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

Stop bullying - it's a social evil

Recently, Amanda Todd, a Canadian girl committed suicide after relentless bullying on the internet and in her schools. A life lost for no reason. She was just 16 years old and this is not the first death, that resulted because of bullying. How serious is this issue of bullying? How to deal with it? As parents, what role we can play in helping our kids deal with bullying? There are many questions like this and this recent tragedy has brought the issue of bullying in the limelight and there is a lot of discussion going on about this topic in the media and online forums. Because of the widespread use of the internet, there is this big issue of cyberbullying. Physical as well as mental bullying (especially via the internet) both are very dangerous and affect many kids (or even adults), shattering their confidence, making them feel unwanted, and in extreme cases life is lost. 

The first thing we can do is wherever we see bullying we should speak up and try our best to stop it. Often people try to ignore it because they feel it's not their business to interfere in others' personal matters. But bullying is not a personal matter. It's a crime and we should not hesitate to tackle it wherever we come across it. It's a social evil and just because most kids are involved in this it should not be taken lightly. Many think that it's part of student life and to some extent it's true but the question is if students don't realize when they cross the limit and something like suicide results because of this then there is some big problem for sure. This problem has been there for years and keeps on coming up for debates and discussions whenever some tragedy like this happens but it never really got seriously addressed. In some form or other, it always persisted. People can get bullied for so many reasons, their looks, the way they dress, religion, race, color, sexual orientation, etc. Some people make some mistakes in their lives and bullies try to take advantage of those mistakes to bully them (blackmailing is also a type of bullying).

We need to educate kids on how to handle any form of bullying, they need to be emotionally strong and confident to confront bullies. We need to discuss these issues regularly with them and provide all emotional support. People make mistakes in their life, some time mess up big time but everyone needs a second chance. There are rules and laws to punish criminals but no one has the right to trouble or torture anyone for some of their mistakes or just because they are different than the majority, that's wrong. Both kids who bully others and get bullied need training and counseling. We should make them understand that people have different tastes and choices and we need to respect each other and give space. We need to be more tolerant towards each other. These are simple and very basic things that we can teach our kids to make them better citizens of this world. We try to teach them many things to make them devoted Christians or Muslims or Hindus but don't make much effort to make them better and responsible citizens of this world, we need to start doing this. Parents and teachers need to play a key role to solve this type of problem, it's our collective responsibility. We all need to spread the message of love, which is the greatest quality of human beings. Hate and violence only spread negative energy and emotions. I hope people try to understand each other before judging and feel love and kindness towards each other rather than hate. We need to realize that we all are different but still can live together and this is the fun part of being human, this understanding will alone help us to fight this monster of hate and violence.

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

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

Further reading:

1. Mom and Dad -- Do You Have Five Minutes?

Lal Bahadur Shastri - a forgotten hero

2nd October was also the birth anniversary of another great Indian politician and freedom fighter Lal Bahadur Shastri. He was the second prime minister of India. Unfortunately, he was on that post only for a little more than a year because of his untimely death, but even that time was also enough for him to leave his permanent mark on Indian history. Coincidentally, his and Mahatma Gandhi's birth anniversaries are on the same day. One can easily notice the huge popularity of Gandhi and other politicians (like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bose, Ambedkar, etc.) but compared to most of them Shastri seems to have a limited following. It's not because of a lack of achievements or character, actually, he is one of the best ministers and politicians India ever had. He was a very honest person (a very rare quality in today's politicians), Gandhian by heart, he followed Gadhi's principles of nonviolence and literally lived a very simple life (another rare quality). He came from a very modest background and never forgot his roots and his people. For Shastri politics was not a profession, not a way to earn his livelihood and make arrangements for his future generations, to him politics was a way to serve people and his country and he did this with total conviction and honesty till his last breath.

Today we see many big political leaders in India, entering Indian politics, and surviving in that mess is not easy. Becoming a minister in the state cabinet is a very big deal, and if one can become a central govt minister, then nothing like that. People try whatever means they can to get these things. All these big leaders and ministers have very loyal fan followers, and they also have big muscle and money power that help them win elections and manage their political parties. They make special efforts to create this facade. In today's political world 'honesty' is not the quality that people associate with any political leader or party. It is assumed that all of them are engaged in some sort of corruption and only to what extent is the matter of question. These leaders also try to make sure that their children or relatives continue their so-called legacy in politics and do everything to make sure that they also get elected so that they can also have some power in their hands. If one takes a look at the life of Shastri then one can see a sharp contrast between his political and personal life and the life of today's politicians. I think maybe this is the reason why he is not that popular today. No one can understand him or relate to him, his values and lifestyle look so alien to most of us. Most of us believe that it's impossible to live like him and survive in today's world. When was the last time we heard that minister resigned immediately after something wrong happened within his ministry. On September 1956, he offered his resignation after a railway accident at Mahbubnagar but prime minister Nehru did not accept his resignation. Three months later, he resigned accepting moral and constitutional responsibility for a railway accident at Ariyalur that resulted in 144 deaths. In Parliament while speaking on the incident, Nehru stated that he was accepting the resignation because it would set an example in constitutional propriety and not because Shastri was in any way responsible for the accident.

Gandhi was a charismatic leader and considered as a huge brand even today. This is the situation with most of leaders and iconic figures which we see current politicians and political parties use for their benefit.  That's is why even though there are not many people and politicians who believe in their ideas and principles but still they keep that brand alive as they can exploit it for their own benefit. But even for them Shastri don't have any brand value. This is why history has forgotten this giant, it's really sad and unfortunate but that's what it is.

For me Lal Bahadur Shastri is symbol of person who served selflessly to his country and his people without expecting anything in return. He is an ideal example how a politicians should conduct themselves. He was a politician who never played dirty politics just to survive in political world. We need many more people like him in public life. To me he is a hero, source of inspiration and a giant personality, I salute him.

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

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

Oh My God - A courageous attempt in mainstream Hindi cinema

I love to watch movies and listen to music, especially Hindi, Marathi, Bhojpuri, and sometimes English songs. I normally don't discuss movies on my blog. My movie-watching habit sometimes landed me in trouble during my childhood days, but that's not the point of discussion here. Many movies have left a deep impact on my mind and it will be really interesting to discuss them sometime. I discussed about Marathi movie "Deool' a few months ago. Recently I saw Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar starer movie 'Oh my God' (OMG). I really loved the movie and I think it's a unique movie in many ways. I know that it won't be a blockbuster at the box office, and may not create controversy which movies like Fire or Water or the recent video clip 'Innocence of Muslims' created. The production values of the movie are also not that great. There are regular masala elements in this movie (like item song), so technically it's not a classic or critic's choice or anything but still it's a different and brave attempt and needs applause for a few very good reasons.

The storyline is very simple. It's a story about an atheist who sues God because his property gets destroyed by a natural disaster and the insurance company refuses to honor his claim. This is the first time I saw in a Hindi movie where an atheist was not forced to beg God or finally land in a temple accepting his mistake (of being an atheist, remember that famous scene in Deewar where Amitabh's character visits the temple to beg for his mother's life). It is true that at the end of the movie Paresh Raval's character accepts the existence of God but he never enters the temple (because he believes that that's not the place where one can find God), and this was a bold enough leap by a Hindi movie. The main protagonist of the movie Kanjibhai (Paresh Rawal) never compromises on his beliefs, and some of his comments about the current state of religion in India are very interesting. The movie showed the paradox of society which I often talk about, a society where people fear God, but claim that they love God. They care about god and its places of worship but fail to protect their fellow citizens in the event of crises.  In today's world, all religious institutions and cult movements are like big business houses and they all are very rich and never face any recession. Religion is used freely in politics, society, and families for so many purposes and this movie comments on almost every aspect of it.

Mostly the reference is to the Hindu religion and its Gods because the movie is mainly targeted toward the Indian audience but it also makes passing remarks about Islam and Christianity. The movie also makes very harsh remarks against cult movements where people start worshiping some person thinking him/her an incarnation or messenger of God. It also questions whether we really need to waste so much money to construct so many temples, mosques, or churches in India where so many people don't even get enough food to survive. It also makes fun of any type of mechanical worship (including idol worship), no movie ever dared to do this in mainstream Hindi cinema. The movie is not all about criticism or sarcasm directed toward religious beliefs, it also takes care that it doesn't hurt conventional religious beliefs and sentiments. It delivers punches at the right places and maintains a sarcastic tone but it doesn't try to preach an atheist philosophy or make fun of people's belief in God. It tries to show the difference between faith and blind faith, love for God, and fear for God. It also shows how religion has become a big business now and how these so-called churches, temples, and mosques use people's emotions or fear to milk money from them in the name of God. It also shows how these people behave as if they are authorized agents of God. I can go on like this but I think it's better to watch the movie and decide for yourself.

For me, it was a good movie to watch, very good experience. I enjoyed it and I recommend it to everyone young and old, theists and atheists, watch it and I am sure you all will enjoy it. I know that a movie like this can not change the mentality of people. This mentality and blind faith are a result of the conditioning of the human mind for centuries, a planned and conscious effort of many organized religions and faiths. It will take many more movies like this, and many more blog posts to change anything related to religion and faith. This movie won't bring that change but I hope that it might initiate some discussion and that's what I am looking for. It tries to show us the mirror and let's see if people have the courage to look into that mirror.

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

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

Why corruption is not such a big issue in India?

India Against Corruption has been in the news recently. Arvind Kejriwal is trying to make corruption a big issue for the next general election. Every day new scams are discovered at the state and national level, and still same governments with tainted ministers are running, Jailed ministers are getting released and also receiving grand receptions from their party and supporters. One can ask, why Indian bureaucracy is so corrupt? Why do most people visiting any government office need to pay bribes to get any small work done? Why even common people are not scared of breaking traffic laws? Why do people think or believe that nothing is going to happen to the rich or politicians even if they break the law? There are many questions like this and most people will point their fingers towards the corrupt political, legal, and bureaucratic system as the root cause for all this. We common people are a very important part of this system because this system runs because of us and for us. We are the reason why this system exists. We help the system to run and we have the power to change it in any direction we want. So, the question is how come the system became so corrupt in the first place, and why no one is doing anything to correct it? One of my friends forwarded me a very interesting email that dealt with a similar subject (Why India is so corrupt?). Though I don't agree with the subject of this email that India is totally corrupt because according to me it's not right to label the whole country as corrupt because of its corrupt political system and bureaucracy. There are many honest bureaucrats and politicians in India, but they are exceptions and not the rule. That email mentioned some very interesting points that I want to share with my blog readers along with some of my own points.

The author of the email thought that corruption in India is a cultural aspect and Indians don't mind corruption as it's everywhere (including their culture). We have a tendency to tolerate corrupt people rather than correct them. The author blames our culture and traditions for this attitude. The author goes on to say that religion is transactional in India. Many Indians give God cash, gold, or whatever they can offer and anticipate an out-of-turn reward and he is absolutely right about this. This type of action acknowledges that favors are needed to get things done. In the world outside the temple, such a transaction is called a “bribe.” Many wealthy Indians give many gifts in various forms to temples and other religious organizations, the main intention of these gifts is not to help the poor and needy but this is their payoff to God. They think that such a donation to a temple or God can bring more wealth or good luck and it will be wasted if it goes directly to a needy person. One very recent example of this is when Karnataka minister G. Janardhan Reddy (famous Reddy brothers) gifted a crown of gold and diamonds worth approximately Rs 45 crore (~ 10 million USD) to Tirupati. It is also true that many temples in India collect so much that they don't know what to do with it.

Now the reason why this donation to God (or bribe to God) is related to our tolerance towards corruption is that Indians believe that if God can accept money for his favors, then nothing is wrong in doing the same thing in their real life. This is why many Indians are so easily corruptible because they don't see anything wrong with it. It seems that Indian culture accommodates such transactions morally. There is no real stigma, guilt, or fear associated with it. One can accept bribes or donations and then go to the temple donate part of that to that temple, feel happy about it, and get rid of any guilt or fear, it's that easy. That is why many corrupt politicians with very serious charges of corruption against them can make a comeback in Indian politics and serve as elected members repeatedly. This may not be possible in many other countries. This is the amazing paradox of Indian society for me, on one side we project ourselves self so religious and pious people that nowadays people even buy their homes or apartments after consultation with so-called 'Vastu experts', take pooja (worships) and fasts so seriously and on the other hand in our daily lives we pay bribes, take bribes, don't even care whom we vote. People claim to be God-loving but in reality, they are God-fearing people. 

This whole mindset which is the result of our social and cultural conditioning leads us to think that there is a way out for every crime and mistake. Even many rituals, fasts, poojas, etc. are recommended to correct dosh (defects or faults) or to get rid of bad omens or sins. No matter what you do there is a way to correct it or erase it by pleading, begging for forgiveness, or even bribing God. The moral obligation to follow the right path is very weak or almost nonexistent. Some people believe that no matter what you do in your life if you take God's name while dying, then your all sins and mistakes are forgiven and you go straight to heaven. I am sure they must be joking, but many people believe in all this nonsense and the result is a morally corrupt society.

We need to get rid of all these outdated ideas, the current state of society is clear proof that all these ethical or moral ideas are not working in the way they were supposed to work. All these moral and ethical concepts are relative and everyone derives their own meaning from them. We need to have something more robust and responsible system that can put a check on corruption and this has to start with common people. People like you and me. We need to make ourselves corruption-free then only we can expect our politicians and bureaucrats to be the same. So, it's in our hands to prove this theory wrong that in India corruption is accepted as a part of life and culture.

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

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

Do we need to do Ganesh visarjan?

Recently the world-famous Ganesh festival or Ganeshotsav was concluded in India. It's a 10-day long festival where Ganesh (or Ganapati) idols are installed in many colorfully decorated homes and specially erected temporary structures in every locality (called mandals in Maharashtra). The festival is a pretty big deal in some cities in India, like Pune and Mumbai. At the end of festival time (which varies for homes, but for mandals it's normally 10 days) thousands of Ganesh idols get immersed in rivers, lakes, or wells (a process called Ganesh visarjan). They immerse all sizes of idols, big ones, and small ones, already water in rivers is very polluted around most of the cities and this immersion process makes it more dirty and contaminated. I am putting here a few pictures of some of the rivers and lakes which show a few scenes of the day after immersion day.

The pictures are self-explanatory, this process of Ganesh idol immersion (or Durga during Navaratri) takes a lot of toll on the environment. Actually, the public Ganesh festival (which mandals celebrate and the main culprit in this process) was revived by the very famous Indian freedom fighter and social reformer Lokamanya Tilak. He made this festival into well organized annual public event, his intention was to bridge the gap between different sections of society and cultivate the feeling of togetherness in people so that they unite and participate in the freedom struggle. It was a good idea and it served its purpose, it worked really well at that time. The festival still continues from those days but in a very different form now. People celebrate in their homes as well as many public mandals but one can easily notice the changed format. I'm not at all against public celebrations of these types of festivals, they are an integral part of our social and cultural life but all festivals and their way of celebration should also change with time. We change our diet, clothing style as well as rules and customs with time so these festivals also need to change. This Ganesh visarjan process causes a lot of environmental damage. Every year few people get drowned, lot of chemicals (colors used to paint these idols), and waste (plaster of paris, plastic, and other garbage) get dumped in rivers and lakes. Already these rivers and lakes are polluted because lot of waste from city sewage and companies and these types of festivals put additional strain on them. 

People care for these idols during the festival days, and there is a lot of concern to protect them from any intentional damage, there might be a law and order situation (if someone intentionally damages the idol). However, after the visarjan people just don't care what happens to these idols, whether they get deformed or mixed with sewage and junk, they just don't care. Sounds very strange to me, it's the same God whom people worship for 10 days and then just dump it in dirty water and forget about it. I also don't understand the purpose behind having such big idols that ultimately get immersed in water after 10 days. It's a waste of resources and money in a country like India. Big Ganesh idol doesn't mean that you are a BIG Ganesh devotee. Why can't they have Ganesh pictures or small idols with natural colors or recycle the same idols every year? I know some mandals do this but still, their number is not enough to prevent environmental damage. Why can't we get rid of this visarjan process altogether or make it just a symbolic one? I know that many people (especially Ganesh devotees) won't like this proposal and will question why I am only objecting to Ganeshotsav and not other festivals. This is about all festivals that impact our environment adversely and Ganeshotsav is just one example of it, I am taking it just as an example not the only reason for festive pollution.

I think we have to look at the ways we celebrate almost all of our festivals and see how we can minimize their impact on the environment. Already we are putting enough stress on our planet and its natural resources. With time everything changes and adapts to changing environments, that is what we call evolution. Festivals should also evolve to reduce their impact on nature not to increase the burden and it is our responsibility.

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

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

 

 

Mahatma Gandhi - from my eyes

I wrote a similar post on my Facebook page a couple of years ago and I thought it was worth sharing on my blog on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti (2nd October). Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most popular at the same time one of the most widely criticized personalities in India. Some parties and people use his name and image for their political gain and at the same time, some criticize him for similar purposes. If one searches on the internet then one can find many articles, blogs, social media posts, groups, and many other things about Gandhi. People question his principles, question their relevance in today's world, various forums discuss how India benefited from his ideologies or how he ruined India's prospectus of becoming super power by introducing this 'nonviolence' thing (Ahinsa, अहिंसा). There is an ample amount of food for thought related to his personality and ideologies. Both pro and anti-Gandhi groups are very good in their arguments and try their best to prove their points by citing many examples from history to show how he failed or excelled in certain situations. To my surprise, some of his critics go to the extent of justifying his assassination by Nathuram Godse and even claim that India benefited from this cowardly act of Nathuram.

No doubt that Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most influential and powerful personalities of the 20th century. He had a profound influence on the Indian independence movement. He believed in a certain ideology and he practiced that till the end of his life. His ideology for him was above everything, including his own life. I am really impressed by his solidarity toward his convictions and beliefs.

Gandhi is criticized for many things. His detractors often criticize him for his pro-Muslim stand, blame him for not trying enough to stop Bhagat Singh’s execution, blame him for the partition of India, and also think he was responsible for destroying the armed struggle movement for independence. I really feel surprised how one can blame a single person without any position of power for so many things. If one looks at Gandhi’s lifestyle he was a staunch follower of Hinduism (with all his prayers and vegetarian diet etc.) but he is considered as pro-Muslim? I just don’t understand this accusation against him, maybe this is related to his stance to give Pakistan 55 crores which India promised. 

I can’t understand how people even think that he could have managed to stop the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru. He was not part of the British judiciary system; he never practiced law once he returned to India from South Africa, then how?? By going on a hunger strike? By begging to British government for their pardon? What about many others who faced a similar fate, was Gandhi responsible for their deaths also? Both of them (Gandhi and Bhagat Singh) believed in certain ideologies and they followed them till the end of their life. I don’t think they needed or even expected each other's support because their paths were totally different. I don’t remember any of the armed struggle revolutionaries ever supporting Gandhi’s ideas and his views but they don’t get accused for not supporting Gandhi but Gandhi gets accused all the time for not doing anything for them. I don't know why? I don’t think people like Bhagat Singh even needed Gandhi’s support for their mission. All of them were great in their own manure and did great work and sacrifices for our nation, so what’s the point of dragging Gandhi into everything. It's very simple to understand that Gandhi never believed in their line of thinking and they didn’t believe in Gandhi’s, their ways were separate from the beginning, so one should not expect them to support or endorse each other even though their ultimate target was the same.

People often forget one very important thing, Gandhiji was a also politician and member of a political party (Indian National Congress, INC). His biggest contribution to the freedom struggle was that he took the freedom movement to the masses. He went where no political leader of the freedom movement had gone before. He went to rural India, stayed with common people, understood their problems, and solved them by getting those people involved. He showed them that they have power and can fight any injustice, that’s why he was so popular and his movement could attract people from all classes. The appeal of leaders like Lokamanya Tilak, Gokhale, Savarkar, Bose, Ambedkar, Nehru, Patel, and Maulana Azad was limited to a particular class of society like intellectuals and the educated young generation. I think this is one of the reasons none of them could control INC like Gandhi did even though they were active members of that party before him and spent their entire life in India (Gandhi arrived on the Indian political scene only in the 1920s, when he was already above 40).

Gandhi believed in non-violence totally. He made it his mission and preached it. Apart from non-violence, he believed in many other things like celibacy, self-reliance, etc. It is also true that many times he was very adamant and forceful about his views. There are some examples where he advised newly married couples to follow celibacy in their married life (JP Narayan is an example of this). After all, he was human like all of us, full of many good and some not-so-good qualities, and people often forget this fact when they praise him or criticize him. There are many instances like this about his private and political life but we look at them from by considering him as human not 'Mahatma' we can understand them in a much better way. 

He tried his best to avoid India’s partition but failed and along with him all other political leaders and parties also failed to avoid it so all of them are guilty of that unfortunate incident. It's unfair to blame only him for this incident. He was against violence, so whether it was Hindus killing Muslims or the other way he was against it. It's wrong to blame him for the killings of Hindus during the partition. Rather he was the only person who tried his best to convince them to stop that madness. He lived his life based on his principles and died for them. Nathuram Godse killed Gandhiji because of ideological differences and I fail to understand how can people support this act in their wildest of dreams. I wonder how can one justify killing somebody just because they don’t agree with his/her ideology? Can any ideological differences be the reason for killing a person? Is violence the way to settle these types of issues? Godse took the easiest path available to him because he could not fight Gandhi ideologically. If Godse believed he was right then he should have convinced people of his ideas. People of India who supported Gandhi were not fools. If Godse was right they definitely would have listened to him as they did to Gandhi. So why did he murder Gandhi? Is this what we want our youths to follow? if you can't defeat somebody ideologically then murder them?

It's very easy to blame Gandhi but it takes some time and patience to understand him. People who blame him never give him any credit that he deserves. As a politician some of his actions were definitely questionable but that’s true with all politicians be it Nehru, Patel, Bose, Indira, or anyone else, that's a part and parcel of a politician's life. He made certain mistakes in his life like all of us do but unlike most of us, he showed courage to accept many of them. He totally believed in non-violence and practiced it himself and at that time many people in India agreed with his philosophy and followed him, we can not blame him for that. Just try to lead a peaceful protest of a few people and see how difficult it is to control the crowd and then imagine how easy it was for this man to guide the entire nation towards a non-violent freedom struggle.

Gandhi was a great leader but that doesn’t take away any credit from other freedom fighters. They all did their part and were also responsible for achieving India's freedom. I am not pro or anti-Gandhi, I don't understand why always we have to take sides. Can’t we take all the good qualities of all great people and try to make this planet a better place? These people fought with the British for our independence, instead of working towards building a strong nation do we want to keep on fighting among ourselves for them? Think about it.

Thanks for reading and your comments are always welcome. 

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

Power of non-violence

2nd October is Gandhi Jayanti (birth date of Mahatma Gandhi), on that day many people all over the world pay tribute to this great leader from India who played a key role in India's Independence struggle. The unique feature of his movement was the role that non-violence (अहिंसा) played in it and he is remembered as the ultimate icon who demonstrated the power of non-violence to fight against injustice or violence. Violence or armed struggle played a major role in most of the freedom struggles or revolutions all over the world, till now we fought two world wars where millions of people died which is why Gandhiji's movement is considered unique and its success is still a point of discussion and debate. Many people around the world were inspired by the success of his movement and implemented it in their own movements some of the more recent examples are Dr. Nelson Mandela from South Africa and Suu Kyi from Myanmar.

This does not mean that non-violence is a very popular method for protest or fight against injustice violence is very much there but I think more people are using this method over violent options. Unfortunately, it's not happening on the scale on which it should happen. I hope it happens in the near future but it doesn't look like it will, still, there is a huge majority in the world that believes a violent path is the only way to achieve their targets, it's unfortunate and sad but it's true. Gandhi's name is somehow associated with non-violence and anyone advocating non-violence philosophy is branded as a believer in Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi had many beliefs one of them was the power of non-violence as an effective tool to fight against injustice. His book 'My Experiments With Truth' gives a general idea about the principles he believed in and one can realize that non-violence was just one of them for which he became world famous. I am quite impressed by his personality, I love his conviction and beliefs in his own ideas and principles but I am not his blind follower. I know that Gandhi was a politician and a lawyer also and above all he was also a human like us, full of great qualities and some not so great. He played a major role in achieving India's freedom from the British by using non-violent protest as an effective tool. He was instrumental in motivating masses of India who were not part of the freedom struggle before he entered Indian politics. One has to give him credit for taking this freedom struggle movement to the masses and making them believe that they could also fight with the powerful British empire.

Non-violence doesn't mean total surrender and it's definitely not a sign of weakness. A person who tolerates violence in any form because he/she can not fight or is scared to fight is definitely not following non-violence. Such a person is forced to follow it because of a lack of options or courage, but when a person chooses a non-violent path over other options available then only it can be said that he/she is following it truly. Non-violence works only when it is followed by choice, not because of lack of options. Many people make fun of non-violence philosophy and say it won't work everywhere, they cite many examples to prove their point. Indeed, it may not work everywhere but there is nothing that is guaranteed to work everywhere. Everyone is aware of the power of violence, no one can deny it but the problem is that it also doesn't work everywhere and I think there are ample examples around us to demonstrate this fact. The problem with violence is, once it starts it becomes uncontrollable, and even if it works it leaves a lot of negative emotions and damage behind. It leaves a permanent scar on the minds of the people involved. There are no winners or losers in violence but that's the not case with non-violence, it may not work always but it won't lead to mass destruction or riots.

It's not that we need to wait for Gandhi Jayanti every year to pay tribute to Gandhiji and remember the power of non-violence. I think people should make this philosophy an integral part of their lives, let's try to choose non-violence over violence wherever it is possible. I am not talking only about physical violence here but violence in any form, for example, even thinking bad about someone or verbal abuse, racial or gender discrimination, are some sort of acts of violence. I know it's not that easy for many of us. We are one of the animal species on this planet and will always have that animal instinct in us. So, I know that it will be difficult to totally irradiate violence from our lives. But as humans, we know that we are very different than other animals of this universe, we have created such a beautiful world around us and only our violent acts can destroy it from our side, so let's try to control it as much as possible. Remember, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

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

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