Holy cow - myth or reality?

I get regular posts on my Facebook wall from some of my Indian FB friends about their anger against cow slaughter. How we need to save cows from getting slaughtered, how it is evil to eat cow meat, and so on. Basically, all these posts say that it's our (all Hindus) duty to save the cow because she is a sacred animal in the Hindu religion. Eating or selling cow meat (beef) is a big no-no in most parts of India. A cow is considered a sacred/holy animal by most Hindus and killing her is considered a big sin. Above that selling her meat is a greater sin and then eating that meat is an unforgivable sin. But this should not give anyone an impression that Indians are vegetarians or they don't eat any meat or they are very protective about all animals. Believe me, many foreigners do get the impression that if you are from India you must be a vegetarian. I still wonder how and why they get this impression. So the the question to ask here is if many people in India are not against eating animal flesh then why they are so against cow meat? What is so special about this animal?

If any country, religion, or community is against animal slaughter or using any animal products (as vegans are) then one can understand their opposition to eating animal flesh, but here opposition is not about eating animal flesh but flesh of only a particular animal, a cow in case of Hindus and Pig in case of Muslims. The question is what is the logic or rationale behind it? I understand that Muslims or some Christians don't eat pork just because it's mentioned in their holy books (Qu'ran and Bible) not to eat that meat. So it's a very simple thing, there is absolutely no logic behind this, just follow the instructions, don't ask why, just follow the book, very simple. Even if this instruction was given in a book written several hundreds of years ago, just follow it without questioning. So, people are not against eating pork because they are against animal killing or care about these animals but just because some book (and remember this is not any medical or diet book) says not to eat it without giving any logical reasons. Now, what is the reason for Hindus not to eat beef? Well, for Hindus there is no single book that can be called a Hindu religious text. There are many books and some of them even clearly indicate that cow sacrifice was a very common practice in those days when these texts were written. So the origin of this belief (sacred cow) is not some particular book but there must be some other factors also.

So for me, the question was how the cow became holy or sacred in India or Hinduism? I think the main reason why cows attained this holy status was because of the agriculture-based economy. The cow is a very useful animal in the agriculture-based economy as it can provide milk, cow dunk (used in dried form as fuel, insect repellent), and ox/bullocks were used for farming. A cow was a very important animal in the economic and social life of any family in an agriculture-based economy. It was a very useful animal and if people killed it just to eat her meat then it would have reduced their number and in turn, harmed the economy. It was economically more productive to use them as agriculture and dairy animals rather than killing them for their flesh. But then the problem was, how to convince people to stop their killing for meat? How to solve this problem? A difficult option was to explain to people the importance of cows for the welfare of their families and tell them to follow a sustainable lifestyle where they can strike a balance between the number of cows so that their ratio is not adversely affected. A lot of economics and complicated stuff that common people don't want to listen to. We all know from experience that this strategy is very difficult to implement, we see many species becoming endangered (plants as well as animals) and some even getting extinct because of aggressive hunting or killing by humans for so many reasons (flesh, skin, or for any other body parts). The easier option was to declare the thing holy or sacred, this automatically protects that object (animal, land, tree, or anything). This practice is still used in India, any land or tree or anything one wants to protect or occupy, built some temple or mosque or any religious structure there, and one can see that people of that religion are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect that object. But if one tries convincing people about the necessity of having a sustainable lifestyle hardly anyone pays any attention. It sounds ridiculous but it's the reality. I am sure this will change in the future but right now this is the case in most parts of the country.

People who are against cow slaughter or think she is a sacred animal equate cows with their mothers. The reason they give is we drink her milk like we drink our mother's milk as an infant. Note that they don't give the same status to other animals or nuts from where we get milk for human consumption, for example, buffalo, goat, soybean, or almonds. Why preferential treatment only to cows but not to other animals or plants? Shameless use of double standards. I know that they may not like my questions but I am curious to know if they have any logical explanation.

Some of these people are willing to massacre people who kill cows and all this in the name of saving the holy cow. Does this make any sense? What's the use of killing poor people who are trying to earn their living by doing their job to support their families. I used to feel really gross when I used to see people drink cow urine. I still can't understand the logic behind it. I know the uses of cow dunk but I never saw people eating it, but drinking the urine of some animal was a totally illogical and foolish act, but people do it. The book "The Myth of Holy Cow" written by D. N. Jha, where he discussed various aspects related to this issue is already banned in India (as expected, no surprise) and even the author was threatened, and anyone can guess the reason. People just don't want to read about the other side of the story, it hurts their religious sentiments? The opposition to cow slaughter is not at all related to Hinduism, this religion is much more than that but somehow few people are using this issue for their personal and political benefit. If people are so against animal killing then they should request the government to ban all meat-based products and make a law to enforce this action, but to create a drama using cow slaughter as a religious issue is just pathetic.

People of that time found this easy solution (declaring the cow a sacred or holy object) to protect cows. They also did with some trees (in India especially in villages still some species of trees are not cut just because people believe that they are sacred and cutting them will bring bad luck to them or their village). It was the need of that time and I think this trick worked very well and served its purpose. The question now is, do we still need this same trick to maintain the number of cows in India? After so much progress in animal husbandry and science do we have any logical reason to stop people from eating beef or pork? I am not advocating a non-vegetarian diet (especially eating beef) or slaughtering of animals for food here. This post is not in support of any particular form of diet. I am just asking a question, why a meat of only cows forbidden for people who want to eat it? People who don't want to eat that meat should not eat it, no one is forcing them but they should allow others to eat, the same way they allow others to eat chicken, duck, or deer. We should learn to respect each other's dietary choices.

People who oppose cow slaughter for whatever reasons put the argument that then people will also demand human meat, will that be okay? This question doesn't have any logic, people say this just for the sake of argument. Cannibalism was never part of our history or culture, but eating animal meat was and still is, it is stupid to argue that eating human meat could be a dietary choice. People don't have any right to dictate what others should eat, diet is a personal choice like clothing. There is nothing wrong in encouraging vegetarian or non-veg diets by showing their merits and demerits but to ridicule one form of diet for some illogical reasons doesn't make sense. Whatever food we eat, it should be healthy food, it is hypocritical to kill and eat some farm animals of our own choice (like chicken  goat, sheep, deer, pig, duck, etc.) and force others not to eat animals of their choice (pork or beef).

I also don't accept the logic of vegetarian people that their diet doesn't involve the killing of living things. A vegetarian diet just doesn't include animal flesh and doesn't involve animal killing, but all plants are living things and people do kill them to consume them. These two categories are named according to their origin or source from where food originates and there is nothing pro or anti-life in both of them. There is simple rule in nature, every living thing survives at the cost of another living thing. I hope that people around the world realize and acknowledge this fact and learn to respect each other's dietary choices. We need to adopt a sustainable lifestyle that is good for the health of our body, and our planet.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

References:
1. The Myth of Holy Cow- D. N. Jha (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Holy-Cow-D-Jha/dp/1859844243)
2. http://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_on_pig_05049.html 
3. http://themuslimvoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/why-is-pig-haraam-in-islam/ 
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals
5. http://my.opera.com/liquid%20snake/blog/pork-forbidden-but-why (another example how Dr. Zakir Nayak uses his medical degree to fool people)
6. http://ebooks.iskcondesiretree.info/pdf/Voice_of_Cows/Voice_of_Cows_-_Newsletter_Vol-01_-_Issue-05_-_2010-02.pdf
7. http://books.google.com/books/about/Hindus_Ate_Beef.html?id=PjLxHAAACAAJ

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

I am neither a theist nor atheist

Normally, people who believe in God or the ones who don't believe like to divide the whole world into two sections, one set of people who believe in God and its existence are called 'theists' and the other section who don't believe in God are called 'atheists'. There are many subgroups among both these groups, but normally people like to associate themselves with any one of these categories. Both groups are very passionate about their beliefs and have very strong points to support their hypothesis. I love to hear both sides, both have many very good points and that's why it really amazes me when I see that both sides feel that the other side doesn't have any logic or rationale behind their hypothesis. The funny thing is that both feel that the other side is totally ignorant and stupid.

Many theist people who know me think that I am an atheist who doesn't believe in God or doesn't follow any rituals of any organized religion. Because of this behavior, theists put me in the 'atheist' category. Also, some posts on my blog clearly show my views about organized religion and the traditional concept of God preached by many sects and groups. But at the same time many who see me and meet me at some poojas, festivals, and religious gatherings, see me singing bhajans or aartis (devotional songs), involved in so-called spiritual discussions and gatherings think that I am kind of religious guy who needs a little more push to become a full-fledged devotee. And because of the many questions that I ask they also think that I need some proper guidance and a Guru so that I can also become one of them, a devotee who accepts everything without questioning (or minimum questioning). They say that if this happens then I can enjoy all the benefits that come from being part of an organized religious group. Many of my atheist friends like my posts and views where I question some religious concepts and traditions that are still practiced, I target especially the ones that result in discrimination or suppression of a particular class of society or a particular gender.

I don't fit in any of these groups, maybe there are no proper labels for people like me. I am sure there are many like me with an all-inclusive philosophy who are fine with the concept of God or no God, any religion or no religion as long as it maintains peace, harmony, mutual respect, and dignity of all, and allows healthy discussion to improve knowledge. I also agree that my views about the current form of religion and the concept of God are closer to atheism rather than theism. The problem with the conventional definition of theist or atheist is that it puts too much emphasis on the presence of a deity. People who believe that at least one deity exists are called theists and those who don't believe in the existence of deities are called atheists. Both these groups don't meet eye to eye and try to score points against each other wherever they can. Both of them are becoming quite fanatic and extremist in their views. I don't like this constant tug of war and continuous attempts to insult or humiliate each other. I think both can learn a lot from each other and can peacefully co-exist but the current format of organized religion or many cult movements or fanatic atheism doesn't allow this. As far as I read about religion, I found that Hinduism (not in its current form but maybe in its early stages) was the only civilization that not only allowed but encouraged questioning as a way to gain and generate knowledge. Back then it also gave the option to reject all current theories and philosophies and find something new. Somehow that tolerant and secular thinking lost its ground as it evolved into an organized religion which we call Hinduism today. Many things changed and today it is not at all different from most other religions practiced around the world.

Theists and atheists can learn a lot of good things from each other. The best scenario will be where both can co-exist together and benefit from each other. Many don't need religion or God to live their life, they are strong enough to live their life without need of any such imaginary support. At the same time, many need religion and God desperately and can not imagine their life without these things. We all no matter which group you associate with need to be sensitive to the feelings of others. If people ridicule each other's beliefs all the time then how we can understand each other and share our ideas? I think even common people (who are not involved in research) need to adopt a scientific mindset and logical thinking. Scientists listen to new concepts and ideas from all fields of science and don't ridicule them just because they don't like it or think it's crazy. In science, any question or objection is not taken as an offense but as an opportunity to improve and learn more. What is wrong with having this type of mindset in real life? If everyone can think like this then slowly these labels even if they exist will stop having rigid meanings and stop dividing people based on their beliefs. In science chemists don't hate physicists or biologists just because they belong to different fields, rather they help each other and borrow ideas liberally from wherever they feel necessary. Isn't this a beautiful philosophy and way to live life? Isn't this thinking or approach helped us to solve some great mysteries or problems? This interdisciplinary approach leads us to invent great things that make our lives more comfortable and happy. I am not preaching any new philosophy here, rather I am saying we can use the same philosophy that is already in use. No matter which religion you follow or don't follow any religion, whether you consider yourself a theist or atheist, if you can think like a scientist, it can do wonders. Let's be happy and make others happy.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Balasaheb Thackeray - Ek tha Tiger

Today on 17th November 2012, Shivsena chief Balasaheb Thackeray (or Thakre) passed away in Mumbai, the capital city of Maharashtra, the city which he loved and cared for. I am sure there will be mixed reactions from various sections of society, media as well as other regions of India about this news. This news has great significance for people from Maharashtra because he was one leader from Maharashtra who focused only on Maharashtra and its people. I guess he was a unique political leader who never even traveled outside Maharashtra for any reason. Just like a tiger who never left his den. People from other states may not understand the importance of his personality because they view him from a totally different angle. One may or may not agree with his ways or policies, may hate or love him but one thing is sure one can not ignore him.

His personality and movement which he started for Marathi manoos (which brought him into the limelight), and his speeches had a great influence on the people of Maharashtra. He made his quest to fight for problems of 'Marathi manoos' and that's what made him popular among the masses. One can question his methods or even criticize him for some of his actions but he totally believed in his philosophy and was razor focused on his goal. He made his own place in state politics without any godfather. I first heard his speech when I was still a schoolboy, never related to them but understood that he was a really good orator with a very good grip on the audience. His style and way of delivering his speech were unique and people loved it. Even the media used to wait eagerly for his speech which he used to deliver at Shivsena gathering on the occasion of Vijaya Dashami every year.

Maharashtra and especially Mumbai was facing an unprecedented load of immigrants from other parts of India when Balasaheb entered politics. He started his political career with his movement against immigrants, it was about the dominance of the immigrants from other states in Mumbai over locals. National media projected him as one of the most divisive figures in regional politics. Indeed. he was, but he also raised some important issues that mattered to the locals. 

Painting him as a political person playing only divisive politics or preaching intolerance is an incomplete painting. He was much more than this. In Indian politics, every political party caters to its own vote bank and he did the same to survive in this game. He played by the same rules that other parties play. He raised some valid questions like what locals should do when immigrants reject and insult their local culture, and what to do when they don't even learn the local language but rather try to impose their own and make fun of local languages and people? I agree that it's their choice to learn or not to learn any language but to mock the local culture is not the right thing to do and that's where he came into the picture. The locals found their voice in him. 

I am not trying to justify his political career or all of his activities here but trying to explain Balasaheb from my own point of view. I disagreed with his views on some issues and supported him only on some issues. That's the way I look at every person or situation, there will be always good and bad things, I like to take all that is good for me and leave the rest. I never voted for Shivsena in any national election but I always favored their candidates in local elections as long as I was in Pune because they took an active interest in our day-to-day problems and they were one of us. One can definitely analyze and criticize his political career and show many flaws in his political philosophy but despite all these things, the truth is that he attracted a big fan following, and developed a regional party that has been controlling the Mumbai municipal corporation for the last 15 years or so. His party along with BJP was the only party that ruled a full term (5 years) in Maharashtra which is continuously ruled by INC (Indian National Congress) and these are not small achievements.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)  

Ram, a great king but a bad husband?

Recently, senior supreme court lawyer and former law minister of India Mr. Ram Jethmalani was in the news for his comment about Ram, the central character from the epic Ramayan. He called Ram a bad husband for not standing by his wife when she needed his support most after someone from his kingdom questioned her character. I am sure many political parties and religious organizations will come after him for this statement and Jethmalani will receive a lot of criticism from all quarters of society. I wrote one post related to Sita and her significance for women of today's world a few months back. I personally think that Ram failed as a husband to protect her wife on two occasions. On the first occasion, it was not entirely his fault but on the second occasion, when someone questioned her chastity, he could have protected his wife who already suffered enough trauma in captivity of Ravan and already proved her innocence (by giving agnee pariksha). But he chose to make his people happy rather than standing by his innocent wife.

This issue has been the subject of many debates and discussions for many years and many people have expressed their opinion about this issue. Some favor Ram and call him a great king who put the interest of the people of his kingdom before his personal happiness. Some criticize him for failing to protect his wife just because few males raised objections about her chastity and character. According to the epic, Sita was abducted forcibly, even though many blame her for crossing the Lakshman Rekha (line drawn by Lakshman to protect her), she crossed the Lakshman Rekha willingly but she was tricked into doing so. She stayed in the captivity of Ravan almost for a year, resisted all his advances toward her, and protected herself from him. But that was not enough to prove her innocence, just because she was a woman and people couldn't believe that a single woman could protect herself against a mighty king. They thought Ravan must have polluted her. Some people in Ayodhya (Ram's kingdom) were not convinced about her chastity. They refused to believe that she was chaste or pure anymore after staying for a year in captivity of another man away from her husband. I am pretty sure what they mean by this is that she was raped or willingly had sex with Ravan. So, it was not a question of Sita's moral character but it was a matter of her sexual behavior. Why do the people of Ayodhya were only concerned about Sita's sexual behavior, but not Ram's? Does this mean if a wife gets raped she is not pure or deserves to be a wife anymore? Having more than one wife (Ram's father Dashrath had three wives) was not considered bad in Ramayan. Men were allowed to have multiple sexual partners at the same time but women were not (even rape was considered as her fault). In this case, there was just an element of doubt, not any proof. Ram is considered a 'maryada purushottam' (a person honoring all rules). So, how did he fail to honor his duties as a husband? Why did he rescue Sita if he wanted to abandon her after coming back to Ayodhya? If he could leave the kingdom to honor a promise that his father gave to one of his three wives, then why he didn't leave the same kingdom to protect his wife and her honor?

One can ask many questions like this and debate this issue endlessly. For me, this was a clear case of using double standards for men and women. No one objected to Ram's character because he also stayed away from his wife for almost a year and was a royal guest of a few kings (like Sugreev). He must have met many beautiful women during that one year, but no one even thought about asking him any questions or asking him to prove his chastity. Why? Just because he was a man. Why ask Sita? Just because Sita was a woman. Did anyone say double standards?

I am not interested here in deciding whether Ram was a better king or a bad husband but I see one thing clearly, he failed to protect and support his wife when she needed his support most. He just abandoned her and never bothered to check what happened to her afterward. He didn't even care to check if she was alive or not, that says a lot about his attitude towards his own beloved wife and Ramayan doesn't give any proper explanations for his behavior. Ram is considered a God and is worshiped in many temples across India, which is why any comment against him or questioning any of his actions generates a lot of controversy and uproar from the conservative section of the Hindu population. I read that someone has announced a reward of five lakhs (approx. 10,000 USD) for anyone who spits on Jethmalani's face. These people do not want to debate or discuss to explain their point of view but want to punish Jethmalani for expressing his views. This is the strange but true face of organized religion where disagreement is not tolerated rather it's punished using the harshest way possible so the next person thinks twice before questioning anything. Hinduism is becoming dictatorial like other organized religions. The organized religion is damaged beyond any repair and people who follow it are not interested in repairing it. However, there is an element of hope. Questions like this, and posts like this keep the fire of disagreement burning, and one day people may realize that all humans deserve to be treated with equal respect and honor regardless of their beliefs, race, and gender. Till then keep asking questions and have patience.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

References:

1. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ram-was-a-bad-husband-says-ram-jethmalani-290412
2. http://awara32.blogspot.com/2010/09/ram-bashing-and-how-to-end-this.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

When Yash called Krishna a thief and a murderer

This is not a post about any particular subject, but about one very funny incident that happened in my home a few days back. We talk regularly with my parents and other family members in Pune via gtalk or Skype, it's always fun to talk with them and the kids enjoy very much interacting with their grandparents and cousins in Pune. These talks are mostly a weekly affair and they are entertaining for me as well as kids and tend to get quite interesting sometimes for various reasons.

A few days back Parth, a very adorable character, son of my brother recited one of my favorite bhajan (devotional song) 'Om jai jagadish hare.' He did a really good job and I was amazed that he remembered the whole song. It sounded really cute because of the way he sang it. His pronunciation was not very clear for some words so it turned out to be a very unique song that only Parth could sing. Yash joined to listen to the song and then after the song was finished I started asking Parth some questions like do you know who is Jagdish? Why do you sing bhajans? Then we also discussed why one can not sing 'Munni badnam hui'  as a bhajan instead of  'Om jai Jagdish.' We also argued for some time over why my song (Munni) could not be a bhajan but his song could be. It was fun and we both were enjoying our discussion. 

Yash was listening to all this; I asked Parth, "Do you know who is this 'Jagdish' for whom you were singing this bhajan?" 

He looked at my mom because he didn't know the answer and finally said Jagdish means Krishna

Then I said "Why you are singing bhajan for Krishna, he was not such a nice guy" 

At that point, Yash joined the conversation and then the interesting part of the conversation began,

Yash, "Parth do you know Krishna used to steal food from people's homes and he also killed his own uncle and not only that after killing his own uncle (Kansa) he also incited Arjun to kill his relatives."

I was surprised by this comment from Yash, my mom was shocked and Parth was taken aback by what Yash said, but it was interesting, I didn't say anything, I allowed him to continue with his statement as I was curious to know how he justifies his statement. 

My mom to Yash "No Yash, he was not a thief or murderer, he was God"

Yash, "Then why did he steal food from people's houses, don't we call such people a thief?"

Mom, "No, he was not a thief, he was just a little naughty boy, and those people used to have plenty of food and didn't mind Krishna taking some from their house"

Yash, "We also have plenty of sweets in our shop will it be okay if some little naughty boy comes and steals them from our shop?"

Mom, "But he never used to eat alone, he used to share with his friends."

Yash, "What if that boy also shares sweets stolen from our shop with his friends, will that be okay?"

Now my mom started losing her patience, and she used her final weapon which every religious person uses whenever they run out of options, "Krishna was God and because he was God he can do anything he wants we won't be able to understand it because we are humans"

Yash did a pretty good job in justifying his statement and because of this I was smiling during this conversation, and finally, my mom said, "Yash, you are becoming like your father, normally son picks up qualities from  his father"

Yash, "No, that's not true, Krishna didn't become like his father, even dad (me) is not like grandpa both are in different professions, so it's not necessary that every son will become like his father and I am also not like that" 

During all this discussion Parth got really confused and finally said that he would think about Krishna as some things about him sounded a little strange (stealing and killing) and then we changed the subject.

The discussion was interesting. Later I and Yash discussed why he thought like this about Krishna and how there are many other angles to his personality in Mahabharat that one should look into and learn from his character. Krishna is one of my favorite characters from Mahabharat and I am truly fascinated by his character and the role he played in that epic. I already wrote a couple of posts about him on my blog a few months back.

The discussion was not at all insulting towards Krishna or that bhajan (some people might feel that it was and I totally understand their view). It was just a different perspective, one can look at any incident from many angles and each angle can provide a unique view. Yash chose to look at Krishna's character and its actions in his own way and derived his conclusions. He had his own reasons for doing that. We all choose our own ways of looking at many situations we face in our lives and based on our approach we form our opinions and beliefs. This was a simple example of how two people can look at the same incident or person in a totally different way and both feel that they are right about their opinion. There is nothing strange about having different views about the same subject.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

References:

1. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/04/krishna-man-or-god-part-i.html

2. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/04/krishna-part-ii.html

Karva Chauth - is it only about love?

Every year 'Karva Chauth' (करवा चौथ) is celebrated, mainly in the northern parts of India. I don't know when this ritual started, but it must be very old. My guess is it must have started centuries ago when the situation in the Indian subcontinent was very unstable and there used to be frequent wars. Men used to take part in many of these wars or travels (for business) and in those days all these things involved a great amount of risk and uncertainty. So this ritual must have started to wish men good luck for their future journey and for their safety. This festival has been glamorized by many movies and TV serials. Now it has become popular in many other parts of India too. I am not against any festivals or celebrations, they are a nice and very good way to get together, relax and have fun and there is nothing wrong if people want to have fun and enjoy. But if we look carefully, it's not that simple and I am not doing this as an intellectual who is trying to bring the issue of gender equality everywhere. Many people like me are blamed or criticized for bringing up the topic of gender equality or superstition almost in every issue we face. We do this because all these issues are so interrelated. I hope this post will explain why I am discussing this particular festival as an example. A ritual that looks very harmless and simple can have a deep effect on the psychology of people.

Now let's look at this festival of Karva Chauth, where the wife fasts the whole day (in many cases without drinking even a drop of water) for the prosperity and long life of her husband. In the evening after some rituals, they get gifts of their choice from their husbands and eat only after seeing the faces of their husbands. This festival is exclusively for married women whose husband is still alive. The festival looks very benign and many people think it's full of love and devotion. So, what's wrong with fasting like this? Fasting is part of many festivals. Muslims also do it in the month of Ramadan. Actually nothing wrong with fasting. A wife definitely has the right to wish for happiness and a long life for their partner. The festival looks like a very harmless ritual, a beautiful way to express love and dedication by wives for their husbands (but notice that in the traditional format of the festival, husbands don't fast, this is a noticeable difference). Perfectly fine as long as it's voluntary, without any obligation, but does it happen like this? In most cases, the answer is 'No'. According to me fast should be performed by both because I believe respect and love in any relationship should be mutual, but this is the case. I have also seen mother-in-laws calling their daughter-in-laws day or two days before such festivals and reminding them that they should keep that fast to make sure that their son's welfare and longevity are not jeopardized. Note that there is no festival that I know where husbands fast for the well-being of their wives.  The guilt if wives don't do this is very strong. As if they missed giving a crucial dose of some life-saving medication or something to their husbands.

This post is not a criticism of the festival, traditions, or culture but it's about the mindset which gets perpetuated in the name of festivals, traditions, etc. Unmarried women and widows are not allowed to participate in such festivals. I wonder how widows in the family must be feeling about such festivals. As I mentioned this festival is supposed to be for the welfare and long life of husbands and it seems that many wives and mothers believe that it's necessary to do this fast to achieve this goal otherwise something bad might happen. Because of this fear many try to follow this ritual even during sickness, poor health, or during pregnancy even when it might affect their health. Women get praised for doing this in adverse conditions for their dedication, love, and respect towards their husbands. So the question comes to my mind, is it love and dedication or is it fear of losing that person or something bad might happen if that ritual is not followed? Love or superstition? Many women suffer physical and mental abuse, and many are abandoned by their husbands for other women or for whatever reason also observe these types of festivals for the welfare and longevity of their husbands. Does this make any sense? This reminds me of Stockholm syndrome, I am sure something like that is going on here. This festival is about total surrender but I doubt whether love is part of it.

I know that every issue has positive and negative sides. There might be many families where this festival must be fun and a nice way to get together, and they may not see anything wrong in it, even if it excludes widows. I am against any festival that forbids the participation of certain sections of society just because of their gender or marital status (widows). I believe that the concept of widows being barred from participating in many rituals or considering them as bad omen must have started from traditions and festivals like this. Imagine how they must be feeling when all these women are celebrating and they are not allowed to participate just because their husband is dead. Another ritual to remind them how unfortunate they are, it's a cruel joke on them. I am not saying that married women should not express their love or should not celebrate just because widows are around. That's not what I mean, everyone has the right to express their love and respect for their partner but why not include all women and men in these types of celebrations. If necessary change the format of the festival, and make it inclusive where all (irrespective of gender or marital status) can express love for their partner or friend, living or dead shouldn't matter. If it's about love, dedication, etc. then does it matter if that partner is alive or not, male or female?

Many people who know me also know that I am not a very big festival fan. When I participate in any family function I want to have fun. For me, the fun is when everyone can participate in it. Just for comparison when I see festivals like Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Valentine's Day, where everyone can participate there are no age limit, gender, or marital status restrictions (maybe for marketing purposes, but they are open to all), why can't we take this very good thing and include in our festivals. Anyway, we are copying many other unwanted things from the West that we don't need in India so why not take some good things also. But I know that it's not easy to change these rituals and many people may not like my comments and suggestions. They may think of this post as one more attempt to bring the issue of gender equality and criticize grand old traditions. I am fine with all this criticism but I feel to express my opinion about this even if many don't care about this issue.

 Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karva_Chauth
2. http://hinduism.about.com/od/festivalsholidays/p/karwachauth.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Pregnancy - a God's wish or just a biological phenomenon?

A few days back US Senate candidate from Indiana Richard Mourdock was in the news for his comment about abortion. Many so-called pro-life people (I don't know on what basis they call themselves pro-life) are against abortion and they debate heavily about when human life begins and how we can't reject a gift of God even if the person who is receiving it doesn't want to have that gift. It's really surprising, but even in a developed country like the USA this debate has been going on for decades and still, people don't have any consensus on this issue. 

The whole notion or hypothesis that human life is a gift from God sounds very unrealistic to me. We are also products of a biological process of reproduction like any other animal or insect on this planet. People don't call earthworm's life a gift from God. We don't call diseases like cancer, Malaria, small pox as gifts from God and try to preserve them. We rather call them deadly diseases and fight against them. Then what's so special about fertilization or conception? We interfere in many natural processes, that could be called God's will or wish like earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, and our original appearance (by doing plastic surgery, makeup, growth hormones, etc. However, no one calls these acts a sin and condemns our efforts to eradicate them. Rather the techniques or inventions that help us to fight against all these things are considered as boons for the human race and we all feel lucky to have them. If we look closely human history is full of incidents about our fight against natural calamities (call them God's wish). Many battles we already won and some of them we are still fighting.

This post is not pro or anti-abortion. I personally think abortion is and should be the choice of a woman, after all, she has to bear that child and she must have the right to decide what is good for her health and her life. When we bring the topic of God and its will into to discussion of abortion and issues related to it clearly we are going off the track and blowing this issue out of proportion. These so-called pro-life activists don't want to support a gun ban in the US even after so many incidents that prove that it's dangerous. The right to bear arms is considered a fundamental right given by the Constitution (nothing pro-life here) but when it comes to abortion they think we should not interfere in God's will. There is no question here about the fundamental privacy rights of women regarding their health and body. They don't think it's pro-life to support the fight against global warming. Many of them don't even accept that human actions contribute to global warming. They even want to get rid of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), which helps protect the environment and people but still, they call themselves 'pro-life' because they want to protect every fertilized human egg, no matter by what means it gets fertilized and whether that woman wants it or not.

The natural beginning and end of human life (or for that matter any life) are purely biological or natural phenomena. There is nothing divine here, we are a product or I must say a byproduct of some act that humans do for their pleasure (sexual intercourse). This is a simple fact about the origin of our life. For most animals, the sexual act is a mere seasonal or biological phenomenon for reproduction so that their species can survive, but not for humans. Like many other things (like eating, clothes, shelter) we have glamorized this act also. We are different from other animals in many ways because of our behavior and imagination and that includes our reproductive and sexual activity. Biologically it's the same. To fertilize an egg, a sperm has to meet with the egg and this initiates the reproductive process. There is nothing divine in it, natural reproduction won't happen unless these two things come together (whether God's will or not doesn't matter). Today, because of advanced technology same thing can be done in a test tube, and if we want we can create a new life in a lab (another proof that there is nothing divine in it because even humans can do it). At least in the case of other animals, their sexual desire and acts are controlled by the environment but we humans are immune to this, we control our sexual desires and acts. Rape, sexual abuse, extramarital affair, casual sex, or for that matter any sexual act between male and female has the potential to create a new life. It's not that only after certain rituals or social permissions (like marriage) reproduction happens. So why these people are still pretending that there is something divine in it? What's the problem in accepting that it's a mere biological phenomenon?

It's a woman who has to bear a child and face psychological and physical issues related to pregnancy and its aftermath. She should get to choose when she wants to take that responsibility that's why it's her right to have options for contraception and abortion. In many cases, mistakes happen or something goes wrong, then also it should be her decision to choose what she wants to do with her pregnancy. Teen pregnancy is a social issue and we need to educate kids about it but politicians and lawmakers should not decide whether women should bear a child or not. It's a personal choice of that woman. It's not an easy decision for a woman to take but nature has given her that right and we should not mess with that.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Reference:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/richard-mourdock-god-at-work-if-rape-causes-pregnancy/2012/10/24/dc81932f-480d-468d-bae5-5c8dea35e97c_video.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/richard-mourdock-rape-pregnancy_n_2008385.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitala
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin_%27legitimate_rape%27_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy