Karma

I have always wondered about this word used often at many places whenever things become ambiguous or beyond explanation. Karma – As Wikipedia says, is the Indian concept of action and deed, which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect. I have heard many a time that my Karma in this birth will affect my next birth. If I do good, I will be born as a happy man. If I do bad, I might be born as a mosquito which will be killed by the splash of the hand, when it tries to have its’ daily bread or blood. My country thinks a lot around the topic of rebirths and karma. Yes, and that’s why we don’t have any kind of crime in our country (ha ha). Probably to the girl who gets raped in Delhi, the propagators of Karma theory would come and say that her Karma in her previous birth was not upto the mark and that’s why she got raped. Yeah, that does sound like an awesome explanation.

I am sure that most of the folks(apart from the weirdos who come up and say that they know and feel what they were in their previous births) do not even know whether they had a world before they were born. And as far I know, for us, we exist only from the time we have consciousness. And having said that it doesn’t make any sense to think about whether we had a previous birth or will have a re-birth, because it just would be out of our consciousness(even if such a crappy theory of multiple births is true). To the person in Africa, who is hungry and for whom, the meaning of desire is beyond his lexicon, does a theory like Karma make any sense? What should I say about all the horrible things which are happening in this world? That God just wants to have a fun? Or is it that the Karma in the previous birth was all wrong? Whoever proclaims that those who do right will be gifted and who does bad will be screwed – what about Dawood Ibrahim. He does enjoy an awesome life. Why the hell should I care about life after death(if there is any) if I my consciousness cease to exist when I die? I am not saying that one should do bad things. I am just trying to say that our theories to explain the unexplained do not make any sense. The way we have defined God is as per our knowledge about Human beings. God appears to me (the way we have defined) like an Adolf Hitler or a third class politician. The one who would punish us,if we don’t admire the dictator. We spend thousands of rupees for the God. What for? If we praise and worship the God he will come and do good things for us? And if we don’t, he would curse us? Then what’s the difference between him and Adolf Hitler?

So for all those people who enjoy the benefits even after doing the so called bad deeds, we justify by saying that, they would get punished in Hell. Who cares. If they are not punished when their consciousness exists, then who cares? It’s as good as putting a prisoner in Jail, after he is in a Coma. Being in a hospital or a jail is the same to him. Because he even doesn’t realize what’s happening around.

We try to justify each of these things by these theories which add no value to human life. To the hungry African, to the raped girl, such theories don’t add any value. Because some of them have no idea about what hope means or what desire means. Such is their life. It’s all random. The way we have defined God is completely wrong. The right definition, if someone can come up with, will be surely beyond human reason. Randomness is the only truth in life. Smarties escape through. Those who are not smart just rot. In such a world, where is the space for right and wrong? I guess it’s only in the hearts of people, who hope that there is a world that is just. For people like me, only love makes sense and I hope people understand this, and live in such a way for a better world.

Multicultural Diversity

I was reading an article in Yahoo about some issues related to immigration in Germany. The issue which was being discussed to be precise was about the Turkish Muslim immigration into Germany and how many Germans feel that a multi-cultural society cannot exist there. This does sound pretty much similar to many incidents which has occured in India, which by itself is an example of a country which has a huge and diverse multi-cultural society. This is one of the reasons which attracted me to this topic and which made me write this article.

I started with asking myself some questions – whether this issue is just related to religion? Or is it something beyond religion? How much does politics play a part? How much does economics play a part? Are there other reasons which we need to think deep into? Are there other issues which emanate from the basic cause of this issue?

The first aspect which I tried to explore was the link between this issue and religion. Religion has played a big part in separating people. This has been the case in Lebanon where the Maronites and the Muslims fight against each other to gain more ground. This has been the reason which has lead to many violent activities in our own country, where religious harmony was disturbed many a time. This also has been the case, to an extent, with the issue of Palestine. But then there are cases where religion is not involved as well. When I was living in Bangalore, I have heard a lot of times, people frustrated at non-kannadigas cribbing about Bangalore, and non-kannadigas’ reluctance to learn Kannada. Recently, similar incidents have happened in Mumbai as well. Bal Thackeray came out publicly against migrants from Bihar, who were allegedly, as per Thackeray, destroying Mumbai’s culture. But then this allegation was irrespective of religion or caste of the migrant. However, I do agree that, there is a communal flavor attached to whatever comes out of Thackeray’s mouth. A similar example of this would be anger towards rising Hispanic population in the US., and also the Tamil civil war in Srilanka.

So even though religion does come somewhere in some of these stories, the fact that this issue has much more depth than what we have thought and that at times, the tussle is between two parties who are distinguished by factors which do not include religion, makes me ponder. Then may be it’s due to the fact that politicians play a role in stirring up the masses by cooking up reasons. However, that reason alone does not seem convincing to me. It should be something beyond that. It should be something which is embedded inside human nature. What is it?

This led me to an article which I read about the history of Middle East. The article mentioned about why the ME countries have a brutal method of punishment. ME countries never had a concept of country. They had tribal affiliations as to a country affiliation. Since a good portion of ME is a desert, resources used to be scanty. Due to this, tribes used to very shrewd to make sure that their resources are not exploited by other tribes. This led to tussles, and even wars. Again in this tussle, the issue always used to be with multiple parties trying to occupy a certain geographical area. So the point is – it’s necessarily not religion. It’s more than that.

The above para does bring in a different angle to this whole discussion. I believe that this issue is about resources. And hence human beings form groups to have exclusive rights over certain resources. A manifestation of this is religion and caste. Obviously there are certain basic beliefs which tie them together. But then the ultimate purpose of this would be to distinguish one to get rights and exclusivity to certain resources. It’s all about economics. It’s funny that this has a lot of similarity with object oriented programming. You are a part of a certain group and you inherit certain properties and thereby you inherit some rights.

When Germans feel that their resources are being eaten away by outsiders, this issue arises. Same is the case with Mumbai. When Mumbaikers see that their resources are being eaten away by foreigners they resent. But then the whole concept of maximum city is that it belongs to all people and not just one. But here is where Bal Thackeray tries to gain mileage by exploiting the well hidden emotions by raising the issue of opportunity loss. He says that the opportunities which should have otherwise gone to Maharashtrians are going to others because they are trying to eat the part of the same pie. But it’s another fact that this is just an issue of supply demand equations. But then the fact that he tries to point out is that, irrespective of the fact that Mumbai is a maximum city and it has grown because of the business opportunities provided by immigrants, the system should have made sure that each one gets to protect his portion of the pie. Or in simple words, the land should exist as silos and each one should never lose an opportunity. This concept is not practical as business exists in this globalized world only because of exchange of ideas, cultures, concepts and needs.

Coming back to the topic, we just understood that the issue roots back to the basic problem – resources. Why do people want to be affiliated to a certain caste? Why do people want to be affiliated to certain parties? Again, why can’t they exist without any kind of affiliations? Is it just because their ideologies unite them or is it beyond that? Is it the same case with a group of friends?

May be in case of a group of friends, it’s only the ideologies which unite them. But there are cases where people join a peer group for getting specific access to resources. It need not be ideology in some cases. But when it comes to religion, caste, parties, the history has many indications that it has always been related to resources. A group of strong people called themselves Kshatriyas and tried to make sure that they always remained in power. They did fool other segments by propagating thoughts which made sure that submissive mentalities got embedded in other segments – for eg Shudras. The groups called Brahmins ensured that this societal set up is well cemented. But ultimately when you analyze the end result, it was always exclusive rights to resources that were the corner stones of this societal set up. It was never about what God said. It was always about preserving the privileges over years to come. And after all who doesn’t like to be born with privileges?

This is the case with Mumbai as well or for that matter Bangalore. Shiv Sena says Maharashtrians should get privilege and reservations in corporate. Some kind of similar uprising has been spotted in Bangalore as well. When Mumba Devi says that she has enough resources to feed whoever comes in, the question which arises in Bal Thackarey’s mind is – “After all its our resources that these fellas are eating into. Should I allow them to?” That’s the same question which is occurring in some of the political circles in Bangalore as well. And this sense of rejection or aversion towards others eating into our own resources is manifesting itself as a slogan – “Be like us, because we cannot accept the way you are”. And this again raises a subsequent question – “What if they become like us? Should we accept them then?”- Its well answered. Because the earlier said slogan is inflammable enough to burn a dozen houses and hence the subsequent question is never going to be answered. It’s difficult to change affiliations for human beings. The Turkish Muslims won’t change their identity and adopt Christian values as per Germany’s demand. It’s not whether its right or wrong – it’s about what all should I lose to gain something? What if I am left with no identity? May be these are just my thoughts, but I guess we need to think further on this question of multi cultural diversity.

What counts

Recently I was just browsing through the website ted.com and came upon a video which was kind of interesting. A video which spoke about why we cannot measure progress of a country by GDP and the need for other parameters to measure. The speaker in the video mentions about a certain index he calls as GNH or Gross National Happiness. Have a look at this.

The movement called maoism

TV channels are flooded with news related to Maoism and Maoists. Government considers them as the single biggest security threat. Some popular personalities like Arundhati Roy are of the view that it’s the Government who vandalize the constitution and Maoists just are trying to bring back the constitution. And above all these, the incidents like Dantewada, the abduction of policemen, the sabotage of Gyaneshwari express throw up just confusion and chaos and raise a very pertinent question. What’s the truth? Who is to be sympathized with? Whom should we as plain readers believe? Whose side should we be part of? – The Govt., Intellectuals, Maoists, Media or those who are destined to cry due to damages inflicted upon them because of the tussle between all these parties.

The media obviously is taking a safe stand. It is not pointing out fingers directly. But at the same time it is making sure that people’s fingers are raised and pointed to, automatically at the Maoists. Maoist sympathizers claim that it’s the Govt who is single handedly responsible for destroying the sole purpose of constitution. But then we all know that we do not live in a land which is under dictatorship. The Govt is not a single person. Its branches are spread much more than one can imagine, and may be much more complex than one can understand. But then if this is the fact, the question which raises in my mind is that, the needs of the multiple branches can be so different. Obviously at the end of the day, the object of power is power. But then the strategic objective of each stakeholder within Govt. can change as far the topic of Maoism is concerned. Then the question which pops up is that, what if the strategic objectives within the system are in conflict? The whole system would break down leading to Maoists easily bringing down the state leading to a situation which they describe as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
But the state has been powerful enough to prevent this so far which takes us to the conclusion that there is a strong undercurrent within the administrative system which makes sure that the strategic objectives of the multiple stakeholders are aligned as far as the topic of Maoism is concerned.

Now we need to analyze the situation from each party’s point of view. First let us take the media’s point of view. They have been clever enough to make sure that they project Maoists as the culprits in the game. But they have done it mostly in a subtle way as to make sure that the readers feel that Maoists are always at fault. I don’t recollect any attempt from the side of media to blemish the Govt. for this trouble. Why is it that they have picturized the Maoists in bad light? Is it because they are afraid of Govt.? Had this been the case, the media would have supported Govt. for each activity that the Govt. has performed in the past. However, this has not been the case. The media clearly understands that to justify Maoism with whatever reasons it can substantiate, would never be digested by the common man. Whatever reasons it puts forth, the idea of Maoism will never be appreciated by a man who sits down in the south of the country, which is relatively peaceful, sipping a hot cup of tea while reading the daily newspaper. The common man would not be able to digest even the ideology of Maoism, forget their actions. But then the reader would obviously digest if Maoists are projected in bad light and every action of theirs is melodramatically explained and criticized. Obviously by doing this media would be doing good business by selling the news what the common man wants to hear and can digest. Now if you take some other case where the Govt does look the culprit very clearly, the media brilliantly takes its stand against the Govt. Because that’s what their target audience wants to hear. We are talking about pure business here. I am not supporting Maoists here. Wait. My idea is different. I will explain it at the end of this essay.

Now let us take the point of view of Maoists. Their urge to bring down the state came from the fact that Govt. has done nothing to millions of people in this country. When one side of the country is booming, the other is clearly suffering. Our country is a cosm and not a microcosm. When we always argued that Capitalism gains from exploiting the poor, we forgot to think for one second that that has been the case with progress in every part of the world. The famous proverb in Malayalam which says –“One plant gets rotten and serves as the fertilizer to the other plant”. This is true. Because if USA is rich, it’s clearly because of the fact that many other countries have been exploited. I do agree that the country was smart in doing that. But it’s clearly to be understood that in its path of progress, a lot many countries have bit the dust. Why is Africa so poor for years and years? When it has diamond mines, why is the continent still in the dark? Is it because they have not tried to progress? No. That has not been the case. They have been duly exploited by the rich. And that is clearly how progress happens. The same thing is happening in our country. When we boast about our 9% GDP growth rate, we are forgetting the fact the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer. However there is a percentage which is getting above the poverty line. That has to be accepted. But the fact is that the growth is not a balanced one. The so called powerful people are always exploiting the system in such a way that the system delivers progress to those people who are well bred and it exploits the poor who have always been left behind. This has been the reason behind the ideology of Maoism. But then there can be huge difference between the ideology and the way it is executed. The people who formed the movement clearly have enjoyed the power it brings. And once the power has been enjoyed, the next objective would be to make sure that power always remains in their hands. This can only be achieved by constant agitation and chaos and expanding the empire. So they keep recruiting people and brain washing their followers to make sure that the empire remains strong and they remain powerful. Obviously this cannot be appreciated.

Now the most interesting part is the Govt.’s point of view. It would be true to say that the Govt. doesn’t really have major worries as far as the Maoist movements are considered. This statement needs more explanation as the meaning is really very deep. The administration of this country is one of the most challenging endeavors one can ever get to do. Just because of the sheer diversity of this nation, the points of view have been so diverse. But then this indirectly does help the Govt. This makes sure that the country doesn’t unite against the state to over throw the state. With such a diverse nation, unity is never possible. So as far as the Maoists movements are considered, it always helps to divert the attention of those who might revolt against the state. Those who run this nation have so many other important things on their plate. They are fine with this war, and while all the time they openly proclaim that they are against the Maoists and want to end the war, inside they are fine with the chaos it has been creating. It is a complex logic to buy all at once because to make sure that one remains powerful needs complex methods. This is one of the reasons why the Maoist leader Azad who was ready for peace talks was killed. If they wanted peace, they would have let him live. They know that there are issues in North East. They know that Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Mizoram are in turmoil. They know that these states have issues which make them fight against each other. But the state won’t do anything to solve this. Just because to remain powerful, they need to make sure people do not unite and overpower the state. This is the same logic which the British used. Now our own Govt. is using it against us. But none of us will even know about all this, as we are not informed about all these things. We hear and know the perception of the media. But what’s truth? We need to go beyond all this to know that. Why isn’t media telling us all this? It’s because we cannot digest the fact that each entity has both positive and negative shades. The story looks interesting to us only if there is a hero and a villain. No one buys the story which has plenty of characters who are fusions of villains and heroes. But at the end of the day, the one thing which we need to understand is that, whoever does anything, does just for remaining powerful. And whoever wins, those who are caught in between this tussle end up losing.

“The object of power is power” – 1984, George Orwell.

In the times of human 'g'ods

I am no kafir. I believe in God. Many non believers can question me or even mock at me. I do not have any particular reason to give them. This belief has instilled confidence in me. It is also partly due to the fact that after 25 years of existence I have understood that there are zillions of things which are beyond my understanding, and all such things I have summed it up and attributed it to some factor which lead to such a state of being. But then these times are really interesting. I am kept in awe at the multitudes who behave almost all the time irrationally or perhaps whatever is “irrational” to my senses.

But then I have to be specific about what I am talking about. So let me explain. I am living in a place where the belief in human gods is increasing by the passing hour. Whether it is the Shankaracharya of the Adi Shankara lineage or the modern saints like Sai Baba, Amritanandamayee or the well positioned Sri Sri Ravisankar, people have started believing them like never before. It seems to me that they believe them more than the real Gods. The funnier fact is that we are living in a country which is the birthplace of the oldest religion which has 33 crore gods, as claimed by the Vedas. And still human beings here are in search of new gods.

I also hear that some crazy folks have built a temple for actress ‘Namitha’ in Tamil Nadu. Let me discount this incident as a case of excess cash reserves and orgasmic exuberance added to a general case of irrationality and lack of intelligence. But the one thing which is not comprehensible is the fact that the multitudes who go behind the human gods include people who have got great exposure to the world. Many of them are really educated and have got an opportunity to have a good look at the various aspects of life in a logical manner. Still they are not able to evade the enchanting web of irrationality. This brings me to one interesting aspect of human beings. Human beings do acknowledge the unpredictability and ignorance about the outer world. They like to believe that there is always someone who will help them tackle this wilderness when they call for help. And they believe that more the no. of Gods, lesser their problems would be. One cannot argue based on reason here. This is how normal human beings think. Everyone is draped in a blanket of insecurity. And it is this insecurity which makes one move towards such human Gods.

But the fact which makes me worry is not this. All these human Gods are very well aware of this fact. Still they endorse this belief. If they were true saints, I hope they should have acted in a manner as to make the believers believe in God rather than the saints. None of us would dispute the fact these saints initially pitched themselves as media or a messengers of God. But when the devotee starts believing the medium rather than the source, then things start to look ugly. I do appreciate each of their ability to attract human minds. It is obviously nothing less than amazing, but at the same time I despise them all for misleading the already mislead mankind. Let me conclude by saying that, it is indeed interesting times that we are living in. Whoever has made this maze is having real fun up there watching all these mice getting lost in the maze. Hats off God!!

The past which has been changed

"The one who controls the present, controls the past, and the one who controls the past, controls the future" - 1984, George Orwell.

This statement has captured my attention of late, because a lot of events in history are closely associated with the above statement. It’s just not about history alone. A lot of concepts which has deeply embedded in the innermost minds of most Indians are in one way or the other connected to this statement.

While I was reading the book "The Argumentative Indian" by Amartya Sen, a couple of days ago, there was a strong correlation between an essay and this sentence quoted from the book 1984 written by George Orwell. The essay was about the BJP reign during 1998 and the efforts by BJP to alter the material written in history books to make sure that the agenda of Hindutva and the history had a correlation. And for those who are reading history, what they read is the past for them. So if a certain information source conveys a certain version of history and in the case that no other source of information is available, the information conveyed appears to be the truth.

This is the same about a lot of stories which keep circulating in India about our history and culture and beliefs. Very few of us do even question the authenticity of the stories which are told to us. May be we were not aware about the fact that the past is something which can be doctored or twisted at will. What is most relevant in this discussion is the fact that whatever the reason may be, we believe in something which is absolutely not the truth.

We do not have evidence of existence of any of the characters in Ramayana or Mahabharata. Yet people believe and fight on those topics. We do not have evidence of Prophet Mohammad or Jesus. But we have strong movements based on these ideas. And object of these movements are just power and nothing else. That’s the thing which we fail to realize. Kings wanted to stay in power - hence they brought forward caste system. Church wanted to stay in power and make sure people never questioned its power. Hence they tortured people like Copernicus for bringing out scientific truths which can weaken the power of Church. When someone proves what Church had been saying is wrong - Then this will destroy the whole confidence people had on Church and hence the power would be weakened. This has been the case with every propagator of religion. Religion and God has only been used for making sure that the powerful remained powerful.

Whenever we hear about some historical figure related to religion we tend to believe that they were good human beings who always told the truth. We never understand the fact that they too were human beings having similar desires like us - greed, lust etc.