Shame shame puppy shame!!!

That would be the reaction of the world, at the attacks that India has suffered yet again. The PM’s message is not just disappointing but also irritating. The home minister is in hiding or may be he is busy for a bespoke jodhpuri suit. Is this what we expect from our leaders? Their demeanor in the face of such a crisis is plainly pusillanimous. Can these people be called our leaders by any stretch of imagination? There are no more words in the dictionary for unmanliness; as all have been exhausted describing our Home Minister’s reactions to terror attacks in the past. May be he is hiding for the fear that people might kill him if they get a chance. I would at the least spit in his face, on record, if not hit him.

I consider the leadership, nay, these representatives purely responsible for the death of 200 citizens and many foreigners. What right do these people have to leave us to die? They should not get away with such blood on their hands. If homicide is culpable, I feel such inaction on the part of the govt/agencies should be treated equally and should be made to face the law.
Corruption, kick-backs, nepotism, sleaze are all on one level and can be expected to an extent in a nation of a billion; but such inaction which endangers the lives of citizens should be treated on a different and much serious level. This can not and should not be tolerated by the nation.

System failure, intelligence failure, across the border, center list, state list, jurisprudence, bureaucracy, lack of personnel, outdated weapons, LeT, ISI... are all terms we hear every time after an attack. I don’t care what the reasons and excuses are. The leaders are not elected to list out reasons for their failures. The leader is supposed to act and deliver. Deliver safety and security for its citizens. This is the most basic aim for any government whether elected or usurped. Mr. Home Minister! If you can not do your job, get the fuck out of the office.

I am pained and angered not by the terrorists and the people across the border, but by our own ministers and politicians. We know there are these LeTs, Mujahideens, ISI, SIMIs etc, with in and across the border who are crouching and ready to swoop at us with the most satanic aims. So, what is the government doing to protect us? What extra mechanisms and measures has it come up with to face these threats? Instead of stepping up the security measures, the first thing this govt has done is to scrap tough laws against terror under the pretext of it being misused. On the same logic the internet should be banned as it is being misused; again by the terrorists. What say Mr. Prime Minister?

How ironic life could be! Prime Minister Mr. Singh, being a Sikh is acting so un-sikhly. He would do well if he remembered the faith of Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Gobind Singh and their actions in the face of terror. They preached the concept of liberty, equality, fraternity, self-defence and self-sacrifice. Dear Mr. Singh, Have you missed learning the principle of self-defence in your faith?

Guru Gobind Singh writes in Zafarnama:
“When all efforts to restore peace prove useless and no words avail,
Lawful is the flash of steel then, and right is the sword to hail.”
(The Epistle of Victory, 1390, Dasam Granth)
( http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/gurus/)

Would your actions or rather stark inaction be approved by your gurus? What would you answer them when you go there?

And Mr. Home Minister, you being from the region of the erstwhile Hyderabad state, you do know terror and its ideology better than anyone as you would have faced it during the independence of Hyderabad state. It should have been easy for you to be attitudinally pro-active and take extra measures. But you instead showed utter diffidence and cowardice every time.
By the way, I understand you belong to the Lingayat sect. Would you please recollect what your faith says in ‘Ganachara’ of the ‘Panchachara’ principles? It says one should not tolerate ill-treatment of men and animals.
Again, an irony here is that the term ‘Linga’ connotes a sense masculine vigor; yet our Minister is so very … you know.

Mr. Patil, you were given not one, but many chances to set things right. But it only cost us hundreds of more lives. You are accountable for their murders.
Mr.Shivraj Patil, you have blood on your hands. And I hope this will haunt you for the rest of your life.

These congress men have made India a laughing stock in the world nations.
Shame..would be the word that sums up all my feelings; for these deaths are of our own making.

Hindu terror? Thanks to Govt's (in)action

Seems like the happiest group about this alleged Hindu terror is the English media in India, especially the english news channels; for they now have an issue that could be used, twisted, judged, polled for the next few days; gluing the nation to their channels.

'Hindu terror' just doesn't go down easily. It is because Hindus never believed in terror. Infact, they were terrorised so often. Hinduism is the only religion which accepts that it is ‘not’ the only true faith. Neither Islam, nor Christianity could even dream of being such a liberal religion. As kids, we hindus are taught that all religion are equal, which is a big lie; while other faiths teach their kids that theirs is the only true faith and all others are pagans and are to be persecuted. And that is perfectly fine with our adjusting Hindu mentality; coz we still want to be secular. Hindu kids, most of them, even the lower middle class and the poor ones go to either Govt run schools or private ones; where they learn secular subjects like math and science dreaming to become doctors and engineers for a better life. Even those who attend more traditional/religious schools study secular subjects along with religion, culture, values etc of this land and become patriots. Can this be said about the muslims kids who attend madrasas where they invariably are drowned into only Quran more often than not to learn Arabic, quranic (Arabic) traditions, values and the quran?

And speaking about our rule of the law; the bas***rd who almost succeeded in bombing our citadel of democracy, our parliament; is still not hanged, though the Supreme court has pronounced its judgement. This is how severe the impotence of our leaders is. Our leaders dont have the balls to take action. With a prime minister who needs to get permission from a white lady for taking any decision, at the helm of all the affairs; what else can be expected. The forces from across our borders bomb us time and again at will with impunity. The Home minister’s attitude would put even an eunuch to shame. The separatist in J&K have the temerity to host Pak flags and openly wish for 'Death to India' can do it with no resistance. The separatists in Nagaland can freely resort to sedition. And our central govt which is now in the control of one family waits and waits so that it does not lose votes.

Under such an inactive govt, the administration fails to deliver. When we view these so called terror attacks allegedly by Hindus, anyone with a heart and feelings would understand these to be a retaliatory attempts by a few who are deeply disturbed by the inaction of the state. Yet, law is not about feelings. So, it should take its own course and I hope it does. Let the guilty be punished. But before that we should punish people like Mohammad Afzal whom we are keeping alive just to risk more attacks and hijacks. Its time we realized that the govt is just as responsible as these perpetrators for these disturbances, just because of its inaction. Finally if there really were something like ‘Hindu terror’, the demographics of this country would have been very different.

Religion Retrospect

First let me thank my friend for hosting us and also his friends for bearing us all through the night. This re-asserting discussion of what one believes went to its apparent and audible peak with the last sixty of the spirit in the bottle. I can go on and on about this topic but all my time and effort would be a naught if I am quoted out of context. It would be better not to speak at all about it if I am understood wrongly and which might bruise our opinions about each other.

It would be a good way to start by trying to find a common ground and agree on a certain things before we venture into areas of more gravity. I totally respect any other faith and cultures of different peoples of this world. I expect the same from them. If this basic condition is met truly and sincerely, then I see no conflicts between the different beliefs that we hold. But it would be immature to overlook the differences in opinion and clashes of ideologies by putting them under this cover of one world one dream concept. Again, that is the line used for the 2008 Olympics and we know the controversy there.

The Change of faith has been a hotly debated topic. There is no denying by anyone that the aim of missionaries is to spread the word of their god. I say their god, because I see it so. God can not be taken per se to mean something. To me, god is, and is to be considered with other concepts like history, culture, tradition and all the reasons for the development of a way of living of a people in a particular part of the world. Only then could we address the real issues and not by making statements of undeniable value like ‘all god is one’. It would be a baseless discussion to speak about such a thing as faith with out knowing all those facts about a region.

I completely understand why people would have left their existing religion to a new one, Christianity, Islam in the case of India. The reasons are justifiable enough for leaving Hinduism. The reasons are the ills in Hinduism itself; and I fully condemn the unfortunate practices like casteism, untouchability, inequality, non entry to temples etc. I have my deepest and unconditional apologies to those who had to face and go through such inhuman treatment. May be even I would have changed my faith if at all that had happened to me. So, conversion under such circumstances is not what I am concerned about. Also, these new foreign faiths are not squeaky clean and fair either. That would be different topic altogether.

Now it would be a rash claim to say that all of the 3-4% of Christians and 12-13% of muslims in India have such justifiable reasons for their conversion. There are other factors which influence the change. These could be anything like monetary gains, reservations, better life styles, false promises of better status and security, creation of a sense of disrespect for the existing faith and detachment from it etc. Change of faith under any of these factors is not justifiable. And it would be immature to believe that the missionaries do not use such tricks to spread their word. I could talk more on each of those reasons and give examples but it would take too long.

I would like to know what these missionaries (islam too) would want the entire of India to do. Is it that they want the whole of the nation to be converted to Christianity (or islam)? Stop believing in our gods and develop hatred and disrespect for the culture? Disown and desecrate all the sacred places? Or destruct all the temples and build Churches and mosques on them? What is the ultimate mission of these missionaries? What would they achieve if they had had unbridled freedom? Not that they have any legal restrictions now. Islam says it clearly; its final aim is to convert the entire world into its fold. In the same way, what does Christianity want in India?

I’m sure I would not get the answers straight on a paper even though the answers are quite logical and guessable. But what pains me the most is the attitude of the converts. I understand they might be a hurt lot, if they had faced any of the above mentioned ills of the old faith; but that does not change the facts. They can not ignore history, they can not disown their roots, and they can not blind themselves to the fact that they are a part of this bigger entity called India and Indian culture. They have lived and are living under it; have been a part of it for thousands of years now, and just a change of religion a few years ago does not give them the right to disown and despise it. It would be insane and a blunder to try to cover up such long history with a few decades of their living with the new faith.

With such a pain, I request my converted fellow Indians, to try to get the larger picture and not be withheld in this little aura created for them by those of the new faith. We have realized the ills of our faith and we should take steps to clean it, but we need you. We can not afford to lose you anymore. You have been a part of us through thousand of years and we want that to be continued with all justice, equity and dignity.

Secularism vs Nationalism

It was a coffee break discussion about politics and the talk went from one event to another till it reached the most controversial one. The demolition of the Babri masjid. Then the group of four split into two with two each. One group trying to look at it from a logical, rather technically confined to the law; perspective and the other trying to show the bigger picture which includes history, heritage, faith and other important and equally valid aspects.

A little while into the discussion, there was clearly separation of opinion and there were the Secularists and the Nationalists. The debate continued on various points and taken to logical arguments; some of them being as follows:

History vs Mythology
Illegal vs Eventual
Location vs Reclamation
Proof vs Belief
Democratic vs Undemocratic
Secularism vs Nationalism

History Vs Mythology
The secularists argued that Babri was history and the birth of Rama is mythology. And that history is worth more to be given away in favor of mythology. They demand a testimony to something which is being believed by a billion people for centuries. The nationalists question the definition of mythology and that just because it is too ancient to have been documented doesn’t not make it a myth. Also the standard that the secularists consider, to call something history or mythology. If it is the period of Jesus, which is 2000 years ago or of Mohammed which is 1300 years ago, which have documentation then the period of Rama which would have been anything between 4 to 5 thousand years old, would no wonder would not have been documented then, but the tradition and the belief lives on till date. Mahabharata which is again as old as Ramayana is called 'itihaas' in Sanskrit which literally means 'it so happened'. Just that this event is a lot older than what they consider history does not make it a mythology, though the events like wars and weapons could have been exaggerated so as it make it an allegorical narrative.

Illegal Vs Eventual
Sticking to the law, the secularists proclaim that the destruction of the structure was totally illegal in a democratic nation and assume that this very act is enough to quash all rights of the nationalists on the site. To this, the nationalists take the wind off the sails of the secularist by accepting that the particular act was surely illegal and deplorable but they also remind that the legal channels of arbitration that were undertaken and which bore no fruit can not be discredited. The case was in the hands of the court for well over than five decades and still no judgment was made. The judicial machinery of the nation was neither determined enough nor authoritative to edict the truth lest it should hurt the party against whom the judgment goes.

Location Vs Reclamation
Then came the point about the location and why the Nationalists are bent on having the exact spot of the structure and why could they not build a grand temple at a little distance without disturbing the structure. Well, this sounds nice, easy, practical and unbiased to that section of people that hopes to solve the issue somehow; and that keeps a very myopic view of history and also the future. The Nationalists believe it is not just about solving the problem somehow, but it should be an assertive retort to the oppression of the invaders and the scars they left that remind the nation of their aggression and bigotry. The only fitting act would be to reclaim the same land. Anything less would be a meek acceptance of the shame and disgrace the invaders put the people and the cultures of our nation to. This argument can not be rubbished as emotional as the world politics has been rooted in ‘Which God rules which land’. It is such a belief and emotion that keeps the Jews together and assert for their promised land.
This should not remain a liability to our posterity as it was to us.

To be continued....

Regionalism or nationalism or... may be rationalism?

The acceptance of the above ideas should be increasing in that order, because it holds true for the first two, or at least, it is now a fashion to look down on regionalism and only talk about nationalism. And that gives ones opinion a complete acceptance to the educated, modern and cosmopolitan club, which everyone wants to be in.

So, why not go a step ahead and put in the third idea, 'rationalism' and see how it changes the scene. With all that happening in Mumbai, one man got all the bad media for raising an issue, which was made a taboo to talk about over the years. There is no denying, the issue might have been used to fare better in the hustings, but there would be no smoke with out a fire. There should be no condoning the violence unleashed on the innocent migrant but there is a need to treat the disease and not the symptom.

Now there are these cities which keep supporting migrants, and the states which keep producing them and dispersing them all over the country. Yes, the constitution gives the right to movement to any where in the country, but it also strives to achieve a welfare state. So using this right of movement so ruthlessly on a city by a sea of people does not go down very well. Technically it is all fare and fine but the issue is not all that black and white.

How does not trying to address a problem help the situation? Are we trying to encourage this mass migration to cities in the name of being a national citizen? In that case, we might as well hope for an unrestricted intercontinental migration for being a world citizen, (it might sound illogical, since there is no such world constitution).

Whose city is it anyway? This is what we hear in the media today. Should it not be something like 'Whose problem is it anyway?' which addresses the cause for such a movement of people from those ill governed and less opportunistic places. Should we not be talking about the betterment of those towns and villages to check this influx of people into already choking cities?

Now which is a bigger mistake? The governments (which again translates to people) of those states not doing enough for keeping its people in the state, or somebody who tries to bring the problem to the notice of the nation.

May rationalism prevail over all other isms..

-Aditya