proclaimed a best seller.  But real great literature is cherished and read over the years. Only time can reveal real greatness. 

But even this cannot be the measure of greatness. Real greatness is based on lasting contribution to the enhancement of human consciousness- only this is permanent; all contributions to material welfare  or happiness are but temporary. Even mere intellectual knowledge is vain, as it is discarded by subsequent developments. But those who touch our consciousness and awaken our spirit are alone really great. 

Laxman was a great artist. For 60 years, he drew political cartoons and made us realise what was going awry in society.  But all this is related to particular events of particular times. Those in their 60s and 70s can fully appreciate him. But what about those who did not experience the hardships of the socialist era or its naked absurdities?  Laxman was a mirror for the times; when those times fade from memory, and those situations become irrelevant, his art too will be forgotten.

 This is the difference between a Rembrandt and Laxman; both are geniuses but one was devoted to an art form which has a permanent place in most cultures, while the other's genius was wedded to an ephemeral phenomenon. It is a pity his genius was not devoted to a more permanent form of art, or a greater cause than political satire and current comment.

Rembrandt- Self-portrait
Public domain via WIKIART



This again is the difference between Narayan and Laxman!  Narayan too wrote about a particular section of society in some historical context; but his creations are part of  the historical development of English literature  in India, contributing an important chapter to it, which is studied worldwide. Narayan will be studied, so long as literature is studied . Cartoon does not quite occupy a comparable place in our estimation. It is not the fault of Laxman but a limitation of the medium he chose. Its relevance was topical in its day, but fades with time. What is the value of Churchill's famous frown captured on the camera by Karsh, or David Low's cartoons, today? In any case outside England? Laxman will always have his admirers.For them, his art matters, not his religion.How does his religion enhance his art? Mixing the two is the work of irresponsible journalists and writers.

The common man with the uncommon genius
By RKL-Info (Personal Collection)
[CC BY-SA 4.0 http://creativecommons/licences/by

We used to hear about "Churchill syndrome". It is mentioned in connection with his "down syndrome" or 'short man syndrome'. But in our college days, it was understood as his having not been particular in observing  rules of health, normally considered good: chain smoking, drinking, over-eating, etc. Yet he lived to ripe old age and achieved greatness as a leader. Can the common man take these features as singns of greatness and follow them? Nearer home, we observed Rajaji, who led a disciplined life throughout; we saw E.V.Ramasamy Naicker, who was the other pole.

The one and only Rajaji.


 Both lived to be more than 90! So, whom do we follow? Those who write about the freaky side of so called great figures are doing disservice to society.

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 66. RIGHT KNOWLEDGE AND PROBLEM SOLVING

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

66. RIGHT KNOWLEDGE AND PROBLEM SOLVING

It is the ultimate philosophical conviction  and prescription that right knowledge is the only solution to the ills of the world. Acharya Sankara identifies the human condition as one of ignorance, and prescribes 'knowledge' or wisdom as the only solution, just as light alone can remove darkness. 

Even on a worldly level, all idea of progress hinges on the spread of right knowledge. Education, and literacy are the vehicles to spread this knowledge along. All countries and societies therefore stress education, which has become an article of faith.

However, a look around the world will show us that knowledge or education or literacy has not solved any of the basic problems of life any where in the world. And there is not even certainty as to what is 'knowledge', and 'right' knowledge, at that.

The assumption has all along been that knowledge will translate or reflect in right conduct or correct behaviour. There is found to be no such automatic linkage. Valluvar said long ago: learn faultlessly what is necessary , and conduct yourself accordingly. (Kural:391). We find today that neither is done.

Take simple things. Science operates  at least on two levels: the highest theoretical ranges, and the practical applications. We find that both are at odds. 

The highest theoretical knowledge of physics shows that there is no matter, only energy. So, the world of concrete things that we see and deal with every day in our ordinary consciousness is not the true or absolute reality; we cannot even truly 'know' this reality, for somehow this is based on our consciousness! This is almost like the philosophical conclusion reached by Sankara: that the reality we deal with is 'relative', (vyavaharika), not absolute. What will happen if everyone realised this 'truth' and tried to behave accordingly? There will either be total inactivity or utter confusion! It seems that for practical life, some amount or form of ignorance or imperfection is necessary! 'On the earth, the broken arcs, in heaven a perfect round', said  Robert Browning! It is no wonder that we see the realised sages in a state of self-absorbed inaction. Practical wisdom consists in keeping this ignorance within safe limits or manageable proportions.

Take nuclear physics. The scientists know that nuclear energy is radioactive, whether the use is for military or so called 'peaceful' purposes- all uses are in reality 'harmful'. They also know that there is yet no known or safe or permanent way of removing or neutralising the radioactivity or disposing of the waste. They also know that we do not know for certain the absolute safety limits in exposure, and the threshold gets progressively reduced. They also know both in theory and by experience that no nuclear plant can be made absolutely safe, as no one can predict or deal with all possible contingencies- as the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and recent Japanese disasters have shown. There have also been many unpublicised near-disasters. But the science community pretends as if everything is hunky-dory and goes on building more reactors. And here, disregard of knowledge goes with dastardly hypocrisy: what they do not want in their own country, they advocate and export to others in the name of advancement. So much for knowledge and conduct, and even plain honesty in the highest scientific echelons!

Come to more mundane levels. We now know that plastic is a substance that can never be bio-degraded and so can never be made safe for the earth and environment. Communities are also grappling with the practical, day to day problem of disposing of the daily discards of plastic waste. Yet, there is a big lobby of industrialists, economists and local politicians who do not have the plain sense or courage to ban the manufacture of plastics, which is the only permanent solution. 

Or take the liquor and tobacco menace. In spite of the known scientific hazards and risks, which community has come forward to ban their manufacture and use? Some nominal or token restrictions are all they can think of. And the land of Gandhi is the biggest hypocrite- they display Gandhi picture everywhere, including  on their currency notes, invoke his name for everything, declare a holiday on his birthday and yet do not enforce prohibition, but shamelessly derive excise revenue on liquor manufacture and sales! And some state govts themselves run the liquor shops, so that even the trade commissions and margins may be enjoyed by them! Our front line newspapers will cry hoarse in the name of 'freedom' if prohibition is promoted or enforced by citizen groups!

Hugh Dalton, former Chancellor of Exchequer in Britain touched  on this issue beautifully. He was an economist, and thinker. In the 20s, decades before he became the Chancellor, he developed a theory in public finance. He realised that all schemes of public finance- raising revenue and expenditure- involved transfer of money and resources from some pockets to some other pockets (robbing Peter to pay Paul !) So the finance minister has to choose wisely between different avenues of revenue and schemes of expenditure. He proposed a theory of Maximum Social Advantage, to guide authorities. (see chapter 2 of his book Public Finance) He referred to the condition of 18th century England when ' a man could get drunk for a penny and dead drunk for twopence'. Was it a desirable state of affairs? Would not a tax on liquor which raised the price have the effect of reducing the consumption and thus lead to positive good? The thinker that he was, he had public interest in mind- not the revenue to the govt, by such a taxation! I have followed Indian public finance for 55 years now, and have not found a single minister or public politician endowed with such vision, or sense.

Our govt-run schools  use govt-made textbooks and promote the slogan of public cleanliness. Yet, what do the govts which run the administration, or local authorities which run the municipalities and corporations actually do to promote or ensure cleanliness? Come and see a 'city' called Bengaluru: you will find garbage piles everywhere, blocked gutters and drains, sewage overflowing on the road, eateries in unhygienic conditions operating out of handcarts on the footpaths, getting away by paying regular 'hafta', while established eateries are harassed in the name of 'licensing' requirements, drainage water mixing with drinking water ( in the lucky event of the municipal taps carrying water), stagnant pools of rainwater breeding mosquitoes, street dogs breeding merrily while we read of dog-bites, pigs roaming freely in some localities while some authorities warn of  dengue and brain fever,etc.Different centuries overlap here! But where is the sign of knowledge resulting in action? The only action taken was that the corporation imposed a new cess on citizens for collecting dry garbage; the cess is regularly collected, while the garbage heaps are allowed to grow and multiply, as regularly! Now, today's (21 January 2015) papers carry the news that our Modi sarkar will also impose a cess on our telephone and Internet connections for the 'swachcha Bharat' scheme. At this rate one result is sure: Whether Bharat becomes clean or not, our pockets will be cleaned out!

If you look at the so called 'developed' countries, the picture is equally dismal. Science is supposed to have eradicated plague, small pox, malaira, T.B., polio, etc. But there is a rise in depression, hypertension, diabetes, accidents, heart disease, obesity, stress- all called 'lifestyle' illnesses- a lifestyle enabled and promoted by the very science. And now T.B., malaria are making a comeback in a more virulent, drug-resistant version. And we are told that most viruses have developed resistance to antibiotics! Then take into account all the social ills: the mugging on the streets, violence on the campus, teen-age pregnancy, drug gangs in schools, guns carried into schools, etc. So, what exactly is right knowledge? Where is it found in action?

The  electric pump set, and later the bore-well were scientific breakthroughs. Our agriculturists took to them on a large scale; our agriculture-friendly sarkar encouraged it by supplying free or subsidised power. Bore wells were also thought to be the solution for the drinking water shortage in urban areas. Now, it is found that the net result has been an alarming drop in the level of ground water, that most of the ground water is found polluted and unfit for consumption. In the areas adjacent to sea, there is danger of sea water seeping in (in some places this has already taken place). One arm of science makes some invention, to render life easy, while another arm finds such invention to be harmful in the end. Which is right knowledge, and who is to enforce it?

The science community has taken the (un)ethical stand that it is neutral in regard to the use made of its discoveries; thus, if a high-school student can assemble an atom bomb, with the knowledge gained through high-school level text-books , supplemented by library reading ( as an article in the Readers Digest showed some years ago), the scientist is not responsible. If it should fall into the hands of some militant fundamentalists, the scientist is not responsible. If some wily politician should drop it on some hapless people to settle political conflicts among leaders, again the scientist is not responsible. If 'Teflon' coating should result in health issues, neither the scientist who invented it, nor the company which promoted it, suppressing its side effects is responsible! French sociologist-philosopher Jacques Ellul pointed out (in the Technological Society) how it has become difficult in a modern technological society to fix accountability for anything.

Indeed, most drugs have side effects. But most doctors are not aware of them, as they do not read the literature. Once, when I was hospitalised and some medicine was to be given intravenously, the nurse was fixing the bottle. I took the carton and read the instructions; they said that the bottle should not be exposed to any light and that it should be wrapped to protect it against light. Yet the nurse was fixing it, discarding the wrapper, and the room was brightly lit. Here, how does 'instruction' turn into knowledge, and knowledge into action?

Every new gadget is advertised as a great advance over the old ones; ever new models of everything are introduced. Yet every new 'advance' imposes its own conditions ie limitations, ie makes us less free. Again, our Valluvar said: Whatever things a man renounces, he also liberates himself from the pain associated with it! (Kural, 341)

The greatest irony and saddest part is the lack of coordination between the science of ecology and the pseudo discipline of economics. The ultimate ecological wisdom (not just knowledge) is that there cannot be  infinite growth in a finite environment; that reckless exploitation of resources leads to both exhaustion of resources and the difficulty- impossibility- of dealing with and disposing of the waste. Yet the economists reckon growth on the basis of some indices which measure the exhaustion ie waste of resources! So, instead of conserving material and making things last as long as technologically possible., technology is used to make things to use and throw! We are steadily degrading the planet and rendering it less fit to live, but call this economic development!

Here, we have to reckon with another aspect of knowledge or wisdom.What is the responsibility of the present generation for the future ones? Is it right for us to use the river in such a way that the next generation cannot use it? Is it ethical for us to build a project now for our benefit, when in the future it may have to be dismantled  by our children or grandchildren, at perhaps ten or even hundred times the present cost, when they have not derived any benefit out of it? Does any one in modern society think of such things? The economist? politician? statesman? scientist? It was the native American tribes which thought of it! They said: we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we are borrowing it  from our grandchildren!

The problem of knowledge versus its application has arisen precisely because knowledge and its upkeep have fallen into wrong hands. Knowledge imposes a burden or responsibility of right use. Our ancients were very careful to whom the knowledge was imparted. The greatest wisdom was reserved for the most fit- made fit by discipline, hardship, adoption of an altruistic motive, and ascertained by appropriate tests. High knowledge was considered great secret. Lord Krishna calls his teaching to Arjuna: guhyam, guhya taram, guhya tamam! And he warned that it should not be imparted to those lacking austerity and devotion! (Gita, 18.67) Almost no one of wisdom used it for personal profit! Today, knowledge is neatly packaged and nicely sold! Any rascal can purchase nuclear knowledge  at a price!

Yet, how difficult we have made it for ordinary people to acquire plain literacy and knowledge of simple things by making education so silly and so costly!, and such a deadly formality! Should it be so difficult and costly to learn about our poets and philosophers? Earlier disinterested monks and renunciates were the custodians of high wisdom. Today, the university dons and even the ordinary teachers are merchants of information. Shakespeare mused: 'To be or not to be'. This is free. But some local don speculates on its meaning  and puts a price on it. You spend  a fortune, get into a university, and spend 3 years to learn what the don says and he says in the end: I do not know what Shakespeare really meant. Well, for all that, the don does not even know or care whether Shakespeare really existed, whether it was Shakespeare or Ben Jonson or some one else writing in his name, whether Shakespeare was one or many persons rolled into one etc . You enter the university to acquire knowledge; you end by doubting your own certainty, or even very sanity! Rightly did the psychiatrist R.D.Laing say ( in The Politics of Experience, 1967) half a century ago: our schooling is more likely to lead us to the mental institution than to the university! Nay, more: the student will likely drop out, but the parent will get into a hospital for heart care with the shock of the expenses or the burden of the debt!

Knowledge is not used to solve problems- in fact, it can't be, it won't be allowed, as I found it out on the job.

In my service, I was entrusted with the personnel function quite early- in my late twenties. I had to deal with labour unions, apart from administering the staff rules. There were 4 unions to deal with: the official leftist union, with its two factions: CPM and CPI; (  there were 4 groups within this: Bengalees, Keralites, Tamilians, and others); the unrecognised Jan Sangh union; the Ambedkarite group- which was indeed a social group but exercised trade-union activities; a large floating segment, which would side with any group on specific issues. I was quite raw, on probation, did not have much exposure to the ground or acquaintance with the rules and regulations. I felt very nervous, and quite unequal to the task. I expressed my reservations and apprehensions to the boss. He was a fine elderly gentleman, with about 2 years for retirement, had risen from the ranks, was just a matriculate, but with excellent language and abundant practical wisdom, withal sterling character.He dismissed my apprehensions and told me: 'We have selected you just because you are raw; you can learn what you do not know; in fact, in this area there is no ready-made knowledge; you learn as you go along. You are not a local fellow, so we expect you to be neutral and fair. People see through you, and in the end respect honesty and sincerity, not cleverness or appearance. Be fair, unprejudiced. Help people where you can, with your power; don't harm any one; don't seek revenge through office for personal issues. We don't expect you to solve all problems! Just deal with the people! We are here behind you'. This is some of the best advice I have had from a boss in 35 years of service.

So for two years I handled them. I had to deal with some all-India leaders too, who later became MPs. I tried to be honest in my dealings, and transparent. I learned two things quite early: most problems were caused by management, by their attitude, omissions and commissions; the unions did not want problems solved- they used them to strengthen themselves! No matter what you did, they had their party angle. So, I managed; I thought they also gave me allowance and understanding, because I was raw, and had no axe to grind. But I had trouble with the management, after this boss retired. The new boss had a different approach; he wanted to keep his gun on my shoulders and fire; I had a duty to represent  and plead for employees in fit cases, act as their protector and guardian. I refused to yield to management. The new boss found me a thorn in his flesh and shifted me to another area. I could not stand the tension, and proceeded on leave. It seems the unions took up the matter with head office, expressed lack of confidence in the new boss and so I was recalled!

Twenty five years later, I became the boss in another branch, with about 1500 employees. With all my previous experience and knowledge, I set out solving all the outstanding issues: water shortage in the colonies, disciplinary proceedings wrongly instituted ( yes, such things happened), issues related to posting, welfare, promotion, transfer, etc. Within a month, all outstanding issues were solved! I thought the employees were happy. But the labour union was not! The leaders approached me and told me frankly: Sir, don't go so fast! If all issues are solved, how can we function? After all, we need something to fight on, so that our cadres will feel united! Unless they see some action periodically, they would feel the leaders are sleeping and we would find it difficult in the next union elections! 

This taught me that in the practical world, knowledge is not meant to solve problems! And, in some cases, it is better to keep some minor issues pending, so that other issues are not made major! If there were no real issues, the leaders would invent some imaginary ones, and these could be even more vexing!

But this certainly does not mean that national issues cannot be solved. In the 60s and 70s, the textile industry was facing problems due to changing technology and taste; the Indian govt was totally unsympathetic, idiotic and was talking indiscriminately of nationalisation, so that the managements were scared of making fresh investments. The leftist unions were active, but also knew that they could not force managements beyond limits. But Datta Samant came along, demanded the moon and totally ruined the industry. This is an area where one party did not care for knowledge, one party could not apply the wisdom they had, and the govt displayed supreme idiocy and shortsightedness. Our textile industry has lost its preeminence since then.

Take the recent case of HMT watch division. This is again an area of govt idiocy. HMT watches have always been popular, tremendously popular. The factory had good engineers and technicians. But it was controlled and run by babus whose remuneration was not related to performance. They could not find ways to overcome shortages, increase production and meet the demand. Titan came along, poached on the good engineers and technicians from HMT, and has grown from strength to strength. Now, the NDA govt has decided to close the watch division, citing the 200-odd cr losses. This again is a stupid decision. If losses were the only criterion, Indian Airlines  ( or Air India) should have gone long ago. HMT brand is still popular; (Air India or Indian Airlines had never been popular with the Indians) what they lack is marketing. There are hundred ways of tackling this problem, but the quixotic minister closed the factory and killed a brand which was a national icon. I found out how popular the brand was still on the eve of the closure. Coming to know about the decision, I wanted to buy one or two pieces still available just for nostalgia and found them on line. But within half an hour, when I actually ordered, they were sold out! When I went to the local market, I found they were selling at fancy prices and even these were not available  after a day or two. They were so popular yet our minister killed them. We have the knowledge of what was wrong, but did not care to apply. 

Our political class or bureaucracy never cared for knowledge or to apply it, in big things and small. When the Ayodhya site was excavated under court orders, the team unearthed lot of material showing the existence of a Hindu temple there; yet the govt suppressed the facts and mispresented before the court. The team of marine archaeologists have discovered the site of the old Dwaraka and photographed many structures under water, but our secular govt is afraid of talking about it openly. The course of the legendary Saraswati river has been mapped by satellites, and hundreds of sites have been discovered on its old banks; yet this knowledge is not presented in our history books.They still talk of Mohenjodaro, as if the world has stood still! Knowledge is growing but we have no courage to admit new facts. Science or Knowledge is supposed to be pursuit of truth, but here truth is subject to political convictions and convenience.

Thus we see that in science or other fields, there is no pursuit of pure truth in the form of knowledge, and that even when it is found, it is not acted upon, not even acknowledged.