<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 10 2009, 08:21 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 10 2009, 08:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The first Asiatic Nobel in the sciences was CV.Raman ( SIB )
working in shitty Kolkata univ
[right][snapback]94420[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back in 1917, when Raman joined it, Calcutta University was a primary incubator of India's researchers, including in pure sciences but more predominantly in fields of humanities, most notably in creating the first generation of indegenous historians, under the Vice-Chancellorship of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee (the father of Dr. S P Mookerjee) - and one of the best places to conduct research anywhere outside the avarNAvarta.
And your data is quite skewed. You ignore the larger set of the contemporaries of Raman. The data would show that a fair share of scientists did come from communities other than the so called "South Indian Brahmins", and from even non-brAhmaNa jAti-s.
Consider some famous non-SIB names of that era:
- J C Basu, SN Basu -- both physicist and bengali brahmins
- Meghnad Saha, the physicist known for his work in ionization of stellar atmosphere -- vaishya
- Birbal Sahni, the palaeobotanist -- doab khattri
- HJ Bhabha, the nuclear-physicist -- parsi
- SS Bhatnagar, physical-chemistry -- kayastha
So I go back to repeating my earlier position that while I agree with your line of work, I totally fail to understand your methodology. To me, you seem like taking a prejudiced (a-)historic theory in the first place, and then to it you keep adding statistical factoids, which will not really help your quest. You have to first begin by taking the fundamental route of any statistical analysis -- First gauge your measurement system, and independently certify it, before producing the analysis from the dataset it has yielded.
working in shitty Kolkata univ
[right][snapback]94420[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back in 1917, when Raman joined it, Calcutta University was a primary incubator of India's researchers, including in pure sciences but more predominantly in fields of humanities, most notably in creating the first generation of indegenous historians, under the Vice-Chancellorship of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee (the father of Dr. S P Mookerjee) - and one of the best places to conduct research anywhere outside the avarNAvarta.
And your data is quite skewed. You ignore the larger set of the contemporaries of Raman. The data would show that a fair share of scientists did come from communities other than the so called "South Indian Brahmins", and from even non-brAhmaNa jAti-s.
Consider some famous non-SIB names of that era:
- J C Basu, SN Basu -- both physicist and bengali brahmins
- Meghnad Saha, the physicist known for his work in ionization of stellar atmosphere -- vaishya
- Birbal Sahni, the palaeobotanist -- doab khattri
- HJ Bhabha, the nuclear-physicist -- parsi
- SS Bhatnagar, physical-chemistry -- kayastha
So I go back to repeating my earlier position that while I agree with your line of work, I totally fail to understand your methodology. To me, you seem like taking a prejudiced (a-)historic theory in the first place, and then to it you keep adding statistical factoids, which will not really help your quest. You have to first begin by taking the fundamental route of any statistical analysis -- First gauge your measurement system, and independently certify it, before producing the analysis from the dataset it has yielded.