Should Ram Mandir be built in Ayodhya

Ever since Independence or may be even before that, there has been this section of the Indian society cribbing to construct Ram Mandir in Ayodhya - the (alleged) birth place of Ram and consequently there is another section which is against the idea and wants to reconstruct the mosque built by Babur. 

Firstly, I fail to understand all the rucuss about a foreign invader coming in, destroying our monument and building something of its own. I mean, come on, most the followers and believers of Ram are Aryans. We entered India, destroyed the Indus valley civilisation, forced the Dravidians to move south, buried their history and never ever mentioned about it. The world would not even know about such a vast and developed civilisation if the British had not excavated it in the 1920s. So lets not complain about others invading and destroying a few things here and there. 

Secondly, as per what I have observed and read and heard over the years, there aren't many factual evidence about the existence of a human Ram. We certainly have not read it in the History books. So it is still not sure if it is true or fiction. 

Then who is Ram,  where have we read about it ? Surely in literature, heard it through people generation after generation, saw him in movies, read about him in stories, listened to the examples about his greatness. Basically Ram is more of an ideology than a person. It is a belief, it is a character which is above all, someone who leads by an example. A king  who would sacrifice his family for the betterment of his subjects, a son who would sacrifice his pleasures for the pride of his father, a brother who would protect is siblings, an ideal person.

Reminds me of the lyrics from the song of the movie Swades picturised on SRK's charecter Mohun where he says - 

Ram  hi to karuna mein hai , shanti mein Ram hai, Ram hi hai  ekta mein , pragati mein  Ram hai, Ram bas bhakto nahi , shatru  ki bhi chintan mein,  dekh taj ke paap Raavan, Ram tere man mein hai;

Ram tere man mein hai ,  Ram mere man miein hai , Ram to ghar ghar mein hai , Ram har  angan mein hai, man se Raavan  jo nikale Ram uske man  mein hai.

And this belief, this idea of Ram was  born in India not merely in Ayodhya. By  confining him to Ayodhya is restricting His greatness. I remember reading it somewhere during school - Ram se badaa Ram ka naam (the name Ram is bigger than the person himself) and Jo ramta nahi wo Ram nahi, tikna to maut hai (the one who does not travel from place to place is not Ram, stillness is death). May be because the name Ram defines the ideology that is worshiped. We don't worship Ram the person we worship the characteristics of Ram and Ram is supposed to travel, Ram is supposed to be everywhere. Had Ram stayed back in Ayodhya and not been to south killing Ravan, He would not have been as great as he is. Javed Saab had once said - Insaan ki shaksiyat unchi honi chahiye, kad mein to saaya bhi insaan se lamba hota hai  and this defines Ram the best. Its the Doctrine of Ram that is holy. So either you build the temple on the exact  intersection of latitude and longitude where idea of  Ram was born or you can build it any where in the country and it shall be the same.

Its a pitty that we are playing politics over the Name that defines unity, peace, brotherhood and above all -  sacrifice. The greatest ideology of Ram is sacrifice. Ram sacrificed his throne for his brother, sacrificed the pleasure of living in a palace for his mother, sacrificed his post for the pride of his father, sacrificed his wife and children for the sake of  his subjects and fighting with others to build his temple is the worst we could have done to the Ideology of RAM. 

Is Religion Outdated?

Religion is a belief in some super natural being - a protector, creator also a destroyer. Religion is something that gives people strength and courage, teaches descipline, shows the right path and way of living life. 

That is what the dictionary meaning of religion is or should we say the original motive for which it was brought into existance. But in the given scenario when the route cause of most of the violance across the globe is religion, is it worth following it? 

Something that leads to mass destruction, killing of people, division of society, generating hatred; is it by any means good ?

To answer the question, let us go back in time and analyse why was religion formed. In my opinion, thousands of years back when there was no concept of a uniform country, no strong ruler ( leave aside the concept of democracy), no written laws, humans in general were far from being civilised, there was serious lack of education, all humans were free to do what they believed is good and refrain from doing what they thought was bad. In that case some intelligent, far sighted and thinking lot of people came up with the idea of religion. Through which they could explain people, what is right and what is wrong. 

May be it was still tough to explain the logic of right and wrong to the primitive lot, hence they added rewards and punishments to the human karma. But the twist is, as there was no written strong law people would abide by or a ruler/government to impose such law, religion came with the idea of hell and heaven/Jahannum and jannat/swarg and narak. As the then masters were incapable to punishing or rewarding the commoners, they said such rewards or punishments will get accumulated during the lifetime and they shall be befitted with it in the after life.

In those days, when people were uneducated and uncivilised, may be this was the right way to teach people and make them live a righteous life as they were 'God Fearing' people. But in today's world is this still valid? 

Today we live in much different world. There is a proper country wise classification of our living area bounded by the law of the land. Democratic or imperial every country is well equipped to judge our deeds, good or bad and do justice accordingly. We are evolved, civilised and educated enough to understand why such laws are made and what is right and wrong.

The real question we need to answer today is, what will make us more disciplined and better humans. Law of the land or Religion? What will imbibe more fear in today's people. Fear of punishment by law, going to jail, societal punishment while still alive or the fear of rotting in hell after the life is done with. What will make us more happy and encourage us to do good work? Worldly praise, rewards or the hope of going to heaven after death. 

Well in my opinion we as humans have evolved enough to not be treated like a small kid. Religion is like where a kid is told if you do something wrong the monster will punish you and if you behave the fairy Godmother will be happy and will gift you. The current human race is a result of millions of years of evolution so lets try and behave like it. Lets get more practical. Lets put country and its law above all. 

More so, in a situation where religion is doing more harm to the society than it is doing the good for it, I guess its time we move on from the idea of religion and set a proper uniform rules for our society where we can all live together as one. With no communal hatred, no baseless discrimination, no violence and killing in the name of religion. 

May God (oops sorry), may We be able to create such a world of humanity and peace very soon .

An open letter to the Prime Minister - We are not Intolerant

Dating back into the pages of history we see how India and Indians have with open arms accepted and respected people of different origin and treated all humans as equal. Let us trace back the civilisation of India which in the available history would be since Indus Valley Civilisation which was prominently Dravidian civilisation. In the ancient era came the Aryans, and we see how both Aryans and the Dravidians gelled together and stayed in the country as a family. Eventually in the medieval period came the Turks, the Afghans, the Chinese and subsequently settled here as local citizens. Finally in the modern era came the Europeans – the British, the French, Portuguese etc, yes this last lot of ‘visitors’ left mostly but India and its people absorbed the culture and is still very much visible in the society.

As history has it India was once the Golden Bird with large amount of wealth and riches, Babar in his memoir has mentioned that ‘India is a vast country with lots of gold and silver’. Though we might not have been the most developed civilisation of late, we might not have the highest GDP on the planet but there is one thing that India has continued to have since the beginning of time and is respected for the same all across the globe – that is its ability to mix, nature to absorb different cultures and live like a family amongst diversity.

Something that has never happened in the written history of my mother land but is happening now is this communal divide. For certain political benefit my country and the countrymen are now being portrayed as ‘intolerant’. This is something that the country never was. A bit lethargic may be, easy going, festive in nature, all these adjectives we are used to and we accept it. But Intolerant we are not and we shall not accept this.

Firstly, I don’t understand who is intolerant to whom? Every citizen of India has equal right and is free to exercise all his religious and personal belief as long as it is not to harm anybody else. I being a calcuttan cannot be intolerant to a Mumbaikar or Delhite cannot be intolerant to Bangalorean. The country belongs to us all and nobody is being generous to another for allowing him/ her to stay or practice their belief.

Well that was a generalised example we all know what the intolerance is about. It’s about religious belief. All of a sudden, Indians now do not respect each other’s religion. Is that true? Do we actually not respect the counterparts or we have been subjected to a political Feud? For all these years politicians made false promises, indulged into corruptions, made a mockery of democracy and all of that was still accepted by the people assuming things would improve and this was just within the country and did not affect the image of the country globally. But what is happening now is damaging the age long perspective of Indians.  It took us 1000s of years to create a reputation of being good people. I don’t think we can let that dampen for someone’s personal political benefits.

After almost 200 years of colonial rule when we finally got independence in 1947. Just one ‘new’country was formed as opposed to the general notion of two countries. When the proposal of separation was tabled with the proposition of two new countries, our first Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, categorically mentioned that India/ Bharat shall continue its age long identity and whoever wanted to leave could do so. Hence a new country was formed which apparently claimed to be an Islamic Republic following only one major religion. But India as always continued as a secular country, giving equal right to all its citizen irrespective of religious beliefs. But now it seems like things are changing or at least the politicians are making the world believe so.

I would humbly request the Prime Minister to give up the policy which is defaming the country. Or if he is not involved in doing so kindly supress the ones who are involved. We have witnessed how for some handful of people who claim to be the protectors of their religion, the entire section of a certain caste is now viewed with suspicion. How for no reason countries are being labelled as terrorist countries and the citizen have to face the humiliation all over the world for no mistake of theirs. Well at least no direct mistake of their owing to the fact that had they protested against such behaviour at an early stage their country would not have been in such a situation. 

Nonetheless I am here concerned about my country and I don’t want India to be labelled as intolerant or disrespectful. Kindly stop those who are spreading the hatred. It shall do no good to anybody. We have been known for treating our guests like Gods (Atithi deva bhava) how can we be disrespectful to our own family members. All Indians are equal and no one is tolerating another. If you believe you are tolerating the other kindly leave as the country does not belong to people with such mindset

Police - do they make you feel safe or scared ?

Every day I go out of my house I feel safe that I won’t be pick-pocketed, robbed, beaten up or ripped because there is police in my city and they will protect me. I can sleep in peace because I know I have police staying awake. When my sister goes out partying I am not scared for her because there is police taking care of my city. But all of this was till yesterday.

Today morning I woke up to a news where a couple were abused, tortured and beaten up to the point where they started bleeding and all of this because ...... because ........ Well for nothing... Because police feels relieved by treating the common man like this. Because police is frustrated by the VVIP culture where they have to serve politicians and they take out the anger on comman people.

And what was is common man doing? He is tolerating it. Who says our country is intolerant, see a boy and a girl having a personal talk, unfortunately in front of the police station, police believes there might be a case of eve teasing and molestation in spite of the fact that the girl emphasizes that they are friends and sorting out some misunderstandings but the police take them inside the station beat them up, abuse them, torture them and we all silently tolerate all of this.

In democracy, by definition, the country belongs to the citizen and they appoint civil 'servants' to serve them. People pay taxes from where they are given salaries. But all of this is too bookish. In reality, common man is a slave given an opportunity to live in the country which belongs to the politicians who are direct representatives of God or may be bigger than God... And common man has to serve the politicians and all other civil servants.

Police who were supposed to be serving common man has eventually became a private servants of politicians and VVIPs. Do I feel safe now when I am walking out in the streets, do I feel safe now when my sister is out for work or partying, and do I feel safe when I see a police officer around? NO not any more. Rather when I see a police officer now I feel scared for the fact that he might rather abuses his power and torture me. I don’t have the guts to enter a police station and lodge a complaint. I can’t trust the police for my protection any more. Police that was created to protect the society has now became a threat the very society.

I don’t feel safe in the hands of the current police system. DO YOU ?

Should switch hit be allowed?

With the advent of T20 cricket and brisk scoring we have seen many new shots coming up like upper cut, paddle above the head of the keeper, reverse sweep though was always there but has become very eminent now. But there is this one shot that has left the bowlers awe struck. It’s the switch hit. A stroke where a right handed batsman would change his grip to that of a left hander and execute the shot. Looks very innovative and destructive can ruin any plan of any given bowler. Is it legal? Having learnt that yes MCC – the body that control the laws of cricket has approved it I shall rephrase my question to – should it be legal ?

There are two requisites of a game. When the toss is conducted, both the captains exchange a sheet of paper whereby the final playing eleven is mentioned. This sheet apparently names the players and defines them – like Captain, Wicket keeper, Right handed Batsman, Left Handed Batsman, Right arm Pace bowler, Left Arm of spinner, All Rounder etc. This is done for a reason. The reason is to let the opposition know the players and they can starategise accordingly. This is phase I

Phase II - Before the bowler starts his run-up he has to inform the umpire as to which side of the wicket will he bowl from and which arm will he use. Which is then announced loudly by the umpire so that the batsman knows what is coming.  Similarly the batsman takes guard and the bowler knows which side is he batting and thus can strategise his line and length.

If the bowler uses the other arm instead of what was told to the Umpire, the umpire calls it a No Ball (ICC Law 24 No Ball). Why so? May be because the batsman was expecting say a right arm delivery, so he was looking at that arm trying to guess the seam position, the grip but then the ball comes out from the other arm and the batsman was foxed.

If so, then is it not unfair towards the bowler when he is told that the batsman would be batting right handed and he chooses his line and length accordingly, the field is set based on that, then at the time of delivery the batsman switches grip and all the strategies fail for no mistake of the bowling side.

Is this not unfair to the bowlers? What would you say

Devanampiya - will the history repeat?

Down the lanes of history if we try and find the names of the greatest rulers who bestowed the human gown one name stands clearly apart. The Devanampiya or the one loved by God, the third ruler of the Maurya Clan -  Asoka.

Asoka is considered as the greatest or at least different amongst the greatest as in an era where other rulers conquered by mass murder and brutal force he did it with love and peace. He believed in winning the hearts of the people than winning the land. He is the one ruler who conquered no man but himself.

But all of this is one side of the story. The other side is rather brutal and blood-fed. Buddhist legends state that Asoka was bad-tempered and of a wicked nature. As the legend has it he went on to fight some of the mightiest battles in the history of mankind including the famous battle of Kalinga where about 300,000 soldiers, commoners, peasants even females and children we killed while they fought for their honour in the hour of defeat. Not just them Asoka is also said to have killed his brothers to bestow upon the throne. After such brutal slaughter of mankind so many lives lost Asoka was being termed as Chandal Asoka (the fierce ruler). Then what happened that the history forgave him for? After all the man slaughter he had done why was he not criticised in the pages of history? Why is he Asoka the Great but not Asoka the Cruel Fanatic?

Well may be that’s because he realised his path was wrong. The way in which he tried to conquer the world was not humane and this gave rise to Devanampiya – the beloved of God. He preached Buddhism within his territory and beyond. Gave up the expansion of his kingdom through warfare. Showed the path of Dhamma to the people and suddenly he was loved by all. Due to his good deeds all seem to have forgiven him. The time in history, the people, The God all of them started loving him and he became the greatest ruler of the era.

Thus was the journey from Chand Asoka to Devanampiya and the world remembers him as a star that shines brightest amongst the hundreds and thousands of kings who crowd the pages of history.

Years passed by and another man came into existence. A brat, Bad boy in the society who creates menace, breaks laws, is in the news for all the wrong reasons. The world hates him like never before. People say he is a threat to the society, a man who repeatedly abuses his power and position. Knowingly or unknowingly is getting into one thing or another. Is said to be bad tempered and wicked.

But then comes a transformation. He goes out of his way to help not just his close associates, family and friends but humans in general. Donates a big chunk of his income to the needy. Starts preaching among his fans and followers to help others. Shows the path of Being Human. All of a sudden perceptions change. Over the time people start loving him. The Bad boy becomes the Giver.

He becomes popular all across the globe for his humanitarian activities.This guy who was alleged for killing people, breaking laws abusing his power emerges as a man with a Golden heart.

But still there are many who believe he should not be forgiven, who believe his misdeeds should be paid for. Will his good deeds win over his bad past? Will he be forgiven?  History is believed to repeat itself. Do I take this as an example? Time will tell. Though I am not comparing the two, they are not far apart.

Mary Kom Underpaid V/s Priyanka Overpaid

For a few days now I have been coming across articles and post on social websites that apparently Priyanka Chopra was paid more money to emulate Mary Kom than Mary Kom made in her entire life playing herself. This has come in as a great criticism towards the society who is willing to pay more to watch Priyanka Chopra enact Mary Kom than they would actually pay to see Mary Kom perform live.

Is this wrong? Should Mary Kom be paid royalty from the film’s revenue? Should movie actors be paid less? Or should sports starts be remunerated more?

How can the above questions be answered? Who decides the remuneration of these professionals? According to my knowledge I guess it’s the market forces. You cannot force someone to pay more to watch something which is apparently not worth it. I know many including myself who will pay ₹ 500 – ₹ 700 or even more to watch a movie but not even a tenth of those would pay ₹ 50 to watch a boxing match. And why should they. Indecently a boxing is not entertaining enough to attract the attention of the audience and nobody can be forced to go, pay and watch something they don’t want to.

I am not taking anything away from Mary Kom, she has been great to achieve every bit of what she has done, but in the wrong field possibly, if she believes she should have made more money. But if she is content with what she has done and all the accolades she received for being what she is then I guess that should be satisfactory enough. On the other hand everyone here is ignoring the act that Priyanka Chopra was not born as an actor. If she is getting paid a hefty amount that is because she has struggled enough to be where she is.

Why is sports so important? Probably because it brings fame to the nation, entertains the audiences relives them from the stress of everyday work. A country good at sports depicts its prosperity. So does movies. Movies are pure form of art. Every good movie has a reach across the globe and brings name and fame for the country. Mary Kom’s hard work and achievements may not have impressed the people across to remunerate her as much as Priyanka Chopra’s hard work to depict the same. So where is it wrong on the part of the society to pay a movie star more than a sports star.

Another debate that always crops up in such situations is ‘had she been a cricketer!’ Looks like Cricket is the only natural child of sport and rest are all foster. Again the same thing, people pay for cricket matches because they enjoy watching a cricket match. I am not being rude but who accepted boxing as a sport in the first place. Two or more people hitting each other deliberately in a ring unless the other falls. This is nomadic and if I am asked should be banned. No literate society would ever accept such hooliganism. Whereas sports like cricket, football, tennis, golf, hockey, Sprint racing etc are sprots in every literal sense; boxing , wrestling, weightlifting etc are baggage from ancient society when man was not developed enough to know what is right and what is wrong.

I believe Priyanka Chopra deserves every penny of what she has made and if Mary deserves more she will get it if she doesn’t then she never deserved it. Well she deserved a movie being made on her which I guess not even greats like Hema Malini, Madhubala, Madhuri or even Priyanka did. So that’s something to be proud of.