I was just now watching the weekly debate program on NDTV called “We the People”; due to its heavily tilted nature I don’t normally watch it but today I watched it (online) because Kanchan Gupta was among the panelists — couldn’t watch the entire program due to time constraint.

The topic of the debate was should P Chidambaram (India’s Home Minister) have used the term “saffron terrorism” while refereeing to the Hindu fringe groups indulging in random terrorist activities.

The common problem in such debates is there are always two differing opinions and every side presents irrational arguments while trying to prove the other side wrong. Of course, all the arguments are not irrational but the format of the program and the way Barkha Dutt conducts it, particular views, even if they make perfect sense to an informed person, get distorted and seem irrational.

So there was a group trying to downplay the Islamist terrorism while thoroughly demonizing saffron terrorism and then there was the the other group (as it happens on all NDTV debates there are just two people differing and the majority supports a particular view) who was trying to downplay Hindu terrorism while listing out instances of Islamist terrorists activities.

The problem with such debates is that nobody is actually interested in talking about the root cause. For instance people were trying to justify Muslim youths becoming terrorists by referring to the babri masjid demolition, the 1992 Bombay riots and Gujarat riots and many other instances of injustice that normally happen in the Indian society in particular and the lesser developed world in general.

Similarly the two isolated voices constituting of Kanchan Gupta and Tavleen Singh were trying to prove how the Islamist terrorism is an international problem and it doesn’t stem from the way Muslims have been targeted by the so-called Hindu nationalists.

This is sad because nobody talks about terrorism as a common problem; they are always pointing fingers at each other and in this way this problem will never be solved. It is like two neighboring ladies quarrelling with each other about who threw the garbage in the street.

The same thing happens with Maoist terrorism: there are some people who give all the reasons under the sun for people becoming Maoists and there are some people who don’t want to go into the details of why people feel victimized by the system and take to the gun.

Terrorists are simply terrorists. They take inspiration from religious texts and misinterpreted contexts but other than this they are simply criminals killing people whether in India or abroad and they should be dealt with accordingly. Muslim terrorists think that the entire world is against Muslims and always trying to insult them or hurt them and the so-called Hindu nationalists (regarding India) derive their motivation from historical facts that say that Muslim invaders perpetrated unparalleled atrocities and eventually they were responsible for the partition. In today’s context, such historical facts are irrelevant because no matter how hard you try you cannot go into the past and undo them. Muslims were invaders but right now most of the Muslims in the country are those who converted to Islam due to the problems they faced in Hinduism.

People trying to explain why Muslims become terrorists get too occupied with playing the victim card and pointing fingers at the majority community, in India’s case, Hindus. Of course, there are some Hindu groups that spread hatred but then such groups exist in every religion and they never enjoy the social acceptance at the grassroots level the way, sadly, Muslim terrorists enjoy. And herein lies the difference.

Terrorism has adopted its current shape primarily due to rampant appeasement and this is happening all across the globe. It seems politicians and lawmakers are not actually interested in solving this problem because if they were the problem would have been solved decades ago. when they wanted to knock down Saddam Hussein they did it within months. with Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, it’s almost been a decade. one reason can be that Osama is an American Frankenstein. the same happens in India. Our politicians have planted journalists and intellectuals who are constantly pointing fingers at the soft target (Hindu majority) and finding excuses for Muslim/Islamist terrorism. They have done this because they don’t want to solve the problem. They want to keep people occupied. They always want to say, look, there is a bigger problem so, stop ranting about silly issues like corruption, backwardness, lack of development, bizarre social disparity and lawlessness.

In India’s case, the solution doesn’t lie in pointing fingers at each other. It lies in branding terrorism as normal crime and then punishing them as criminals not as some ideological crusaders who are carrying out some sort of “war”. Only then we will be able to have a color-less and religion-less terrorism and only then we will be able to tackle it without “hurting” sentiments.

I wonder why some people feel it hard to believe Prahlad Jani’s claim that he hasn’t eaten or drunk for more than 80 years. It’s not like he’s saying he has flown to the moon and back a couple of times. We sometimes develop biological peculiarities that science cannot explain with current level of understanding. When we think about extra-terrestrial life scientists already believe there can be life forms beyond our understanding. Why, even on earth we keep finding life forms living in the extreme temperatures of volcanoes and miles beneath the arctic ice – would you call that supernatural?

This is not to say that we should believe in superstition. For me superstition means when you promote a belief and earn money with it or harm people. Even people like Deepak Chopra come under that category, for that matter. He sells a way of life and earns lots of money with it. We should all fight superstitions that are used to keep people suppressed and backward.

If you simply say that you haven’t eaten for 80 years, then what’s the harm? Instead of moronically rejecting him outright, we should unravel the mystery, if there is one. This is how humanity has evolved.

In terms of being supernatural, life in itself is supernatural. Whenever I look at my daughter jumping around, running around in the house and spreading light around her, I feel, yes, she’s a miracle. She was not there a few years ago. And then she’s here, out of nothingness. I’m not talking about her physical existence, I’m talking about her soul, her thoughts, her attitude, her outlook. If you can see beyond biology, physics and chemistry, what can be more supernatural than life itself?

हमारी बिल्डिंग के कोम्पौंड के एक कोने में छोटा सा एक शिवलिंग हुआ करता था. जब भी बिल्डिंग के लोगों का कोई धार्मिक भाव उमड़ता था वो जाकर वहां पर फूल चढ़ा, पानी छिड़क, श्लोकों के नाम पर कुछ अनाप शनाप उच्चार कर चले आते थे. फिर ज्यों ज्यों retired और वेहले लोगों की संख्या बढ़ी उस शिवलिंग के आसपास एक चबूतरा उगने लगा, और जैसे की हमारे देश में मंदिर, मस्जिद और गुरूद्वारे झट से किसी जंगली बेल की तरहां उग आते हैं, किसी भी जगह, बिना चेतावनी के, उस शिवलिंग के आसपास बन गया एक लोहे का जंगला और वो भोलेनाथ जो अब तक सभी दिशाओं से उपलब्थ थे घिर गए एक कटहरे में और उस कटहरे में लग गया एक गेट. एक परिवार के नाते हमारे लिए वो जंगला एक एहमियत रखता है क्यों की हमारी बिटिया को उसकी छत पर लटके घण्टे को किसी बड़े की गोदे में चढ़ कर, ऊँचे हो कर, बजाने का बहुत शौंक है.

धीरे धीरे उस जंगले-बनाम-मंदिर की प्रसिद्धि बिल्डिंग के चरों और फैलने लगी और लोग आने लगे दूर दूर से फूल चढ़ाने, पानी छिड़कने (इस बिल्डिंग में वैसे लोग प्यासे को पानी नहीं पूछते) और मंत्रोचारण करने. पर इससे शायद भगवान खुश नहीं हुए — कुछ खास बात नहीं बन रही थी. हमारी बिल्डिंग के जो लोग कमज़ोर को तैश दिखाते और झिड़कते हैं, बराबर वाले से कन्नी काटते हैं व् जलन खाते हैं और ताक़तवर को देख कर मिमियाने लगते हैं या फिर निकल लेते हैं पतली गली से, वो भला भगवान से सीधे मुंह क्या बात करेंगे, सो निश्चेय किया गया एक पंडितजी को तनख्वाह पर रखा जाये. सो रोज़ पंडितजी आने लगे. वो मंदिर के देखबाल करते, मूर्तियों को साफवाफ करते और लगे हाथ, अब ज्योंकि आये हैं, तो कुछ पूजापाठ भी हो जाता. शिव की जटाएं ज़रा हिलती प्रतीत हुईं और वो ज़रा खुश लगे.

अब जबकि भगवान, जो की अब तक विस्थापित थे, थोडा खुश लगे, तो उनकी स्थापना का विचार हुआ. बिल्डिंग वालों से पैसा इकठ्ठा किया गया. हमने न तो पैसा तब दिया जब जंगला बनाया गया, न तब दिया जब पंडित जी रखे गए, और न ही तब दिया जब मंदिर स्थापना के लिए और बढ़ाया गया. पता नहीं कितने हज़ार उस स्थापना पर खर्च किये गए. इन्ही लोगों से अगर आप कहें किसी गरीब बच्चे की पढ़ाई के लिए थोड़े से पैसे इकट्ठे कर लो, दस बहाने निकल आएंगे. और तो और, इस बिल्डिंग में ज़्यादातर लोग शिक्षक हैं; न मालूम क्या कांड करते होंगे कक्षा में और छात्रोंको क्या मूल्य देते होंगे. एक बड़ी मज़ेदार बात हुई स्थापना वाले दिन.

हमारे यहाँ दो काम करने वाली आती हैं और वे अक्सर खाना और नाश्ता हमारे घर से कर के जाती हैं. उस दिन उन लोगों ने कुछ नहीं खाया; कहा, आज तो भंडारा होगा, खूब हलवा-पूरी-छोले बंटेंगे. एक ने तो ये भी कहा की अगर आप लोग भंडारे में नहीं जा रहे हैं तो कोई बात नहीं, आप के लिए भी हम लेते आएंगे. ऐसे अवसर पर लोग अक्सर प्रयत्न करते हैं की गरीबों को ज्यादा खिलाया जाये. पर शायद जब आप प्रबंध करते हैं तो ये आपका हक़ बनता ये फैसला करने का की कौन वाकई में ग़रीब है. कुछ ऐसा हुआ उस दिन जो हमने कभी न देखा था न सुना था. जिन लोगों ने स्थापना समारोह का प्रबंध किया था, उन्होंने न तो किसी और को बुलाया, न ही कुछ खिलाया, और जो हलवा-पूरी-छोले बने थे भंडारे के लिए, वो सब वे लोग अपने अपने घरों में ले गए — काम करने वालियों सो कहा खाना-वाना बनाने की ज़रुरत नहीं है. बेचारे काम करने वाले यां तो मुंह बाएँ देखते रहे, यां बेशर्म हो कर, मांग कर थोड़ा बहुत खा गए. वैसे मुझे तो इसमें कुछ खास आपत्तिजनक नहीं लगा क्योंकि दिमागी तौर पर इनसे ग़रीब लोग मुश्किल से ही मिलेंगे, तो शायद ये सब एक फिलोसोफिकल अनुभूति थी.

अब जिन लोगों ने स्थापना के लिए पैसा जुटाया यां दिया उनका हक तो भगवान पर ज्यादा बनता ही है. और फिर जब इतना पैसा लगाया ही है तो धार्मिक बहुरूपता क्यूँ न हो? क्यूँ लोग विवश हों केवल शिवजी के दर्शन करने को जब ढेरों विकल्प हैं हमारे पास? भगवानो की कोई कमी है हमारे यहाँ क्या? केबल चैनलों से ज्यादा भगवानी चुनाव हैं हमारे पास. उस बड़े जंगले में जहाँ भगवान शिव अकेले स्थापित थे कई छोटे छोटे खांचे बन गए और उन खांचों में स्थापित हो गए कईयों के छोटे-बड़े भगवान. भगवानों का अच्छा-खासा gang बन गया उस कोने में और बीच में शिवजी खड़े रहते हैं गौड फादर की तरहां. पर अंत बस यहीं पर नहीं हुआ.

भगवान अक्सर कीमती हो जाता है तो चोरी होने का डर लाज़मी है. जितने ज्यादा भगवान लोग उतनी ज्यादा फिक्र. पांच-छेह भगवानों के बक्से हैं वहां पर और सब भगवानों की अपनी शानो-शौकत, और इस लिए, अपनी चिंता है. तो सब बक्सों पर लग गए हैं ताले — जैसे लोगों के बैंक में अपने-अपने प्राइवेटलौक्कर होते हैं यहाँ पर लोगों के अपने-अपने धार्मिक डिब्बे हैं जिनमे उन्होंने अपने-अपने भगवानो को बंद कर दिया है. लेकिन एक बड़ा गेट भी है जहाँ से आप मंदिर में घुसते हैं. अब कुछ विशिष्ठ लोगों के पास उसकी चाभी है और कुछ कम विशिष्ठ लोगों के पास नहीं है. तो अगर आप मंदिर में जा कर पूजा करना चाहते हैं तो पहले पता कीजिये किसके पास चाभी है, अपने साधारण नागरिक होने का परमाण देते हुए चाभी का अग्रेह कीजिये, और अगर चाभी मिल जाये तो जा कर पूजा अचर्ना कीजिये. इस चक्कर में कुछ लोग तूतू-मैंमैं पर भी उतारू हो गए हैं. अब ऐसा तो हैं नहीं की जो लोग करता-धर्ता हैं उनकी आपस में बहुत पटती है — कोई किसी को फूटी आँख नहीं सुहाता. सो हर कोई अब वहां पर अपना ताला लगाना चाहता है, और क्यूँ नहीं? भाई अगर मैंने रोकड़ा लगाया है, अपना कीमती समय और ध्यान दिया है, तो ताला चाभी मेरा क्यूँ ना हो? सब वहां पे अब अपना-अपना ताला लगाने क्या जुगाड़ कर रहे हैं.

एक शिवलिंग जो चारो तरफ से खुला था वो अब चंद लोगों के अहम् के पिंजड़े में बंद हो कर रह गया है. पूजा और भक्ति की बजाये ताला और शक्ति की बाते ज्यादा होती हैं. इसकी भी एक वजह है.

जब आप इंसानी रूप से बौने बन जाते हैं, तो आप को छोटे-छोटे पौधे भी विशाल पेड़ों जैसे दिखने लगते हैं.

Recently a link was posted on Facebook condemning the scheduled sacrificial slaughtering of 20,000 buffaloes by Nepalese Hindus. It is as it is tragic that we slaughter animals for daily consumption and it becomes more grotesque when they’re tortured and killed in the name of god. In some religions, Islam and Christianity for instance, the more the animals suffer, the better it is, because the blood needs to be drawn out drop-by-drop. In Islam since every animal slaughtered is in the name of god, every single animal goes through an agonizing death: gives you goose pimples when you sit quietly and think about the practice that has been going on centuries.

I’m glad in Sikhism no animal sacrifices are encouraged or tolerated and there are no ambiguities.

Then someone posted this nice link that explains what different Vedas say about animal sacrifice. For example,

The Rig Veda, the most ancient book of the Hindus, says �One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or another animal and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head (Rig Veda, X. 87. 16).�

Contemporary Hindu ritual is based on the Manusmruti and it is interesting to see that Manu lashed out against all forms of sacrifice and meat-eating. The Manu Samhita (5.48-52) recommends that since �meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss, let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.�

The French president Nicolas Sarkozy has done a right thing by issuing a statement against women wearing the “burq” in France. He has rightly said that “The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.”

Some misguided people think that it is an attack on the freedom of practicing your religion, and some even go to the extent of comparing the Muslim women wearing the burqa to the Christian nuns wearing their dress. First of all there is no question of comparison; you don’t see teenage nuns running around in the school corridors wearing their religious dresses. Every Muslim girl and woman is expected to wear the burqa. Second, even if the Christianity demands its women to wear something over their heads, societies are changing fast and they are not trapped in a time warp.

And whether Muslim women agree or not, burqa is a sign of subservience; it’s just that they have become so used to its presence in their lives that they think it’s a normal thing and hence, totally acceptable. What they often call, the Stockholm syndrome (it’s about the kidnapped and the kidnapper, but it’s the same thing).

I also see a tinge of hypocrisy here. When someone points out that there are so many violent things prescribed in Islam, they say the time was like that back then and they must be seen contextually and they are no more applicable to Islam during modern times. Good, no problem with that. But then why don’t they see things like the burqa contextually? It’s no longer needed now. May be it was needed back then when it was implemented, but haven’t the times changed now?

A long time back Sati was abolished in India and then too orthodox Hindus had protested, but we all know what a horrible thing it is. Will we allow it if some communities start practicing it again in the name of religious freedom, even if some women do it willingly?

Some Muslim organizations in India are urging the Indian prime minister to raise the issue with the French president. My suggestion to the Indian prime minister would be to introduce such changes in India too.

OK, it�s good to have your own blog. I had posted a comment on Shivam Vij�s FaceBook stream in response to this text:

Those who object to Haj subsidies don’t ask how much money the state spends in organizing and facilitating various Hindu pilgrimages

Personally I have no issue with the Haj subsidies but since he had raised the issue I responded by saying that the only objection could be that the Muslims hardly pay tax; most of the time they are just taking. There are very few Muslims (I know, I know there are exceptions like Bollywood stars, cricketers and people like Azim Premji) who earn enough to pay taxes, so that�s why many people object to using the exchequer�s money to appease a minority. On the other hand there is a significant number of Hindus and other communities from where most of the revenue is generated. I wonder how much subsidies the other communities get. There is a special Haj terminal whenever we go to the Indira Gandhi airport and I�ve heard (I don�t know if it is accurate) there are special ports for them, in case they want to travel by sea.

Aside from raising the tax issues I had also noted that Muslims, when they are in a majority, have totalitarian religious views, and they demand the highest standards of secularism and inclusivity when they are in a minority. I know this was totally uncalled for, but sadly, unfortunately, this is a reality. Tell me one Muslim country where other religions have thrived, and are allowed to build their places of worship.

He quietly deleted my comment. So much for taking stands.

Mai, I�m certainly not referring to you.

It would, therefore, be in order to recall the chain of events lest we be persuaded to believe that nothing of consequence happened by a Prime Minister who spends sleepless nights worrying about a terror suspect held in distant Australia but blithely disowns responsibility for the shocking attempt to whitewash the crimes of his party and its �leaders� committed against thousands at home.

…

So, here is the story, briefly told, of how more than 4,000 Sikh men, women and children were slaughtered; in Delhi alone, 2,733 Sikhs were burned alive, butchered or beaten to death. Women were raped while their terrified families pleaded for mercy, little or none of which was shown by the Congress goons. In one of the numerous such incidents, a woman was gang-raped in front of her 17-year-old son; before leaving, the marauders torched the boy.

For three days and four nights the killing and pillaging continued without the police, the civil administration and the Union Government, which was then in direct charge of Delhi, lifting a finger in admonishment. The Congress was in power and could have prevented the violence, but the then Prime Minister, his Home Minister, indeed the entire Council of Ministers, twiddled their thumbs.

Even as stray dogs gorged on charred corpses and wailing women, clutching children too frightened to cry, fled mobs armed with iron rods, staves and gallons of kerosene, AIR and Doordarshan kept on broadcasting blood-curdling slogans like �Khoon ka badla khoon se lenge� (We shall avenge blood with blood) raised by Congress workers grieving over their dear departed leader.

Read the entire article by Kanchan Gupta, republished by Sandeep, and please forward it using Twitter, FaceBook and other means.

You my like to read this informative blog post too.

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots were orchestrated by the Congress, yes, the same secular Congress that may come to power again if you don�t chose to vote carefully.

The name of Krishna 10,000 times, the name of Rama 2,400 times, Parabrahma 550 times, and Omkar 400 times

Sourced from Arun Shourie’s “A Secular Agenda”.

Scholars in the most prestigious Islamic institutes and universities continue to teach things like Jews are "pigs and monkeys," that women and men must be stoned to death for adultery, or that Muslims must fight the world to spread their religion.

While many religious texts preach violence, the interpretation, modern usage and implementation of these teachings make all the difference. For example, the stoning of women exists in both the Old Testament and in the Islamic tradition, or "Sunna" — the recorded deeds and manners of the prophet Muhammad. The difference, though, is that leading Jewish scholars agreed to discontinue these practices centuries ago while Muslim scholars have yet to do so. Hence we do not see the stoning of women practiced or promoted in Israel, the "Jewish" state, but we see it practiced and promoted in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the "Islamic" states!

Excerpts taken from the article titled: Islam needs to prove it’s religion of peace.

What do you think?

Cross posted at my content writing blog.

Yesterday, a client was on the verge of giving me a big assignment when he asked, "are you a fan of Salman Rushdie?", and I enthusiastically said, "yes!"

"Then we cannot work together," he replied.

"But shouldn’t ideologies and business be kept apart unless something really sinister is happening?" I asked.

"No, I cannot work with you if you endorse his views and protest against the fatwa against him," he said.

After that we exchanged a few messages and then stopped talking (we were using Skype).  He was interested in knowing how I was building backlinks and somehow discovered my posts where I had lamented the ban on "Satanic Verses", the fatwa and praised Salman Rushdie.

It happens many times that I don’t get a project due to various incompatibilities but it is the first time that it has happened due to something that I had written on my blog. I know there have been many people who lost their jobs or even got subjected to persecution (mainly in Arab/Muslim and communist countries) due to their blogs so I wasn’t really taken aback, but it was quite fascinating actually talking to a person who supports the beheading of a writer simply because that writer holds a different view on a religious book.

I wanted to talk to that client more about religion and religious beliefs but I thought maybe he won’t understand so I refrained myself.  Somewhere he said that religions that don’t protect themselves and don’t eliminate their enemies vanish easily. I wanted to tell him that only scared and unsure religions react in such a manner.  Take for instance Hinduism.  It is not an extremist religion and there is lots of scope for analysis, argumentation and counter argumentation.  Nobody comes for your head if you question fundamental Hindu beliefs.  It is one of the major religions of the world and there are still thousands of people converting to this religion every year.  Okay, this is an ancient religion, so let us talk about Sikhism.  Sikhism is just 300 years old and it is getting stronger every passing day without fanaticism and extremism. Sikhs don’t raise a hue and cry at the drop of a hat.  They never feel targeted, marginalized and victimized and their religion is never endangered, and they are practically all over the world. There is a funny saying that crows and Sikhs are everywhere.  There are some random acts of extremism here and there but then they are present in every religion, even among the Buddhists, perhaps the most peaceful and embracing religion in the world.

Anyway, I also remember telling him that I am not going to be apologetic about what I had written on my blog because I firmly believed in that.  Is it the right way to do?  Should I have downplayed my blog post and tried to convince him that I didn’t mean what I had written on my blog?  I don’t think so.  Just as his belief stopped him from working with me my belief stopped me from  working with him; again, why would I work with a person who supports the call for the beheading of another person simply because he has different views?  Wouldn’t I be then working for a psychopath? Fine, even someone among my past and existing clients could turn out to be a psychopath (clients, please accept my apology, I’m just saying this to put a point across) but there is a saying in Hindi — I’m not sure whether it exists in English or not — that you cannot swallow a fly knowingly.