An elephant drawing elephant

See the remaining pics.

The Amarnath Shrine Trust land imbroglio: both sides seem wrong

I haven’t had much time to follow the Amarnath shrine trust land controversy so I quickly went to Google news to check what’s going on.  The shrine trust was allocated the forest land to build the premises, and I thought the Kashmiris were against that particular point; the forest land must be protected at all costs and no religious activity should interfere with that. How secular and progressive, I thought.

I discovered they give two hoots about the destruction of their forests; they are agitated over the Indian government’s "conspiracy" to settle Hindu population in Kashmir.

Fair enough; Raj Thakare wants Maharashtra for the Marathas and the Kasmiris want their land just for the Kashmiris (even the local dog population manifests similar proclivities). But do they remember that millions of pundits who had to become refugees in their own country were Kashmiris too? Why didn’t their heart bleed when their fellow Kashmiris had to leave the valley? They are outraged at the very thought of outsider Hindus coming to the valley and settling there, but they didn’t even bat an eyelid when millions of Hindus who had been living in the valley for 100s of years had to abandon their homes and move to other parts of India; talk of blatant double standards.

And this is when the trust premises is just being built to create a resting place for the pilgrims heading to the Amarnath cave. Height of religious intolerance. Move the same people (OK, well, Muslims I mean) to some other democracy and even slightest incidents infringe upon their fundamental human rights.

The Hindu reactionary parties like the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and to an extent the BJP too are not doing what they should be doing, and as always are doing something that they should avoid. I call them reactionary parties because they only react, they never really do something good for the country. Isn’t it simply insane to burn down and destroy local properties for whatever is happening in Kashmir? If the government is giving forest lands to various trusts, irrespective of what religion the trusts represent, shouldn’t their main worry be that the forest land of the country is being destroyed? Instead of asking for the same piece of land, shouldn’t they ask for a place that does not belong to the forest? Forget about Kashmiris Muslims, aren’t they too fighting against the interests of the country?

Solution? Instead of the piece of land that belongs to the forest, the trust should be allotted another piece, of course somewhere in Kashmir, and at a place that should be convenient to the pilgrims. If the Kashmiris still protest? Well, too bad, the government will have to deal with it just like Putin deals with such problems and shows a finger if the other countries protest. And if the Hindus still protest, demanding for the same piece of the forest land? They should be treated in the same manner.

Oh! This is wishful thinking. The buggers in the government rarely do something that is good for the country as a whole; they are more worried about vote bank politics.

A pit of life and death

Very interesting reading.

Is having sex with a Robot hooker cheating?

I’m referring to this link. Having sex with robot hookers is soon going to be a reality; but don’t they already get sex toys that can be used for sexual gratification and isn’t that a cheating? Than what about masturbation? While masturbating can you guaranty that you are thinking about your partner and not your porn idol?

I think more than technical it is an emotional, psychological issue.  But I think it is a technical issue too; technical in the sense… let us say socio-technical. Why doesn’t one partner agree to the other partner having sex with someone else (I’m talking about conventional couples and not "liberated" and "ultramodern" couples)? It has a lot to do with having a sense of security. Sex is an important aspect in a relationship and lots of our decisions are based on sex.  If you begin to have sex outside of the ongoing relationship on a routine basis then a big binding force is missing.  This binding force often keeps a relationship intact and if it is missing it is very difficult to maintain the bond although I’m not saying that it is not at all possible.

Consciously or unconsciously we also attach sex with giving birth to children and we don’t want to bring up children with just about anybody; we choose the partners very carefully or with lots of social deliberations (as is the case in India where marriages are often arranged by parents and relatives). So since we are possessive about our children we also become possessive about the source, that is, the other partner. We want to preserve that sources exclusively for ourselves.  For instance you won’t like your husband’s kids popping up everywhere in the neighborhood and when your wife becomes pregnant you want to be sure that it is your child and not someone else’s.  This is also because so much effort goes into bringing up a child so you would only like to make so much effort for your own child.

But then a robot hooker will not be producing your kids so that problem gets sorted out on its own.

No matter how open our society becomes sex is still an intimate activity shared by two individuals in the most private corner of their existence. It is a special activity with your most special person. Your partner feels complete when he or she is able to satiate your sexual needs.  When you seek sexual gratification from other sources, for instance, a robot hooker, then it means your partner is not able to provide you that gratification, and this further means a distance developing between you and your partner. The issue is not about having sex with some other person or a robot, the issue is that at that moment you are not having sex with your partner. Your partner has an unwritten right on your every orgasm. The writer in the above link says it’s okay to have sex with a robot hooker because there is no emotional attachment.

Do you agree to that? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

What’s so wrong in downplaying religion

The problem with religion is that it has two sides: a dark side from where major evils of the world originate, and a fair side, out of which lots of good happens. The problem is religion has fewer advantages and lots of disadvantages.  Most cruelties in this world take place in the name of religion. Of course there is the race factor but it can also be somehow traced to religion. So what’s wrong if a state wants to teach its children that religion doesn’t matter and when they grow up they can choose whatever religion they feel like?  I think I would like to give this choice to my daughter rather than calling her a Hindu or a Sikh.

People feel threatened by such endeavors because they will have to pull the shutters of their religion shops down. Lots of business and politics and black marketing happens in the name of religion; what will these people do if religion loses its control over the masses? From India’s perspective, from the BJP to the Congress to the communists and to the terrorists, every major organization and group uses religion to influence people. If people are taught that religion is not as important as it is made out to be, these people and organizations won’t be able to wield their power.  The Congress won’t be able to divide Hindus and Muslims and the BJP won’t be able to instigate the Hindu masses to garner votes and the communists won’t be able to protect people from Hindu fundamentalism.  Similarly the terrorists won’t get sympathy from Islamic countries.

But as people we should strive for a society where religion does not play a dominant role. Instead more stress should be given to developing fundamental human values that are universal everywhere. There should be education against the irrelevance of religion, caste, class segregation, racialism and prejudice.  The society should be value-based and not religion-based.  There should be no Hindus, no Christians, no Muslims and no Jews; there should only be good people and bad people.