Charity

I am utterly confused!

Here in Cape Town, it is a routine sight to see people scavenging for food in the garbage bins. In India if hungry, the deprived head for the shrines and there they get food. Indian people often offer food to the mendicants as a result of fulfillment of their wishes. So, there is abundance of devotees serving food. There it is uncommon to see people rummaging through garbage for food. On the contrary, here it is easy to spot people who sponsor orphans and take them along with their families on outing. This gesture is rare in India.

I am confused because I am not able to decide which is nobler? To feed people and save them from succumbing into the hands of hunger or to sponsor their existence and give them an opportunity to live a decent life and cherish your happiness along with them.

Image courtesy Google search engine

Leave the prison

As I walked toward my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.

Dr Nelson Mandela expressed the subtle meaning of being in the prison and of freedom. He struggled against the inhuman atrocities done to the indigenous people of South Africa. The natives were subjected to a little less than animal treatment. If compared to the Indian subcontinent, the situations in Africa were diverse. The Indian laity was ruled since times immemorial, they had an economy and were conscious people who had rich history, science and literature. But, Africans were innocent, naive, forest people who lived harmoniously with their natural habitat.

The Africans were deemed to be uncouth by the invaders, and were unaware of their invaluable resources. Europeans felt it as their moral responsibility to give them a glimpse of their civilization and bring them into the fold of it. However, people paid much to get civilized. Looking at the procedures any compassionate human being will choose to remain uncouth rather than getting civilized. The premeditated cold-blooded assaults endured by the aboriginals in the name of civilization are heart-wrenching.

In those turbulent times, such thoughts expressed by Mr Mandela need salutation. It requires a lot of courage and more than that the magnanimity to rise above one’s sufferings and ignore the vengeance. The world is suffering from the retribution against the injustice done in the past. The words of Mr Mandela enlightens both the oppressor and the repressed to reprise their role and come out of the prison of ignorance. If the bitterness and hatred are not purged, they will now swallow the human species. We should amicably bring all the incongruencies to an end otherwise the vengeance has only one sealed fate.

We have no control over the past, but certainly we can save our future. Firstly, we will have to detach ourselves from the anger against the injustice done in the past and then to assure prevention of their recurrences.

How do you form an opinion?

These are strange times; the advent of global communication has revolutionized our lives. Perhaps the pace of technology is too fast for us to cope up with. With better communications, I know what is happening around the world except my own neighbourhood  Sometimes, I feel there is so much news around me that I don’t get time to interpret it. I watch hundreds of contradicting processed versions that fail to give the precise and accurate details. Media, the third pillar of democracy has grown up into a spoiled brat. In spite of presenting unbiased news, it edits, adds a motive and bereaves people of the innate sentiments.

The media sponsored and processed opinions have created a war-like situation in the country. Its dubious usage has crafted factions. People unknowingly associate with these cohorts. The personal differences between the celebrities are touted as ‘the Khan-war.’ The news channels exhibit them on the prime-time slot and discuss the issue with sincerity alongwith its panel of experts. The desired outcome is to brand people as their fans and then compete who has a better fan following? Similar branding can be seen in nearly every sphere. The other most innovative and authentic method is to go amongst the people and ask them their opinion impromptu. This reaction is then dubbed as public opinion. Scientifically, in a country of 1.2 billion, can anyone speculate opinion of how many individuals would be deemed as the general opinion of the masses.

Besides the marginal issues; this practice has sneaked into the mainstream politics. Where people are influenced by the news and desperately express their allegiance to the respective parties. They construct their opinions on the half-baked news. Sadly, moving away from contemplation, they are reducing themselves to placards that say yes or no but have no original individual opinion. The media presents us with so many options that we only have to choose than think. Gradually, people are becoming aggressive in their mannerism and abusive in their language. The social media is trashed with such offensive messages, posts and emails. People are loosing their sensitivity; in spite of introspection, they aggressively defend the side they bear allegiance to and search scapegoats to vent their anger. They are following and defending people blindfolded.

People are being turned into the consumer that consume everything without assessing its suitability. We need to understand every email, post or message need not to be forwarded only to verify your activity. One needs to study a lot and understand more than that to frame an opinion. Don’t develop opinion grounded on a crap piece of news. Please learn to judge and extricate appreciation from allegiance. We can responsibly be unbiased.

Image courtsey Google search engine

Legalise the necessary evil

It might sound absurd but I want certain customs to get legalized despite them being immoral and unlawful. I want their legalization not because I espouse them or they benefit a certain section of society but for they will make life a lot easier in India. I want legalization of dowry; yes I want proper laws that should define how much dowry should be given? The government should set up a committee that would evaluate the groom’s value with respect to his qualifications, job, social status and bride’s competency.

I am fed-up of the pseudo-morality of our society. With advent of education and women as career-person it was anticipated that the custom would have a natural death. But so is not the case? The law treats dowry as a crime but we cannot defy that we have heard or participated in the elaborate discussions on the modes and dates of the payments to be given or taken. Each one of us is aware of its existence and practice, then why do we shirk away from its responsibility. The cases registered under section 498A are rarely in the event of demand of dowry, but more in instances of an increasing demand than the stipulated sum. Therefore, in such cases the dowry is previously practiced it is the inability of the two parties to reach a mutual conclusion.

Government can facilitate by plugging the involved negotiations, it can assess and predetermine the dowry. It will be a great help for the bride’s parents, where there only concern will be to accumulate the sufficient amount to get their daughter married. They would need not to shift their budgets as per the groom’s family’s mood swings. I only want the existing business to get more proficient, legalised  and professional. Another important point is, the dowry should be made mandatory, as our society loves to flaunt its generosity than practicing it. People often try to prove their innocence by portraying that the dowry is a willing gift and it is immaterial to them. A correct assessment by the government will honour the deep-rooted tradition. As all the government’s efforts to eradicate it have proved otiose, so legalise it.

By saying so I don’t want to debase the people struggling for the abolition of this practice. People believing dowry against their principles will device ways to neutralize it. However, it is disheartening to see that young, educated men still dodge the questions on dowry. They either give their mute support reflecting it as their parents will or their resistance is smothered to prove their obedience to their parents. Such unscrupulous traditions are endorsed by the affluent for their joy, but their extravagant affair dazzles commoners who imitate the same. Importantly arranged marriages are more prone to dowry than their counterparts. This denotes that our senior generation is the prime benefactor of this tradition.

I find myself at loss for words when I see the respected, educated, experienced and suaver (suaver because the young are considered belligerent who have less respect for the traditions) people propounding such shameful practices. It reduces my respect for them. It is very embarrassing when strangers express amazement on the arranged Hindu marriage and then impinge on the exploiting dowry system. All my explanations of the Vedic mantras and vows of seven births are belittled when I cannot explain the rationality of dowry. Besides, in spite of being educated and respected it sabotages my self-respect because I am a woman.

I feel sympathy for the parents who owing to their limited resources prefer to bargain their daughter’s education for her dowry. This practice forces people to get embroiled in corrupt practices. Can anybody teach how a girl should face her parents who in spite of giving her same upbringing as their son paid the price of her being their daughter, not a son? By legalizing the tradition it will marginally ease the trauma of getting their daughters married.

Image courtesy Google search engine

I got angry on you, but I love you

I am sure each one of us has heard, articulated or experienced the cult discourse, ‘I got angry with you, but I love you. Hum usse hi naraaz hote hain jisse pyaar karte hain. Anger is also an expression of love.’ Seriously, does that hold true? I have never been able to equate the two. The quote is viable only if I choose to mask the ugly memories of people getting mad at me with the good times that I had with them. Remember, this does not happen automatically, but I deliberately have to make an effort to ease my pain. I try to convince myself that if I share the happiness then I will be sharing the negativities.

Inconsequential of all the reasons, I feel elated when I sense people's admiration, their love and equally get hurt by their rudeness. These are two dissimilar feelings that influence me differently. My soul experiences both these diverse emotions. They are like crest and troughs of a wave and the aforementioned statement is as if I am taking an average of the two after a statistical analysis. It's like ‘I sometimes can get angry at you because I love you all the time.’ Emotions should not be subjected to these compensational analyses. 

Why at all give rationality to anger by supporting it on the scaffolding of love? Anger and rudeness are independent feelings with their own sources and reasons, how and why to equate them with love? Accept their existence, understand them than to gratify their existence with love and thus trap the very reason of their persistence. Either we should learn to honor our anger or just admit our infirmity to the emotion. When I admire someone it may or may not have a reason, but when I am mad it definitely has a reason. I do not get angry because I love that person but because I have a reason.

Seldom, immaterial how much you adore people they move away from your life because they could not tolerate your anger. So, you cannot take the advantage that you have a right to get angry but you love the person immensely. It’s definitely not about the person expressing love or anger but about the person enduring it. Do not corrupt the enduring person’s liberty by expressing your profound love.

Misinterpreted mythology

Just wrapped up reading a book on Hindu myths and mythology. The book dealt with the Hindu mythosphere regarding the cosmos, its creation, the God and the gods, the myths, rituals and their relationships with human and its transient interpretations. The baffling fact is that the caste hierarchy is also explained in many of the religious scriptures. I believe that God is untouched by the caste system as he being the creator could not place humans in a hierarchy that graded them to be superior or inferior. He would have never prevented any of his children to enter in his temple. But, then he never asked for a temple so it is not his prerogative to banish people. Rather, it was the choice of the person who enshrined him.

Image courtsey Google search

The mythology says that of the four popular castes the brahmins originated from the Brahma’s head, the kshatriya from his arms, the vaishya from his abdomen and the shudras from his feet. Therefore, if the society is personified then brahmins are its head, Kshatriya its arms, vaishya its abdomen and shudras its feet. The analogy was not limited to the mere explanation; rather it was dragged into the societal structure. On the basis of their position, the Brahmins gained superiority and the shudras were reduced to menial tasks. If education and dignity are human rights then they were deprived of both. The aforementioned allegory was exploited to prove the rationality of the injustice.

If the purpose of this distinction was to gain a mileage over others and to quench the thirst to dominate, then it is valid. Valid because it is an innate desire that gives pleasure immaterial of the cost inflicted on the laity. Humans lust for the domination. But, it was practiced because it was deemed as the divine law. Even if it was a divine law could people not deduce the simplicity of it? The caste hierarchy never manifested the position of people rather it explained the existence of all four caste within one body. Each one of us has a head created from the Brahma’s head and similarly the entire body. So, our bodies represent all the four castes and it's futile to say that we love our head more than our feet.

The interpretation is very crucial; the lack of which leads to chaos, exploitation, subjugation and rifts between the masses. Indian masses still suffer from this plague where the caste system has ingrained in people’s psyche. It is high time we need to re-interpret the mythology and dissolve the differences expounded by the misinterpretation and the ill will.

Please stop boasting and submitting to them.

Misinterpreted mythology

Just wrapped up reading a book on Hindu myths and mythology. The book dealt with the Hindu mythosphere regarding the cosmos, its creation, the God and the gods, the myths, rituals and their relationships with human and its transient interpretations. The baffling fact is that the caste hierarchy is also explained in many of the religious scriptures. I believe that God is untouched by the caste system as he being the creator could not place humans in a hierarchy that graded them to be superior or inferior. He would have never prevented any of his children to enter in his temple. But, then he never asked for a temple so it is not his prerogative to banish people. Rather, it was the choice of the person who enshrined him.

Image courtsey Google search

The mythology says that of the four popular castes the brahmins originated from the Brahma’s head, the kshatriya from his arms, the vaishya from his abdomen and the shudras from his feet. Therefore, if the society is personified then brahmins are its head, Kshatriya its arms, vaishya its abdomen and shudras its feet. The analogy was not limited to the mere explanation; rather it was dragged into the societal structure. On the basis of their position, the Brahmins gained superiority and the shudras were reduced to menial tasks. If education and dignity are human rights then they were deprived of both. The aforementioned allegory was exploited to prove the rationality of the injustice.

If the purpose of this distinction was to gain a mileage over others and to quench the thirst to dominate, then it is valid. Valid because it is an innate desire that gives pleasure immaterial of the cost inflicted on the laity. Humans lust for the domination. But, it was practiced because it was deemed as the divine law. Even if it was a divine law could people not deduce the simplicity of it? The caste hierarchy never manifested the position of people rather it explained the existence of all four caste within one body. Each one of us has a head created from the Brahma’s head and similarly the entire body. So, our bodies represent all the four castes and it's futile to say that we love our head more than our feet.

The interpretation is very crucial; the lack of which leads to chaos, exploitation, subjugation and rifts between the masses. Indian masses still suffer from this plague where the caste system has ingrained in people’s psyche. It is high time we need to re-interpret the mythology and dissolve the differences expounded by the misinterpretation and the ill will.

Please stop boasting and submitting to them.

Righteousness needs messiah; is it enforced?

The Vedic age was an age of rituals and sacrifices. Rishis performed yajnas to appease gods to do their bidding. Both human and animals were sacrificed. The advent of Jainism and Buddhism caused the society to renounce non-vegetarianism; the coconut and pumpkin replaced sacrificial being. The righteous path was proposed, society shifted its believe from rituals to speculation. In the west, the rise of Jesus Christ led to the birth of Christianity, a change of faith from the pre-existing one. In time, several saviours appeared on the world’s horizon and taught the virtuous way of life.

It is amazing that in last 3000 years all the messiahs taught the righteous way of life but no Apollyon incarnated who taught the treachery, debauchery and sin. Humans learn and practise these without supervision thus getting derailed from the path of righteousness. Then descends a saviour who again inspires human to arise to the path shown by god. Does this mean that humans have an inborn affinity for immorality? If not so, then why humans are so lured towards unrighteousness with no motivation and messiah incarnates to restore the morality? If the motivation roots for comfort, happiness and wealth; why is it a sin to gain it? If happiness is the ultimate aim, it could be achieved in both the ways. 

The messiahs who walked on earth struggled; Jesus is crucified by his peers. Rama, prince of Ayodhya lives in exile, fights a demon king and is deprived of his consort and sons to install dharma. Yogeshwar Krishna falls prey to numerous demonic attacks since infancy. At the dusk of his life, he himself annihilates his clan. Siddhartha Gautam and Vardhamaan Mahavir renounce their royal life, wander, and practise austerities to preach the righteousness. These great men are the epitome of virtue because their endeavours to establish dharma are deemed as super-human. They are separated from humans, escalated to the level of God and let the persistence of sullied human soul.

What made humans categorise deeds into good and bad, then bond their allegiance to God and devil? Why was a categorisation required? Emotions like greed, lust, and betrayal germinated in mind are as naive as benevolence, love, and commitment. They both satiate the human desire. If goodness is the embodiment of pain, there lies no reward for laity to follow it. We must contemplate that the higher standards of virtue designed a cleft for corruption. Humans hide behind the veil of being human, continue to live unprincipled, as they are no God. 

Dependence brought freedom

It is bizarre, but true ‘independence’ and ‘freedom’ is synonyms. I always celebrated ‘independence day’ because we attained ‘freedom’. But do they have same meaning? Freedom bequeaths the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. Whereas independence is the fact or state of being independent having self-government, self-rule or home rule. Freedom is ingrained in human soul and it endows one to progress as an individual. Whereas the literal meaning of independence is not to be dependent, which is an illusion in real.

It is perplexing as how the two came to be interpreted as the same whereas they are not. I always had the freedom in my life but was never independent. There are so many people contributing to my life that I can’t afford to be independent and I know none other way but to be dependent. I could never envisage myself as a young, educated and independent women. I have the access to the freedom of contemplating, articulating and functioning, but I am dependent.

Freedom liberates the soul; it is a requisite for enlightenment. The absence of freedom ushers enlightenment that aids to bereave bondage. It is metaphysical and every incarnate soul aspires. However, so is not with the independence. It is corporeal and the evolution of human history holds dependency in its foundation. The primordial human must have chosen dependence over independence to ensure their survival. He gave up independence to achieve freedom. His independence along with freedom must be costing dearly so he chose dependence with freedom.

This holds true till today, we exercise our freedom because a score of people furnishes us with our basic requisites. We do the same for others; as long as we exist as a society we will be dependent. I am a young, educated and dependent woman. By acknowledging this, I become indebted to all the unknown people whose services make me realize my day and allow me to access my freedom.

Image courtesy google search

Tit for Tat

Amongst the stories of my primary classes, one was that of a tailor and an elephant. In the story, the tailor pricks the elephant with a needle and in retribution the elephant drenched tailor with the muddy water. The story was titled ‘tit for tat’ that means the infliction of an injury or insult in return for the one that one has suffered. The story aimed at teaching not harming the others and if done then be prepared for the consequences. In the story, the protagonists were a man and an animal but the lesson was equally applicable to both the relationships amongst men and with the animals.

However, going into the deeper meaning does the story justify the infliction of injury by the sufferer on the perpetrator as a reprisal? As per the saying, the elephant retorts because it suffers in the hands of the tailor. Therefore, one should behave in the first place to avoid such retaliation. The story does not say much about the elephant’s character. But contrary to the story I have met people who in spite being tricked or fooled or used continue to extend their support to the ‘tailors’ of their lives.

These people emancipate tremendous positivity; they are not oblivious to the fact that people befriend them to fulfill their mean motives. Yet, they are extremely happy with their lives and want everyone to enjoy the goodness. The simple joy of being happy prevents them to consider the maliciousness of the people. They are not fools, but gifted who learned that the real happiness lies in oneself. The very inspiring aspect of them is that the paltriest of acts never incite them to retaliate. Whereas, most of us always project others as the benefactor of our nastiness.

The benevolence of these people always inspires me to enjoy life than maintaining a good book and bad book of people. Surely, when one is content, and away from the insecurities they impart happiness that illuminates everyone’s life. The ‘tit for tat’ might be correct to practice but results in negativity when people do justice by seeking revenge.