(Kya) Mera Bharat Mahan?

We have been hearing and reciting this patriotic sentence for quite a few years now. Literally meaning - "My India is great", it gives us a sense of pride when we hear it. I, for one, have been hearing it during my school/college days and have always believed in this.

But during the past few years, I have come across many situations which has made me to look back upon this statement with a questioning attitude.

Having seen so many social, political and economical prejudice that has engulfed almost the entire nation, has made me change my mind, so much so, that I am having second thoughts living in this country. Many may ask me what have I done to change it. Yes, I have not done much, but whatever I have tried to do, has been futile. It may be true that I am running away from the problem, but I don't see any solution in the near future (well, let's say in the next 100 years).

Nearly 42% of our country's population lives below poverty line (ref. wiki). The economic disparity between the rich and the poor has been widening. The political scenario is not much better. I will call them (our revered politicians) the scavengers, who prey upon these poor people. People, who are good and willing to change it, will never get to the power to have any effect. It's always those power hungry eagles who will rule the roost.

The respect for humanity is eroding. I have seen people treating others like petty creatures just because they are either economically down, or are doing work which are menial. Having been to a developed country, where I saw the kind of respect each and every person get, irrespective of his field of work/wage, I am shameful that similar treatment is not meted out to our people.

The respect for human life is seen most when I saw a cab driver actually hitting the curb and damaging his wheel in order to allow an ambulance to pass. I was shocked. I am sorry to say, I will hardly find any such incident in India.

One thing that India really scores in is - corruption. I remember that a recent study showed it in the top bracket amongst the most corrupted officials, where people have to pay bribe to get even their basic rights.

"A country is never great, it is the people living there who has the ability to make it better." Can we say the same thing about India? I believe, you will agree, it is unfortunately not the case with India.

So, with all these things happening around, and having tried to change them and failed, am I really wrong in thinking about not staying here? Relocating to someplace else - Where I am treated because of what I am not because of what I do, where I stay, how much I earn or what I wear; Where I get respect because of my deeds, not because of the family I am born into; Where I will have my freedom. Where rights are not there only in some book (read Constitution) but implemented effectively as well. Are these not my basic rights? Am I not entitled to them?

As always, you are entitled to your opinion, and it is not my intention to change it. I just wanted to bring my perspective across, for people to think...

Appaling Politics, Shameless Politicians

This second half of this week started on the worst note, it could. Obviously, I am referring to the Mumbai (nay Bombay, I don't favor the rechristening of city names) blast/terrorist attack. This was shocking to say the least.

I was waiting for the carnage to get over before I sit down and pen my thoughts. Didn't thought it would take more than 60 hours before I could write a single alphabet here. I am not into blame-game, practiced by our famed politicians but I will try to put straight facts which have been surfacing since the operation to smoke out the terrorists started.

First of all, we have a Home Minister (won't name him as everyone knows who I am referring to, also won't add adjectives, adverbs to his actions which has been common-place for him now-a-days). Well, I found out that since his tenure we have had 66 terrorist attacks. And every time I see him on the TV or read his reaction in newspapers, it seems like a tape-recorder running the same thing over and over again. Now his words have stopped sounding hollow. I am not sure how he manages to regain his precious seat time after time. Then comes our H'ble Prime Minister. Well, with all due respect to his persona, I fail to find anything concrete he has done to counter these attacks, if I may leave out his speech. He seems to have his hand tied which is not good for our country.

One of my friends countered that we can not jump to conclusion about their non-doings. But, the question I beg for answer is, "if their work is futile, should they continue to be at the top position when its people's life at stake?" They have their own repertoire of carbine-trotting guards, but are oblivious to the safety of common-man. "Do they deserve their post?"

Now, that the operation has ended with 11 terrorist killed, 1 captured, 195 persons dead, 300+ injured and around 11 cops laying down their lives. Do this politicians bother? Now, the blame-game will start. The opposition pointing fingers and finding loopholes. The government claiming ignorance and claiming the success of the operation as its own. Everyone will be eying their piece of the pie.

Let's leave the shameless politicians (I call them creatures, as according to me they don't deserve the label of human beings) and look at the preparedness of our para-military forces. The problem for me seems to be the very idea that the militants came through sea route. If its true, its really a very awkward situation for the intelligence to answer. I have come across numerous incidents where I have read that the coast guards have captured innocent fishermen from our neighboring country who had strayed into our waters and being kept in prison for years (same happens to our fishermen whey they stray across). How has the coast guards failed to detect these intruders? Are they only good when fishermen are there?

Secondly, I rue the lack of preparedness by our elite NSG. Although I am pretty sure, the bureaucracy has a hand in here too. How come they were not flown in earlier? There was no strategy what-so-ever to counter such situation. If there was any, it was apparently invisible.

I am not near an expert on security and things related to such warfare, but having read comments from experts on it from our country as well as others, it was plain that the foresight was missing when this mission was handled initially. Also I read some not-so-flattering remarks about our Home Minister efforts (or lack of it) from the foreign expert.

One of the thing that has come out of this has been the cost. An estimate from an article puts it at $100,000 to $200,000 (and that too for the arms, ammunition and the equipments used). And the damage is $800,000,000 and still counting (besides human lives). And 183 innocent and priceless life lost. So, inspite of the success of the operation, who actually lost?

Home Ministry will be active for a few days and then go back to sleep as if this never happened. Else how do you explain the ineffectiveness even after 66 incident? All talks and no concrete measures. The opposition (who was earlier in power) is no angel. I still can't get over the Kandahar incident where the then Defence Minister escorted the criminals.

I am yet to see the comment of the political leader who a few days back was going around giving hatred speech on regional basis, whose party workers vandalized a Railway Board Exam. He is being silent spectator, for it is his region's city which was protected by the NSG (which, I am very pleased, has no regional color).

With time, this will be forgotten as was the 66+ (counting earlier ones too) . The heroes will be forgotten (what a shame).

Writing this, I also came across an article which shows fresh banners being put nearby the epicenter of this attack honoring the heroes, with politicians names printed across half of the poster. How much more petty, politics can get? Looks like a bottomless pit.

Former RAW chief Vikram Sood puts it aptly here.

Religion v/s Religion

It looks like my friend, who got the bug of blogging into me in the first place (a year ago I got infected), seems to be trying his level best to make me a regular on here.

He replied to a forwarded email, keeping me in the CC list, in a not-so-kind manner. Although, I will be quick to add that the forwarded email was stinking of religious bigotry. I have been seeing this kind of intolerance across religion grow day-by-day. Not sure where all this is leading to. GOD save this world!

Coming back to the email, it stated how much divided the religion of Christianity and Islam are, by taking examples of sub-castes among them. People from one caste don't allow other caste's members to enter their place of worship. Saying that Hinduism does not have such division and praising its unity. Hailing it as the best religion. Such shallow-mindedness!!

Although, my friend had fittingly replied to the email, I thought his words were pretty harsh on the boundary of rudeness, which I made sure to let him know. His reply to that forward (I will try to be much more sedate in translating his phrases) was that there is casteism (among Hindus) still prevalent across India, Dalits being denied entry to Temples, the killings undertaken in the name of honour euphemistically called "honour killings". Well, he is absolutely correct in what he said.

Once you grow up among people of different religion/caste/creed/sections, you either tend to become obsessed with the differences amongst us or you try to gain an insight about the differences and try to view it in a wholesome manner. I have always tried to do the second.

From my experiences (I must add that I am not very religious, but I do follow a particular religion), I have found that no religion has been teaching the kind of intolerance I see all around.

The question comes up "What actually is religion?". Wiki describes religion as "A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience."

That's wiki. I hold a slightly different view-point. According to me a "religion provides a guiding path for us to move ahead". When we are born, we have no knowledge of what a religion is. Which religion we belong to. We are just like wanderers in need of some guidance, failing which we move in random directions. The first guidance comes from our parents. We follow a religion because we need a map in our life. The religion that comes to us, is blessed upon us by our parents.

Essentially, a religion provides a sort of moral behaviour we could adhere to. We can say it provides the skeleton/framework for our life. We could choose to follow this path or else could choose to create a new path. It is not necessary to follow it word-by-word.

Like humans, religion also evolves. During this evolution, people paraphrase it as per their perception (and most of the times, their need). Like every perception, some bias do creep into it. It is this detour that actually is seen as a vast difference between religions. Some confine themselves to the hardliner view, some to the moderate view and some to the liberal views.

My earlier blog had touched upon the caste divide among Hinduism. Similar divides are there in every religion. It is only human to try and gain the upperhand by showing others in a poorer light. Same thing is happening with religion as well. There seems to be a divide among the lines of "good religion" and "bad religion". Can anyone make me understand these adjectives associated with religion? If a person perceives his/her religion differently (here, I mean, in an adverse way), is it fault of the religion?

I see this kind of perception has crept into every religion. They tend to look at their religion in respect and don't have similar respect to others. There is also an increased intolerance being pushed into the minds of people towards other religion (here other religion means excluding one's own religion). The above email (forwarded one) is once such instance where people are being led to believe the superiority of a certain religion over others.

I feel, we are in such a generation where our maturity should make us realize the stupidity of such behaviour. If we don't evolve ourselves from the previous generation, we are lacking something. If we stop our evolution, there is no point in being alive. This is not a religion v/s religion match. This divide is not amongst religion but it shows our apathy to other human beings.

These were my view-points. I won't say I am right or wrong because these are my perception. Though, I would be really glad to hear your views.

The Good Death

This week has been quite a hectic one. One incident after another has led me to restart blogging. Here I was, quite satisfied with finishing my first blog after a long lay-off and I got another article in my hand which forced me to think.

This time, it's a quite controversial subject that I am going to touch upon with serious moral issues attached. The word is "Euthanasia". For many this might be something they have never heard of, for others it might be something they know about, but never cared to give it more than a passing thought.

Wiki states, "Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner". This word takes its root in two ancio-greek words "eu" - meaning good and "thanatos" - meaning death. Literally meaning "good death". I won't go into the details of it as you can easily wiki it. I will rather try to focus my views on the social aspects of it. I have neither pro nor anti views over it.

The question here is how can death be good! Think of a person who is terminally ill with no hope of living beyond a certain timeline in immediate future and suffering from insufferable pain. He knows he is going to die, but he just could not bear the sufferings the illness is causing. He does not want to die now because death is imminent, but because his life has become worse than death and his sufferings and pain making it unbearable.

The article described several cases where people's life has been worst than death. One case was of a teenage girl who was suffering from leukemia. Here was a girl, all of 13, suffering from an incurable disease. She had been operated upon several times. She was to undergo a heart replacement surgery which she was really reluctant to. She had suffered and didn't wanted to prolong her sufferings.

I remember a recent incident where a derby horse was euthanized because she broke her front legs while racing in a derby. I also remember that when a horse breaks its limbs, they don't join like human's. She would have been hampered for the whole life and would be suffering from the pain.

I remember another news where a lady was kept on life support system even after she was declared brain dead for more than 13 years just because her parents thought she will wake up someday. Her husband had to fought a long and hard battle to get permission to withdraw the life support system.

Such cases comes up which makes you sit up and think about the pros and cons of euthanasia. There seems to be a question which needs answering - "Is life so worthy that even in extreme circumstances we are forced to live? Is it really worth the sufferings entailed upon a person due to the advancement of medicine and technology which can prolong life?"

Whatever may be the answer, the thing to surmise is - "Who is responsible for deciding if a life is worthy enough to be protected inspite of all the sufferings?" Guess, that's the most difficult question to answer. How to determine if the person's suffering outweighs his will to live? There seems to be so many variables which determines it.

The other factor seems to be that all human being different has different level of tolerance. Who will decide if that tolerance limit has crossed? How to measure the point of tolerance?

The only answer, right now, seems to be in counseling. I feel it is the person who has to have right to decide because it is him who is suffering. Other's can just assume his sufferings. Pain is just a part of the suffering.

I have my objection over the other synonyms used for the word. Words like "mercy killing", "assisted suicide" does not really reflect true picture. Killing is ending of life which had to offer much more and was nipped at the bud. Suicide is a way of getting away from failure for whatever the reason.

If I touch upon the moral aspect of it, the main reason for countering it will be "sanctity of life". Life itself is sacred so ending it is a sin. But this seems to be a feeble argument in view of capital punishment being awarded in several countries. I will not try to compare these two, but they both fall under the same sanctity of life argument.

I will let you think for yourself over the issue. Every person has the right to his/her perception. Let sanity prevail...

Starting Afresh

Alas! It has been a long time (more than a year, to be exact) since I wrote something in my blog. I took a long siesta and many things have changed since then. Won't go into details though.

It took an article in The Times of India to wake me up from my slumber and restart blogging (atleast this post).

Yesterday, while going through old newspaper (actually 2 days old one), I came across this article describing our Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan giving his views on doing away with the "creamy layer" from the purview of reservation. Although, I am one of those who is totally against any kind of reservation based on caste/creed/gender, what took me aback was the words along the lines of "first dalit judge to occupy the highest judiciary post". I mean, I never expected a respected newspaper to throw up words like these when describing a person holding the post of CJI. For heaven's sake, please respect the position.

First of all, I am not against the actual reasoning behind the policy of reservation thrown up decades ago (specifically just after Independence). It was to bring the people from the section of society, who were oppressed in the name of lower/backward caste, on a level playing ground. It started with, if I am not wrong, the first five-year plan and there was a time frame given for it to be effective, after which it was to be removed. But due to the vote-bank politics, no political party could be bold enough to actually remove it. And with each five-year plan it went on.

Has the condition of those people improved? The answer, unfortunately, is a big NO. Only a few benefited. And those who benefited, their offspring's are getting the benefit. The benefit has not seeped to most of the people who really need it. Those who have already benefited and established themselves are enjoying the benefits time and again. Those who never got a chance are still there.

I really feel, it is like giving a crutch to them. Unless we help them uplift themselves, give them compulsory education and make them stand on their own feet, nothing is going to change. I agree the discrimination is still there, but it has subsided to a great extent nonetheless. Why are we trying to make them use the crutch in the first place? Why don't we help them stand on their feet? Why not try and eradicate this discrimination altogether?

Politics, my dear friend, is a very ugly game. Politicians feed on peoples mind and they are not going to shoot themselves on their foot by trying to remove the reservation. Instead, as I have been hearing, they are trying to increase the quota of reservation.

I will just ask one question, if you give a person proper education till 10th standard and if he still is unable to compete without any kind of reservation, what is the guarantee that he will succeed in future? And the one who is able enough to compete, will never need reservation. Basic education is compulsory and a must, for it will atleast make them earn their livelihood with self-respect.

Let's dig deep into this and try to find out the cause. For it's the cause that we need to weed out and unless we focus our energy there, it's not going to solve our problem.

From a Hindu point of view, there are 4 major castes. 1. Brahmins, 2. Kshatriya, 3. Vaishnav and 4. Shudra (in no particular order). From my understanding of history, they were never meant to be this rigid what is prevalent today. They were divided with respect to the work they used to do. Brahmin used to pray, Kshatriya were the saviours, Vaishnav were the business people and Shudra used to do menial work. If a person of one caste changed his profession, his caste changes (that's what it should have been). But after a point of time, everyone felt comfortable at their roles and a hierarchy started forming. It started growing rigid. They did not allow people to enter their caste and caste boundaries became rigid and passed on from generations to generations. A son of a Brahmin, even though he might never pray, still remained a Brahmin and so on.

I fail to understand how can men (inference here being on human), having the same flesh/bone/blood, be so different that one won't even touch the other? How can a creation of "The One" be untouchable to another of His creation? Why even half a century after Independence we still stick to the same age-old value system? Why is untouchability still prevelent in our so called modern-society? What has the government done to improve the living condition of one and all?

I fail to understand...