Can man and woman be just friends?

Recently my Facebook friend Lalit Kumar wrote a very wonderful and thought-provoking post on his blog related to this subject (http://dashamlav.com/1637). I highly recommend this post for readers who can read and understand Hindi. I found this post very interesting because I also faced this dilemma or question. This subject is not something very new but the issue discussed in the post is still very relevant and affects all of us. Many people have very strong and different opinions about this question. Many feel that there is strong physical attraction between heterosexual males and females which overpowers simple friendship that's why it's not easy for them just to be friends.  Many think that except for some very close blood relationships (like brother-sister), all other relationships between man and woman are bound to face the problem or challenge of physical attraction. Many fear that no matter what, society will always look with suspicion at any man-woman relationship outside the immediate family. Many believe that it is indeed possible to have a pure and healthy friendship but it needs a lot of understanding, maturity, and commitment from both sides.

I was born and raised in a very conservative atmosphere where friendship between boy and girl (or man and woman) was not approved by our society. By today's standards, it was a very narrow-minded and restricted environment as far as male-female relationships were concerned and this was the case till I graduated from college. I could never make any female friends because of this. The unwritten rule was "stay away from girls." I always felt it was not an appropriate thing to make female friends and people in my neighborhood would laugh at me or think that I was a person of loose character if they saw me with any girl. I think all those restrictions and taboos were because of a strong belief that male-female relationships are always physical in nature. Maybe society is scared of the physical aspect of male-female relationships because it is related to the creation of new life. That is why many times it seems that the whole burden of morality or character of society rests on male-female relationships. This belief was so strong and dominant that it took me a lot of time to shake it off and I am sure many people living in India and many other countries must have felt the same. Not only families, but society including many movies, and books, propagated this perception. There were very few and rare examples of male-female friendship around me at that time and this whole thing contributed to my perception that they can not be just friends. Either they have to be related or are lovers there can not be anything else.

But then as I grew up I started reading many books, met many new people from different cultures and backgrounds, and slowly got to know about the world beyond my family and neighborhood. I met with some very good friends who showed me the other side of life where there was a possibility that a boy and a girl could just be friends, very good friends. It took me some time to understand this beautiful fact but finally, I am very glad that I could get over my inhibitions. There are many who can not get over these inhibitions and still think that pure friendship is not possible between a male and a female. This not only creates a lot of problems for them but also creates a lot of trouble for people around them. The real problem with this mindset is not only the person who thinks like this can not form friendships with the opposite sex but he/she also looks with suspicion towards all people around him/her who have such relationships and this pollutes the environment for everybody to some extent. It's good to get rid of this inhibition to experience the beautiful world around us. Friends and friendships are very important parts of everyone's life. Friends are friends it doesn't matter what's their gender, race, caste or sexual orientation.

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

Creationism - real science or just a myth?

A few months back I attended a presentation by Michael Cremo, a renowned creationist and author of a few books on this subject like Forbidden Archeology, Hidden History of Human Race, Human Devolution, Forbidden Archeologist, etc. All these books deal with similar subjects, they claim to present a lot of scientific data in support of the theory of creationism. His presentation was interesting. He presented what he already discussed in his books, but as this was a gathering of ISKON devotees, he gave a religious touch to his presentation which is not there in all the books. People who attended loved it because it was designed to confirm their beliefs in the ideas that their society preaches. Everything was linked with ancient texts from India and there was a pathetic attempt to prove Darwin's theory wrong. There was even a sentence in his slide that called Darwin stupid. So, as I said it was very interesting, I mean it's not easy to call Darwin stupid, to do this you should be totally blinded by your faith that you can not see proofs around us that point towards the process of evolution or you should be dumb enough to reject everything which doesn't agree with your way of thinking. 

Everyone has the right to express their views and share their ideas and creationists definitely have the right to propagate their views and share them on any platform they want. I have nothing against it. At the same time, I feel that while sharing these things instead of targeting Darwin, his theory of evolution, and other scientific theories without giving any evidence they should focus their efforts on producing some reliable evidence that can support their own theory. As far as Mr. Cremo's presentation was concerned, like his books, this presentation also included many references to research papers some of which were more than a hundred years old which concluded that very advanced human civilization existed on this planet millions of years ago. This contradicts the theory of evolution but it matches perfectly with some texts like Vedas and other scriptures. These research papers are really old and the techniques used to calculate the age of some specimens were not that accurate. These types of books and such presentations also fail to mention (maybe purposely) data and conclusions from some recent publications that use more reliable and modern techniques. I think they ignore them just because they don't support their hypothesis. They cherry-pick the references that only support their own hypothesis and have the audacity to accuse other people of knowledge filtration.

These people love to accuse the entire scientific community of knowledge filtration. They accuse most modern-day scientists of not allowing these people's research to be published in reputed journals and textbooks. They also accuse them of lobbying against their research which doesn't allow them to get government funding and many other things that are aimed to sabotage their research. Publishing research in any scientific journal is done through a peer review process where experts in that particular field evaluate the research work submitted and then judge whether it is acceptable for publication in that particular journal or not. Normally to get a balanced view there are at least two referees for each article and if both give contradictory reports then it goes to a third reviewer. So, as much as possible, care is taken to get an unbiased evaluation. This process is common with most reputed national and international journals and every submitted research paper has to go through this process. Sometimes the paper gets accepted and many times it gets rejected, and referees are supposed to give a detailed explanation of why they accept or reject any article submitted to that journal. I am sure the rate of rejection is more than the rate of acceptance for most of the reputed journals in all research fields. If authors are not satisfied with the referee's reports for some reason they can appeal to the editor. Most journals have some procedure to follow and most of the time this results in fair evaluation. We all know that no system is perfect so there can be a few isolated instances where there can be some complications or issues but in general, this process works smoothly. But even after all this surprisingly only this group thinks that this system has serious flaws and only they are being targeted and victimized but they don't bother to present any evidence to support this claim.

In the field of science, the source of knowledge or information is not at all important. It doesn't matter who has proposed the theory, equation, or hypothesis, if there is not enough data or evidence to support it then that thing doesn't stand. But in religion, it's not like this. The source of knowledge is very important in religion. Rather, it is the most important thing. If the knowledge is from the book that the religion considers sacred. then no matter what, it has to be true according to all their followers. This attitude is against the basic principle of scientific thinking where everything can be questioned and discussed. 

If they have verifiable data to prove the theory of creationism they should publish it in scientific journals or anywhere on the web where people can evaluate it. Because of tremendous progress in communication technology, it's really easy to reach people all over the world and communicate with them So why don't they do it? Why except for people from their own belief system (that is people who follow that particular religion or sect) no one accepts their hypothesis? There is disagreement between various religions about the details of the theory of creationism. So the big question is which one among them is right? Why don't they first settle the differences between themselves and come up with some common theory that they can claim as a common theory of creationism and then try to prove it? Why do they insist their work should be in a textbook without going through a proper verification process? 

I asked all the questions I mentioned above to many people who believe in and support creationism but didn't get any satisfactory answers for any of them. I also didn't see any scientific data presented during Cremo's presentation, not that I expected it but then at least he shouldn't claim it as scientific research and just say it's a religious presentation. If you claim something to be scientific, then at least present it in scientific manure. Do not try to mix things at your own convenience and please don't blame the entire scientific community for your own failures and shortcomings.

I am interested in knowing more about creationism and eagerly looking forward to some evidence that supports this theory. But please don't present some quotes from some book without any verifiable data. I don't care who said it but what was said matters to me. I hope they understand this simple fact and then act accordingly. It's easy to accuse others but first get your acts together and then complain about others and if there is something worthwhile to share please share it. I think the scientific community is interested and looking forward to any data with an open mind.

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

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

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj - a self-made leader and King

Today is the birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. I am sure it will be celebrated in grand style with a lot of fanfare. There was some dispute over the date of his birth, but that's a trivial issue. I still don't understand why this issue even started a few years back, I remember reading about that in the news. I studied the life of King Shivaji and his heroics as a part of our history syllabus in 4th or 5th grade. It was not easy to remember all the dates and the exact chronology of events. We needed to memorize all these details and then write in our history exams. The exam pattern of that time tried their best to make history as boring as possible with so many dates and names (and the compulsion of remembering all of them) but still, his story and heroics thrilled me. I was impressed by the way he created his own army and from a very young age he fought against all the odds to become a king of the masses.  

There are many books, some by very eminent authors which discuss very detailed accounts of his life. There are many movies and plays especially, in Marathi based on some incidents from his life. All these are excellent resources to learn about this great personality and understand the importance of his work. There is no doubt that he is one of the most influential personalities in Indian history. He was not born into any royal family, he didn't inherit any kingdom, rather his father used to work for the Mughal emperors of that time (Adilshah). He fought with the employers of his own father to rescue the people of his region from all the troubles which they were facing because of the miserable policies of these rulers. He was not only a brave warrior but also was very good strategist and knew very well his own strengths and weaknesses. He also knew his enemy inside out. His sharp brain and very good presence of mind helped him whenever he was in trouble. He was a leader with a sharp mind, a very big and brave heart, and a great vision.

Shivaji Maharaj is sometimes described as "The great Hindu King or "The great Maratha King." These two terms exclusively refer to the religion and caste he belongs and I feel that both of these terms don't do justice to the greatness of this man. He never ruled or even envisioned his kingdom as a Hindu or Maratha kingdom. He was a very secular king. In his kingdom, people from all religions and castes felt really safe and welcomed. I did not know any instances from his life where he mistreated any person or group just because of their religion, caste, or gender that's why I feel it's totally wrong to give him labels like this. I feel this is an attempt to appropriate his character by some groups for political gains. His name and image have been used or many times misused by many political and non-political organizations for their own benefit. I am sure he would not have approved such things in his lifetime.

We have such a great example of self self-made person, who fought with all the odds all his life and almost won all the battles. Even though his enemies were much stronger than him, he never got scared or lost confidence in his own and his people's abilities. We need such heroes today who can guide the masses, but unfortunately, we lack such personalities in today's world. Today's leaders are slowly losing touch with common people and there is a huge communication gap between these leaders and the common people whom they are supposed to lead. Shivaji Maharaj was not like that, he did whatever was necessary for the people of his kingdom even if it meant risking his own life. We don't see such commitment and loyalty in today's leaders and that's why I feel in today's world it's more important to remember people like Shivaji Maharaj.

I wish that people or political parties who claim exclusive rights over Shivaji and use his image for their own benefit would also learn some important lessons from his life and try to serve people the way he did. Just publishing books on him, printing his posters, or raising his statues on every square is not going to serve any purpose. We need to remind people of why he fought, what principles he believed in, and how he treated with respect even his enemies. He never played politics of revenge, never insulted any religion. We all need to remember his great qualities which made him a great king and I feel this will be a real homage to him and this will be a real celebration of his legacy.

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji

2. http://hinduhistory.blogspot.com/2008/02/chatrapati-shivaji-maharaj.html

Afzal's hanging - How strong is the message against terrorism?

Finally, the death sentence of both Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru is executed. Both were hanged till death, and punished according to the law for crimes they had committed. Kasab's case was straightforward, he was caught red-handed while committing that heinous crime on the night of 26/11/2008. Afzal Guru's case was more complicated. He was arrested as a conspirator or mastermind behind the parliament attack which happened on 13 December 2001, killing seven people and five attackers. Right from 2005 when the Supreme Court upheld Afjal Guru's death sentence some sections in media and social circles have said that he didn't get a fair trial. The Supreme Court in its judgment also that the evidence against him was circumstantial and that there was no direct evidence against him about his involvement and maximum punishment had to be given to Afzal "to satisfy the collective conscience of the nation." Some regions of Jammu and Kashmir are tense, and there is a curfew imposed to tackle any unpleasant incidents that might happen in reaction to Afzal's hanging. On one side there are many articles in the media questioning the real purpose and timing behind Afzal's hanging, other the other side many support it, and both sides are passionate about their argument. In Afzal's case, his family was also not aware of his hanging when it happened and they didn't get a chance to perform his last rites, which I feel was a little unusual because in most cases the family is informed before executing the death sentence of any convict and they are allowed to perform last rites. 

What is this "collective conscience" that which Supreme Court has mentioned in its judgment? Do they mean feelings of revenge, blood for blood? I am not questioning the judgment here or the judiciary process. I am sure the Supreme Court must have taken all necessary steps to ensure a fair trial. This was the first time our parliament was attacked. It's one thing when common people get attacked and die but it's dam serious when the office of legislators is under attack. No doubt it was a serious security lapse. However, this was not the first terrorist attack, and this was not the first time people got killed because of an act of terrorism. Similar or sometimes even worse incidents happened in the past. Various communal riots killed many for no reason. People got killed for some mosque, temple, or some other trivial religious issues. Most of the time these riots happened for political reasons. Many people, even some very "Big" names got accused in some of these riots and had to go to court in some cases. A committee or commission was formed to inquire about these incidents. They submitted their report, and sometimes more violence happened against some things mentioned in these reports, and then nothing really happens, no one is punished, everything goes on as if nothing happened and this has become a regular pattern in most of these types of cases. Maybe because of all this, some sections of society feel victimized or targeted.  Maybe that is why some of these accused get some sympathy from some sections of society because they feel that these people fight for their rights, and try to get their voices heard. In the case of Kashmir, these things happen very often making situation more complicated day by day.

The issue of Kashmir is not that simple and it has a long history, the threat of terrorism that our country faces today is mostly because of the unsolved issue of Kashmir. I know there are no easy solutions for this problem, but at least our political leadership should work towards maintaining peace in that region and release some of the tension that has prevailed in that region for the last two decades or so. I am not here to discuss who is right or wrong as far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned, I have my own opinions about this issue but this post is not about that. 

If the government wants to take a tough stand against terrorism there is nothing wrong with it, but they should be consistent in their reactions, Muslims should not feel targeted just because they are a minority. All acts of terrorism or communal riots in India are not performed only by Islamic terrorist outfits. In India, many extreme right-wing Hindu groups also engage in these types of activities and nothing seems to be happening against them. Terrorism doesn't have any religion or face so please don't try to give it one. Let's hope that our government is really serious when they say that they are going to act tough against terrorism. I hope the execution of this hanging was not just for political gain. I hope this is not the case of selective implementation of justice, and I am eagerly waiting for their next steps in this direction. Let's wait and see, only time will give answers to these questions.

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. 2008 Mumbai attacks

2. 2001 Indian Parliament attack

3. Afzal Guru and Indian government's new, tough message-Amaresh Misra

4. A perfect day for democracy-Arundhati Roy
5. Afzal hanging: Efforts to turn traitor into a martyr-Tarun vijay

6. Omar Abdullah's reaction-TOI

7. Reactions to Afjal Guru's hanging

Mr. Nandi, now prove what you said or back off

It seems it is a season of making controversial statements and offering unsolicited advice in India (especially to females about what they should or shouldn't do). In the middle of all other events like fatwas and protests, noted author Mr. Ashis Nandi made a very strange statement at the Jaipur Literature Festival. He suggested that the ranks of the corrupt in India were made up entirely of those from the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes,  and the Schedule Tribes. As expected, this statement generated an array of reactions from different sections of society some supporting Mr. Nandy and many ridiculing his statement. All these reactions are as expected but I want to point the attention of readers to the statement which he made. I wonder what data and logic he used to come to this conclusion. It sounds very ridiculous and rather than protesting against it or trying to get him arrested, people should prove him wrong and force him to take his statement back.

There is no question that Mr. Nandy has the right to express his opinion and I am not in favor of arresting him or making his life difficult just for making this remark. Any statement like this gets condemned in India, and different sections of society register their reactions differently, but these things never get discussed properly, and freely in an open environment. I think we need to do this. Rather than threatening people, or attacking movie theaters, people should debate over these issues. If it is wrong then prove it wrong, ask for an apology, and make that person accept their mistake, not by force or threats but by logic and rational arguments.

Corruption is very rampant in all sections of public life in India. One can not generalize that people belonging to any particular caste or religion are more involved in corruption compared to others. Outlook magazine published one table (see reference 1) where they listed the caste or religion of people involved in different corruption scandals that were reported in the last decade or so. One can see that there is a lot of variety there, people from all sections of society are part of this great crime. This chart itself is enough to prove Mr. Nandy wrong and if he is a sensible guy he will accept his mistake. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes. We all do it. We all mess up some things at some stage in our lives, but after realizing the mistake, not correcting it is an even bigger mistake. I hope Mr. Nandy won't make this second mistake which will be worse than his first one.

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. Data by Outlok

How singing can be against any religion?

Recent news about the controversy related to the female Kashmiri music band 'Pragaash' caught my attention in electronic news media. This news came during the same period when there was controversy related to Kamal Hassan's latest movie "Vishwaroopam." I wrote a post related to cultural terrorism where I discussed this issue. This is another very good example of the same thing. Some person called Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmed said that singing and dancing are unIslamic, therefore, these girls should stop their band. I wonder whether he meant it's unIslamic only for females or for all Muslims because I see many Muslim artists in India, Pakistan or all over the world performing music, dance, and drama, but they didn't face anything backlash like this. I wonder where he was then and how come suddenly his religious conscious decided to speak about this girl's band? India has produced very famous Muslim artists like Mohammad Rafi, Amjad Ali Khan, Bismillah Khan, Dilip Kumar, Shahrukh, Amir, and Salman Khan. These are just a few names among many others and they all sing, dance, paint, play music, and act. I wonder what he has to say about these people? It seems these things are not unIslamic when done by men but just because that band was a girl's band, that too teenage girl, it became unIslamic and it was easy to scare them, and pressurize them that's why they targeted them.

Can someone please explain to me how singing, dancing, or performing any art can be against any religion or can be branded as an anti-religious activity? Even if any book says that it's against that religion then simply that book is wrong or it said it by mistake, no doubt about it. This doesn't make that book irrelevant and it is not in any way disrespectful to point out some mistakes from any book. Just ignore this part of that book and move on. Maybe when that book was written these things were considered a social taboo in that society and that's why was not recommended or permitted. Haven't we come far ahead of that time? We have left that era far behind, we acquired so much knowledge and our society is much more civilized now. We still continue to practice many good things that were part of our tradition but at the same time should get rid of all things that are totally outdated and not required anymore. But for some people, it's not that easy to understand this simple logic. They still want to bring back those days of gender discrimination. They still want to rule the world based on that one single book. They still dream of converting the whole world to their own religion and they are willing to go to any extent to do this.

Finally, this band was disassembled, and these girls quit under pressure. They say that they did it on their own and quit singing because of the people of Kashmir but I think everyone knows the real reason behind it. It's sad but what else they can do? Their options were very limited. I don't blame them. They chose to continue with their peaceful lives rather than risking their and their family's life just to run some music band whose future they don't know. Is this what that religion wants to teach to its disciplines? Do they have some logical reasons to explain why singing and dancing are against their religion? In our country why don't we have any proper system or mechanism which can work efficiently to protect such individuals if they decide to continue with their passion even if it's against some religion or sect if that passion or hobby is within the framework of law? Freedom of expression is a very important part of democracy. It allows it to grow and evolve. If we don't protect the freedom of expression, we are going to restrict the growth of our society and the growth of the country. Why people are so interested in pulling the country back rather than helping it to move forward?

There are many questions but very few answers. People themselves need to provide answers to this. We can not always look outside for reasons or solutions to problems. We need to understand that we all are part of the problem and have to be part of the solution also. We need to start looking for solutions ourselves. We must acknowledge first that there is a problem and it needs a solution and accept that we all are responsible for the problem and then together we can work towards the solution. Playing the blame game will not lead us anywhere. It can make matters worse but definitely won't offer any solution. I hope no other band has to close just because some people think that music and arts are against their religion. I hope some movie maker or artist doesn't have to edit the contents of his/her creation just to avoid blackmailing by some particular group. I hope these are just isolated incidents and don't become a new norm in our society. I hope.

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. After fatwa band calls is quits
2. All girls band from Kashmir quits- The Hindu
3. Singing in unislamic, says Grand Mufti
4. Girls say they quit because of people of Kashmir

Is there any relationship between terrorism and religion?

Recently, Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde claimed that the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) are promoting something called "Hindu terrorism." This is not the first time when someone tried to link some religion with terrorism. Even the above-mentioned term  (Hindu terrorism) was used in the past by some leaders, but I still wonder what is the logic behind using terms like this? I guess what he meant by this was these parties are using Hinduism to create a communal rift in society. Don't all political parties work based on the same philosophy of divide and rule? Similar to this term there are some other terms like "Islamic or Muslim terrorism." All these terms are used to describe terrorist groups or organizations that use particular religions to misguide people and spread communal tension. To associate only a particular religion with terrorism is wrong. All religions are equally good or bad in this aspect. Therefore, just to single out any religion for this is stupidity or at best one can call it a very opportunistic approach to get some political mileage.

Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. They both work on many similar principles and ideas. They both are human-made institutions. They can be compared with big corporate organizations that try to maintain their hold on their customers by aggressive advertising and brainwashing. Their main intention is to grow their customer base by using all available resources and techniques. All organized religions present today have a long history of violent conflicts with each other, with nonbelievers, or even with factions within them. Depending on their strength and attitude weaker religions have suffered at the hands of more powerful ones. There are many reported incidents in history where these conflicts become violent and many people lost their lives. The use of divide and rule strategy is also not new in politics. Most politicians are in search of something that they can use to divide people and polarize their opinions. This helps them to create their own loyal vote bank. Politicians know very well that most people don't think rationally when they become emotional and they love to exploit this weakness. Religion, caste, or race are very powerful tools to challenge people's emotions. They polarize people's opinions which creates divisions among them and this technique is used very commonly in politics all over the world. It is often used by politicians to appease their vote banks.

The dominance of religion, caste, or race in people's minds works in favor of these politicians who use these things for political advantage. People form very strong associations with things like religion, caste, race, or anything with which they like to associate their identity, and these things are exploited not only by politicians but also by various cult movements. Religious institutes or organizations (temples, Churches, Mosques, etc.), gurus, and many other entities exploit this weakness for their own selfish purposes. Many times, these emotions are also used to organize people to do something good but such events are very rare. Mostly, these emotions are used to scare people, blackmail them emotionally, financially exploit people, or for political/personal gains.

For me, the most interesting part of this equation is this dirty trick works every time. I have not seen this trick failing, this high success rate makes this tick a very attractive and potent weapon. Even after all these years of advancement in knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, people fall for these things regularly. I can understand people's dependence and their need for religion and God but I fail to understand why don't they question when these things are used to divide them. Why do they put blind faith in these books and their authors? Why do they still search for their identity in all these things? Why for many of them it's not enough just to identify themselves only as humans? Why do we allow personal things like religion and race to be used to divide us and create rift or enmity among us?

As long as people don't ask these questions and find their own logical answers these things will be used to divide them. Such people will be used as cards in the game of politics and religion where they will try to beat each other and kill each other without even realizing why and for whom they are doing all this. The ultimate winners in any card game are not cards but the players who use those cards. Cards might think that they are powerful where king beats queen, a higher number is more powerful than a lower number but they don't realize that it all depends on how the players use them. If the cards stop listening to the players then the whole game will collapse and become meaningless for players. This is what we need to do to stop the exploitation of these emotions by politicians and religious organizations.

Terrorism or violence doesn't belong to any particular religion, sect, community, or country. Every religion and country has used it as per their own requirement and desire. All are equally guilty. No one can point fingers at others as there is blood on everyone's hand. Instead of playing this pointless blame game endlessly which we all know no one is going to win why don't we stop this game and take a break. Why don't we focus our attention on more important topics like social reforms, women's empowerment, finding solutions to many problems that still trouble humanity, and tackling issues like climate change? The list is very long, why not discuss these things instead of propagating hate for the benefit of wasted interests? As long as people are going to give unnecessary importance to these things there will be people or organizations who will exploit them for their own benefit. We give them this chance so why only blame them?

Let's make one thing very clear to these people, we are not going to fall for these things anymore. Let's tell them that they can not fool us by using these emotions anymore. Terrorism or violence has no face or identity. Violence only hurts. We can not preach peace by using violence. Let's diffuse this bomb permanently which is being used to divide and ignite us so many times. 

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://www.thehindu.com/news/national/shinde-blasts-bjp-rss-for-inciting-hindu-terror/article4325767.ece
2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Shindes-statement-on-Hindu-terrorism-based-on-facts-Salman-Khurshid-says/articleshow/18132530.cms

Cultural Terrorism

Kamal Hassan's recent movie "Vishwaroopam" is in the news because of protests against it by some Muslim groups. It seems they believe that the movie shows their religion in a bad way. The Tamil Nadu government promptly banned it even though it was cleared by the censor board. This is not the first (and I am sure not the last) time some movie, book, article, or painting is facing this problem. There were similar incidents in the past, by people from all religions. Please don't get the impression that only conservative Muslim groups indulge in these types of activities. There are no exceptions to this type of behavior. All religions and their agents who claim that their religion teaches love, compassion, and tolerance behave in such intolerant and violent ways when there is a time to display some of these qualities. These groups are so sensitive that their religious feelings get hurt by any small unfavorable comment made about anything related to their religion in any context.

All these incidents raise many questions. Why do we have a censor board in place if the fate of any movie is decided by some fundamentalist organizations that can create a law and order situation? Why the government doesn't honor the decision of its own body like the censor board? Why does the government surrender to the pressure of some of these groups who openly blackmail them? Why courts don't want to give clear verdicts about such issues? If the court is not willing to get involved in these types of matters or is not the place to settle such sensitive/controversial issues then why do they accept such petitions in the first place? Finally, Is India really a secular republic? 

These issues tend to become so sensitive and complicated that even courts, government bodies, or even governments (state or national) are not willing to deal with them directly. The common policy is to delay the decision indefinitely and allow the problem to die its own death. It happened with M F Hussain when people objected to some of his paintings. So many cases were filed against him in so many different courts all over India, and finally, he had to leave the country and take shelter in some other country. Now even Kamal Hassan is thinking of leaving his home state (Tamil Nadu) and is looking for another secular state, and if he can't find any state in India he is thinking of leaving India and settling somewhere where he won't face such a problem. One can feel the agony and frustration of these artists or citizens who are feeling betrayed by the system which is supposed to protect their fundamental rights and make sure that vandalism or this type of cultural terrorism doesn't dictate what people should write, wear, think, or what type of films they should make.

Most feature films are made exclusively for entertainment and business purposes. They don't intend or claim to change society. At most, they reflect some current sentiments of society or culture. This medium has its own strengths and limitations. Any artist or writer tries to express through his/her creation. They have the fundamental right of freedom of expression given to them by the constitution of India. There are various bodies and legal departments to keep a watch on these things, but these issues arise even after having so many checkpoints and they get heavily politicized. The ultimate sufferer is not that religion that is claiming being targeted or people who are protesting against these movies or books but these artists and our social values suffer from these actions. When a society that claims to be liberal, secular, patient, and peace-loving reacts in this way it contradicts its own image and values. After all, no film, book, painting, or article has the power to destroy any religion or country that survived for so many centuries. For every book or film which says something bad about any person or religion there are so many other films or books which say something good. So, what's the problem?

Followers of all these religions, sects, or people forget that directly or indirectly the freedom of expression was responsible for the origin of all these things. It helped various religions and cults in their survival and propagation. These philosophies or people who proposed new ideas contradicted views and clashed with current belief systems when they were introduced. All these sects and religions cherish their own struggle and feel proud about their own fight with the establishment but are not willing to allow contradictory thoughts to be expressed when they are in control. Then, what is the difference between them and people who tried to suppress their messengers or Gods when they were delivering different messages that contradicted the current belief systems of that time? These people are so blinded by their faith and power that they don't even realize this contradiction in their own history.

I hope these people who are threatening to take a violent path understand the meaning of tolerance and peaceful coexistence, the values that everybody claims that their religion teaches. They show some respect towards the law of the land and try to reform their own religion or culture rather than worrying about some movie or book damaging them. The question is not only about this one movie or one artist, the question is about allowing this form of cultural terrorism to take control of our society and dictate the terms. This is not acceptable at any cost and we should oppose it wherever we see such incidents happening.

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. The Hindu- About ban on Vishwaroopam
2. Kamal Hassan- Tamil Nadu wants me out
3. Salman Rushdie-Jaipur literary festival
4. M F Husain and controversy related with his paintings
5. The Politics of Deepa Mehta's 'Water'