RELIGION (1999)

RELIGION

It would probably seem awkward to hear someone counter the very concept of religion. Nevertheless, I do it considering the way it is prevalent in today’s societies. So I write not against any particular religion but against the very concept of it. I also bow in reverence to god whenever I pass by a temple, church, masjid, gurudwara etc. Tonight though, I am attempting as neutral a viewpoint as I can.

Religion has been a source of strength and inspiration to the followers, a healing balm in times of pain and agony. So often, it has brought people together. And, it continues to do so. Now if we delve into a bit of history not many would disagree that every time religion binds somewhere it divides somewhere else. The reason I believe so is that every particular religion creates duality in life. I guess most people are so deeply taken in by ‘Their Own Religion’ that they would not think of speaking against religion as a whole though they may to whatever extent disagree with all religions other than their own.

Two aspects should define a religion. Firstly, it is a system of faith and worship and secondly from it arise certain norms that form basic guidelines that people accept in their lifestyles. Lets attempt a comparative understanding of the whole issue starting with the start point in any religion. There is something common about all religions in that they all speak of a supernatural being (GOD) and propagate their own theories of the evolution of the universe. THE WORLD IS ONE. As if the separate religions weren’t sufficient to create a difference of opinion thereby dividing people in thought at least, some so called great men (priests), from time to time have emerged to make Protestants and Catholics for the Christians, Shias and Sunnis for the Muslims and for the Hindus the list seems endless. Every man with a small bell in hand (and incomplete knowledge) feels that he has the right to decide what blasphemy is. To that extent, the lesser said the better. The argument in favour remains that the Hindus are more religious which sounds absurd to analysis. Just take the example of Jainism. It is probably a difficult- to-understand coincidence that there hasn’t been a Hindu priest speaking vehemently against the Digambara lifestyle. However, the day may not be very far when such a lifestyle attracts the outrage of the RSS or the MNS chief or even maybe a Buddhist monk unable to concentrate on his meditation at the sight of a ‘Digambara Menaka’. I guess it was for this reason that Jiddu refused to accept disciples.

Anyway, often there is the talk of basic similarity in all religions the world over. Are all religions the same? They all believe in God and also that God is one. Many say that the different religions are the different ways of worshipping God, by different names. If so, then how is it that the same god preaches one thing to one person and another thing to another? If God is one then all the holy books should say the same thing. The argument that different times require different preaching may be acceptable to justify the differences but not fully. It is interesting to note that in all cases it is God’s message that has been conveyed through the holy books. Whether or not these are the words of God is debatable. In any case, the Hindu religion would say that God the Supreme Being is formless. So in effect, it is the messengers of God conveying to us through the scriptures/holy books. All these messengers of god, it is interesting to note have believed that they could decide the rights and the wrongs and in most cases punish the offenders (Christianity comes across as an exception). Muslims talk of Jihad. Now firstly the true meaning of this may also be considered debatable but it surely is being grossly misunderstood if we are to see anti- humanitarian acts being done by a few Muslims in many parts of the world. I am not saying that the messenger of God as per the Muslims would have said something wrong. I only want someone to take the responsibility for the way people are being misled into such heinous crimes in the name of religion. Did Prophet Muhammed want to make Islam the only religion? I cannot believe that. I guess we are missing something here. The Hindus find killing animals a sin whereas, this is acceptable to Christians and Muslims. But wait! Even the Hindus find killing acceptable if it is done as a sacrifice. Now whether or not such rituals were the original preaching (what is original and what duplicate anyway) is also not certain. One thing is certain though. To kill any form of life is incorrect least of all for some sacrifice aimed at providing personal gains. We find all religions differing in their own way and creating a divide in their own way. The Prophets may say that all these can coexist. If so who should be entrusted the responsibility of maintaining it that way? Who would take responsibility for any breaches in the peaceful coexistence of all religions side by side? Moreover, such a thought sounds too idealistic for the practical man to accept. Forget all talk of people trying to control their inner selves into not letting any negativity arise, the fact remains that we relate more closely to those that have something in common with us be it caste, creed, colour, sect…..anything. This human tendency has always caused religious disharmony. So, how does one prevent religious disharmony? Either fight the natural human tendency or eliminate the causes for the difference of opinion and disharmony. In today’s world, neither seems possible.

Whenever any one person tries to propagate his views the peaceful preaching has limited life. More often than not, his followers form a kind of group. At some point of time or the other, these views meet with conflicting ones of some other person and then the inevitable happens. So, whereas the bishops may continue to say that the aim of all religions is the same, I can’t help but oppose mass propagation of any one of them. All religions in due course of time lead to a kind of groupism. Each has its own set boundaries of dos and donts that cannot be compromised with. Muslims find polygamy acceptable, the Hindus oppose it and the Tibetans find polyandry acceptable. Which is right and if an orphan were to follow a lifestyle which one should it be? Nobody knows. The more strongly one follows a religion (the set of dos and donts) the closer the person moves towards fanaticism. The greatest thing that goes against religion is that almost in all cases it is a forced belief. Religion is by chance since one's birth decides it. If my Hindu parents taught me to eat ‘Halaal ka meat’ right from childbirth would I have not accepted it?
There has long been a tussle between science and religion as to which is worthy of greater respect. Not all religions can be simultaneously right since they differ somewhere or the other. Truth is universal, truth is one and there is something scientific about truth in that it has to be absolute. Subjectivity in truth is something the sane would find difficult to acknowledge. Truth is absolute and truth is one. So should be religion if it were the truth. Science is also in search of the undiscovered truth. Presently though the answers to most of our basic queries on existence of life, its purpose etc is being found in religion. However, given the present scenario in the world I would rather hold science ahead of religion than fall prey to following one religion while disregarding the other. I don’t wish to say that religion is in any way bad. Nor do I wish see the bishops/ priests lose their jobs/ respect and livelihood. However, will any of these people take individual or collective responsibility for the incessant bloodshed that continues in the name of religion? All religions maybe logical and right in their own way but since they cannot be applied universally it would be better if people did some serious introspection on the subject.

Life can be so simple and yet so complex. Just a child always likes one parent more than the other (when we grow up we learn to be diplomatic in making such choices), life also holds one thing ahead of the other. No two aspects of life can be equally important especially when we speak of absolutes. The one ahead is closer to truth and is the righteous. In the search for the absolute truth science may continue to remain behind religion but for the present we would be wiser to accept the practical and objective way of life and I feel if humanity were to be the only religion the world would be a better place to live in.
IF JOHN LENNON COULD IMAGINE SO CAN WE!

ON OUR FESTIVALS (2009)

No description of India is complete without a mention of the festivals of this great nation. To start with, the list is endless. I think if ever anyone claimed to be able to list all festivals celebrated in this country then he/she should be god in human form or one would have to say that he/she was lying. As an Indian, one grows with these occasions and learns to live in them. In fact, we are taught to see these festivals as the hallmark of the national/regional character.

Each festival marks an event in the life of god and there are numerous such events from the mythology. Moreover, the 33000 gods we have makes it difficult for us to embrace atheism. There is such a variety that invariably one tends to identify oneself with some god (deity). So one gets married to the related festivals, customs and traditions very early in life. In due course of time one realizes how very difficult it is to disassociate oneself from this disease of celebrating festivals. It is almost mandatory that every Bengali do the durga puja during dussehra, just as it is mandatory for ganpati puja to be done in every maharashtrian’s home. Sometimes I find it odd to understand how a particular day even if considered the birthday of a god is to be celebrated. I mean is it the feeling of ‘oh so nice today ganpati was born’. Would god want us to celebrate his birthday or to dwell on the lessons we need to learn. The worst is to see roads being blocked, music being played at a deafening volume and people dancing rowdily oblivious to the inconvenience they cause to passersby. I recall the day when it took me about 25 min to pass through a market place not even 500 metre long during one such celebration of Baba sahib Bhimrao Ambedkar’s birthday, that too when I was on a bike. As I was crossing through the area I wondered to myself how an Ambulance or an emergency vehicle would move through the area. I couldn’t help but thinking that the patient would never be able to reach hospital in time on such days. In any case, the volume of the amplifier systems used on such occasions, would, on an average be at least 10 times that of the ambulance siren. I don't wish to be called unsocial or insensitive on religious issues but I wish someone took the responsibility for the unintended (actually, I guess most people choose to ignore the repercussions of such extravagance) inconvenience caused to those who embrace a simpler lifestyle.

Now there are two facets of festivals that I wish, are given the attention they deserve. One is that most of us don’t seem to be following the good actions we need to learn as the symbol of a festival and second is with respect to the way festivals are celebrated. I wish we could think of more peaceful means of celebrating festivals ones where the starving angler is able to go fishing as he would do on other days and then get back into the market to sell it to earn the daily bread for his family. Likewise an emergency patient travelling in an ambulance should be able to receive timely treatment. Wishful thinking, is it? I shudder to think of how people with migraine survive the diwali season.

Finally, I also feel that one has to lump it when it comes to living through festivals in India. Firstly, it seems as if even celebration is forced on us. Secondly, and more importantly, we can’t even think of not accepting the way these are celebrated. Just try raising your eyebrow to the youngster throwing color on you on Holi and you would understand what I am trying to imply here. “Bura na mano Holi hai”!
‘It happens only in India’! Isn’t this what the famous song said?

OFFSPRING (1998)

OFFSPRING
I have always believed that an offspring is, to some extent a necessity, especially from the biological point of view for the biological aim of life is to produce offspring. Now whether or not the biological viewpoint deserves respect is something that may be highly debatable. However, the ideas that most people at least most Indians hold is that offspring is one’s contribution to the society and that this way they are able to spread and maintain their family name, property etc. More so, in the rural areas children are produced with an attitude I do not support. Children are a commodity. They fulfill a person’s wishes and desires, or so it seems.

There is something incorrect that I see in this common Indian opinion to the thought on offspring. Bluntly put, offspring are a consequence of the sexual pleasure seeking of a couple, albeit in most cases. It may not be as bad if one believes so for most people would respect the fruits of their pleasure seeking, not just try to further their myopic goals, those of carrying one’s name, profession, property, etc. I for one fail to respect the man so obsessed with his name, property etc and how these are looked upon after his death. Invariably it is these desires that end up causing avoidable imposition of force to influence the thoughts of children. Where is the child’s freedom then? Just because the past few generations have followed a particular profession, religion etc the next one must also follow it. How absurd. Consequently, most Indian children are mentally caged into thinking through the mind of their parents. They lose the capability to possess an independent thought, very early in life. I am not trying to stop the concerned parent from passing on his experience to the child. What I wish to say is that if parents learned to show the picture as they see it (which may not necessarily be the right one), an then allow the child to reach a conclusion through self realization out of individual thought, the child would grow up to be more independent and distinctly matured. However, in most cases as parents we end up burdening our children with the pressure of our own opinions and aspirations. For now, though I can’t help but say that when it comes to dealing with children many of us don’t understand the true meaning of ‘Freedom’.

SOCIETY

It is the manifestation of the civilized lifestyle of human beings. There is an irony to my understanding of the present day society. This symbol of advancement of human life is its own hindrance. If society fulfills some purpose, it hinders some.
Maybe society hasn’t evolved fast enough to keep pace with the common man.
It comes across as a caged set of ideas and views with very opaque walls. With all the changes it may have gone through the Indian society has been unreceptive to foreign ideas. Alternatively, let us put it this way, the caretakers of the society have been rigid in accepting any new ideas (even logical reasoning). Whereas there is little doubt that they have done so to not lose their power, this aspect is not what I wish to dwell on here. When we talk of society as a term, it should be seen as a finite term with definite limits. These limits are a symbol of myopia in our religious leaders.
There may be transitions in a society but it is characterised by a war-like situation. The caged walls always block creativity and learning, for, we forget everything but what we follow. The individuality in a person is liable to be devoured as a result of the selfishness of the fanatic religious barons. The fact that social values are an amalgamation of individual values is what the bishops forget, more often than not. If ever society had a purpose, it must have been to help humankind to progress, to ensure that what was once established (on some scientific/ practical basis) would help the future generations in their quest for truth. What it has instead done is to ensure that what has once been accepted is never to be debated again. Fortunately, scientific laws are open to any kind of debate, which is why one feels that truth lies in science. Unfortunately though science has been unable to fathom the depth of religious beliefs on important issues like the origin of the universe.
The greatest thing that society has done is that it has given humankind a medium of conversation. It has brought us in one grid. The other good thing it has done is to have helped keep humanity intact by serving the biological purpose of life through an instrument called marriage and in this regard, the Indian society has been very generous.

FREEDOM

The thought of writing on freedom was actually the result of where I led myself to, while writing on offspring. The definition of freedom is extremely flexible and it is more often than not, twisted in order to serve personal interests. By itself, it is a term that may be seen as highly subjective.
One must realize that it is a term that owes its birth to the society and as such, it has to be viewed in that perspective. Freedom would mean personal freedom of thought and action. So far as the freedom of thought is concerned there may be negligible possibility of anyone curtailing these, but with regard to freedom of action some social hindrances are bound to emerge. Society itself is a finite term with set limits so when we talk of freedom of action (or expression) it has to have certain limits. Ideally, the limits should read something like ‘one person exercising his/her freedom should not cross into that of another’.

There is some ambiguity though in this also and that I guess is how nature has it for most aspects. We realize that as humans, we are civilized and social but the fact remains that man is a SOCIAL ANIMAL. Even though I firmly believe that one should be more social and less animal in instincts, beliefs and actions, I maintain that there will be a point where the social aspect and animal aspect clash. So, although one man sacrificing his life to save that of another is a deed always respected the one in which a man kills another to save his own cannot be protested against by any scientific reasoning. In any case, even when two plants grow too close at some point of time one starts to obstruct the growth of the other and finally the stronger survives. The bishops may argue that being the enlightened species of life we should do better than that but the fact is that is how nature is. For the same reason I maintain that human life has always been a competition of survival of the fittest. It shall remain so till the great deluge.

A sceptical essay (1997)

They say failure encourages philosophy. Actually, the statement shuts a lot of questions which if rose would be difficult to answer.

The IAS result started many thoughts in my mind. I went to see the result with a friend who had earlier taken an unsuccessful interview for the same and I saw mostly gloomy faces and only few happy ones. Well, if I were to take the factor of result into consideration there would not have been much cause for concern for success is analogous to happiness and failure to sadness. But the fact that I wasn’t to be affected by the resulted allowed me a neutral viewpoint – an eagle’s view to the whole issue and thought in my mind, such that my mind could dwell on certain aspects that have hitherto, either escaped a lot of minds or have been unduly disregarded.

As I saw the faces around me, I thought to myself if there really was something that made a good administrator that the gloomy faces lacked . I could not fathom it. What I did feel strongly though, was that most of us are too result oriented (the consequence of the fast and competitive life these days I guess). I waited for my friend to react to the result (who was part of the gloomy faces) and he shrugged it off saying he hadn’t done well in the written and that the paper was tough. This I felt was ‘the hindsight syndrome’. When I look back at the exam I took for my present job, I feel it was easy. It is only when I think of my first attempt at the same that I feel it isn’t all that easy after all. Hindsight is a peculiar aspect of human character. It is, more often than not blinded by success / failure - the result. But something else that struck me, shook me. I was about to ask him as to what kind of questions were asked in the paper when it dawned on me that none of the questions that may have been asked were to be of any consequence in determining the requisite qualities required in an IAS officer as far as the nature of the job is concerned. Isn’t this an irony even with all the due consideration to the fact that the number of candidates taking the exam is overwhelming and given such a situation there has to be a way of straining out only as many as are required for the posts. So, at least the thing that emerges is that the initial emphasis is more on the quantity and not so much on quality. Is it that the organization is more concerned about selecting only the number of people required to fill in the vacancies and not so much on selecting the ones who are most suitable for the job? I say so since I am sure we don’t just want book worms or academic geniuses. Nevertheless, I feel, more strongly than ever, now, that in our country very often, immediate success and achievement is of greater prominence than aptitude or worth. Alternatively, if I may say, we judge ability by achievements. That is probably why for most of us ends matter more than means (anything else). Today Mohammed Azharuddin is not that great a batsman ( I wrote this in 1996) but just let him score a hundred in the next world cup match and he shall become one of the best batsmen once again (as he was when he entered international cricket). Prof Amartya Sen is a good economist because he has been awarded the Nobel Prize. Similarly, one would never have called Arundhati Roy a gifted writer had she not been nominated for the Booker Prize and then won it.

Anyway, just accompanying a friend to check the IAS results tuned out to be a revelation for me. Of course a lot of the problems in our country arise from our great propensity to produce children ( I wish we had this generosity elsewhere as well), but if everything were to be seen so deeply then our society is too frail to allow any satisfactory deduction and where all arguments and theories fail one maxim easily explains it all. NOTHING SUCCEEDS LIKE SUCCESS.

MARRIAGE

For the majority marriage is but a ritual, a social custom. Only a selected few consider it a need (if it is one) and these are the ones who marry out of a certain belief.
The concept of arranged marriages as prevalent in India is so despicable. It is the greatest example of mental slavery, an attempt to force oneself into believing that, which otherwise one would vehemently oppose. Imagine two people who have just seen each other (and in many cases not even that) suddenly decide that they are going to be life partners, that they would be with each other through thick and thin. The irony though is that in India it works wonderfully well. It is as if a woman learns (or is taught) to reconcile to her fate whatever it be. I think in the case of India it may not be out of place to describe marriage as an institutionalized slavery of women.