Did Indians adopt the heliocentric theory long before Copernicus?

I wrote about this two years ago.

http://obvioustruths.blogspot.in/2016/02/navagriha-and-heliocentric-theory.html

There are many temples in India devoted to deities representing the Sun, moon and the planets in India. Most of them do contain a visual representation of the Solar system, with the Sun at the centre. All other deities surround the sun. The individual deities face random directions, possibly illustrating the concept that each rotates independently around its own axis. There is no deity representing the earth, showing that the builders did not have the concept of the earth being yet another planet.

Do the Navagraha models indicate that there was a wide spread heliocentric concept before Copernicus formulated it as a theory? Or is the central placement of the Sun God only a way of showing his relative importance?

I found some information relevant to the whole question, when I ran into a book published in India in 2005:

Navagraha Temples of Tamil Nadu Kaveri Delta

by Padma Raghavan and Savita Narayan,

ISBN No: 81-89066-22-6, Published in 2005

English Edition Publishers and Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd.

5/10, 11, 105 Jogani Industrial Complex, V. N. Purav Marg, (Near ATI) Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400022

Email: English_Edition@hotmail.com

The book describes fourteen temples, each devoted to a single deity. The deities involved are Sun and moon, five visually dominant planets, and Rahu and Ketu representing places along the Sun's apparent path in the sky where eclipses occur.

Based on the compositions by the Nayanmars which mention them, the authors believe that the temples were in existence in the 7th Century A. D. They say that there is evidence that the Suryanar (the Sun God) Temple near Kumbakonam was built in 1100 A. D.

Srinivasan Ramani 

Are Administrative Reforms Dead?

The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) Reports are important documents from the UPSC civil services exam perspective, says the site https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/arc-reports-for-upsc-mains-exam , but what about comprehensive, public  discussion of administrative reform issues from the nation’s point of view? Don’t we need it every year?

There have been two Administrative Reforms Commissions in India. They have produced a series of reports, which have received Government Consideration. Some recommendations have been implemented. All that was long ago.

Now, there seems to be a Dept of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances https://darpg.gov.in/about-arc

However, there seems to be no public report of any action related to Administrative Reform after 2011. 
The one exception I could find was a blog post by Amitabh Kant of Niti Aayog. 
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/administrative-reforms-rebolting-the-steel-frame/

Discovering that there is a Ministry of Administrative Reforms  reminded me of something that Dr Kirit Parikh said in a public talk over two decades ago. It was about a gardener who was taking care of a small piece of lawn in the economics department of JNU. One day, the gardener goes to the Chairman of the Dept. and says that they have to find another gardener. “Why?” says the Chairman, “Are you leaving?” “No”, says the gardener, “I have been made permanent!”

Don’t we need to review our administrative practices regularly? Don’t we need to make visible improvements to them, and tell the country about it? 

Srinivasan Ramani

Spring Cleaning Indian Systems

Certain things should not change, like the basic structure of our constitution. Other things should be reviewed periodically and changed if necessary as permitted by the constitution. For instance, how many levels of courts are there in India? I am not sure about the answer and I suspect this is a question the bulk of our citizens cannot answer either. Flattening the structure by reducing the number of levels and strengthening the lowest level are well-known management ideas. I believe that it is worth discussing if we can reduce the long time needed to settle cases in India by such flattening of the structure. Flattening levels can be done without reducing the number of court buildings or the number of judicial officers involved. It is only necessary to upgrade some of the lower courts.  

Giving the government power to regulate institutions is necessary. It is unlikely to promote corruption because it deals with policy and principles applicable to all. On the other hand, when the government runs a bank, any loan application can seek political or bureaucratic support. So, does modern India need a number of businesses run under political and bureaucratic direction?

There are many other issues that can be listed that are worth review. It is the job of the legislature to review existing practices. We don’t need to keep on doing something just because we have been doing it for seventy years!

Srinivasan Ramani