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. 

KARNA - The lost Soul

Mahabharat is as we know, one of the two epics of the Indian history. The other being Ramayana. Undoubtedly Mahabharat is more detailed and complicated of the two. With so many characters and situations Mahabharat clearly stands out as the best literary work by the Aryans.

Starting with the Aryan invasion into the Sindhu Ghati (Indus Valley) it describes the growth and expansion of the Aryan empire in India and completes with the end of the greatest dynasty of the yog – The Kuruvansh.

This kuru dynasty was bestowed with great warriors and rulers including Raja Bhaghirath who was responsible for bringing the Holy River Ganges to the planet earth from the heavens; Raja Bharat after whose name the country was christened as Bhaarat; Devarath, the son of river Ganga who was trained by Guru Bhraspath himself in the heavens and finally the Pandavas lead by Yudhisthir followed by his grandson Parakshit (son of Abhimanyu) who apparently was the last king of the dynasty.

All these characters and many more like Vasudev Krishna, Guru Drone, Dhritrastra, Panchal Raj Shakuni, Duryodhan, Anga Raj Karna etc make this epic memorable and fascinating.

Of all the characters mentioned above, the one that interests me the most is Sut (schedule Caste) Putra Karna. He was brought up by a chariot driver who worked in the royal family. Karna from the very childhood realised that he was bestowed with divine powers and was destined to achieve great heights. Unfortunately he was born in an era when cast was based on birth and not on ability. He suffered a lot of mental pain and agony as he would never get a chance to brush his talent of archery as no pronounced teacher would teach him for him not being a Kshatriya. Left with no other option he tricked Guru Parshuram to teach him the art of archery by convincing the Guru that he was a Brahmin. But that was soon disclosed and Guru Parshuram disbanded him. Thus he had yet another abrupt end to his education. After this he tried a number of times to showcase his talent but was never awarded a chance again due to cast distinction.  

All this had created such an impact on his mind and soul that now he would do anything to get the due respect. At this juncture came a turning point in his life. There was once an archery competition organised by the royal family and all the royals were invited to exhibit their talent. Karna with great enthusiasm and zeal went to take part but Maha Mahim Bhishm restricted him from doing so stating that a Sudra could not take part in such a competition with the royalties. Duryodhan accompanies the greatest opportunist and strategist, Panachal Raj Shakuni cited the opportunity recognising that karna had great powers and roped him in by backing his strengths and bestowing him with the throne of Anga. Karna hungry for respect as he was, got so obliged by the gesture that he wowed to stay loyal to Duryodhan through all thick and thin.

From this point on Karna just had one point to prove – Great warriors are not born only in the families of Kshatriyas but even a Shudra like Radha could give birth to the greatest Archer of all times. To prove this right the only way he could think of was to fight and defeat Arjuna – the acclaimed Ace archer of the Kuru dynasty. And he knew, he shall get many chances to do so being in the good books of Duryodhan who was more than eager to cross swords with his cousin Pandavas. Hence knowing that Duryodana was not the right person to be a successor to the throne he supported him incessantly. And as is said –

                 ‘kajal ki kothri mein kaam karoge, to kalit to lagegi.’

Karna as well on many occasions commited deeds that his soul would not permit him to do but he had to for the sake of his friendship with Duryodhan who gave him respect by giving him the opportunity to be a ruler of Anga.  Thus Karna, for respect, lost his soul in the bargain. He was so keen on getting the due admiration that he overlooked everything else. He would not even listen to the suggestion of his parents and his loving wife who tried a lot to persuade him for staying away from Duryodhan. But to his credit a man with so much capabilities, if does not get an opportunity to exhibit and get the due respect for the same such repercussions are obvious.

Indeed he got a few opportunities to fight Arjuna in the due course but either Guru Drone or Paitmah Bhishma would intervene and stop the rivalry. This would increase his frustration and anger even further.

And finally the Great Fight ‘Mahabharat’ was scheduled between the Kauravas and the Pandavas to be fought on the battle ground of Kurukshtra. Karna took it to his stride and was ready to contest Arjuna for one last time as he was determined for bloodshed. Now came a bigger twist. Kunti the mother of Pandavas discloses that Karna is not a shudra by birth but a Kshatriya. Surya Putra Karna was born of the womb of Kunti with the blessings of Lord Sun. But as this happened when Kunti was still unmarried, she abandoned Karna fearing the embarrassment from the society.

This was the biggest turnaround and the most interesting point in the life of Karna from my point of view. Kunti gives him an option to join Pandavas assuring him that Yudhisthir along with his brothers would accept him as the eldest Pandav and he would become the King after the battle. Wow dream come true. Karna has got a the fairy tale ending to his sorrows. All his life he wanted the repect that a Kshatriya King gets. All his life he hated himself for being a Shudra and wanted to be a Kshatriya and here it was – he is a Khsatriya Born of a Kshtrani Kunti. Now he has no reason to be sad. He can live his dream. The flip side – now he has no reason to fight and kill Arjuna. He wanted to do so just to prove that a Sut Putra can be better than the best Khsatriya. But he is not a Sut putra so even If he kills Arjuna he would not be able to prove anything. So happy ending all is good now. Pandavas along with karna can go and defeat the kauravas and Karna would be the biggest Ruler of the Bhaarat Varsh.

Karna now has no identity. He is not a Radheya, not a sut putra which he was all his life. He is confused, he know not what to do.

Why? For reasons best known to him. He desides to fight on Duryodhan’s end and wants to kill Arjuna his own younger brother because he has gone so far in the rivalry that he cannot back out? What the hell.

I just don’t understand Karna as a character. When we started he sounded a very strong guy fighting the odds of the society to gain his place and by the end he is a card board figure who has lost his soul and is merely following orders of Duryodhan.

What  a waste of a talent.

Dhoni - the fish who is contaminating the pond.

Finally Dhoni is on the verge of getting what he deserves - disrepute and kick on the a** to be thrown out of the Indian Cricket Team. This man has won all the trophies possible and along with that has also achieved what the greats Like Sachin Dravid Sourav Laxman Shrinath Yuvi Sehwag Zaheer Bhaji kumble and all others tried to eradicate - MATCH FIXING. He has brought down the entire past generation of cricket to shame. He has ruined the game at its face. Something that was a gentleman's game now has become a game of money and glamour. It is said that  Captain can make or break the voyage and in or case Dhoni chose to do the latter. All thanks Dhoni & Co. no one now trusts the calibre of the team when we win neither applauds the opposition when we lose. At the back of our mind, the thought of the match being fixed constantly plays.

In the year 2000 when some senior players of the Indian cricket team were named in match fixing probe, the entire country and the cricketing world was in a state of shock. It had quaked the team to its roots. Coming out of the disarray seemed virtually impossible and the future of the Indian cricket team was blurred. But as it is said ‘when going gets tough, the tough gets going’. In an era when the team was on the threshold of being written off, the world saw one of the best players ever to adorn the blue jersey. Under the leadership of a very dynamic Sourav Ganguly, players like Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh, Virendra Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh, Mohammad Kaif and many more nurtured. Such that Team India went on to become one of the best teams playing international cricket. Some greats like Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, kumble carried on to master the sport in a way that cricket fans would cherish till the game survives.

                                     

Amidst all these the greatest achievement by this team was that no one could point a finger at them. They were what we call Men of Honour. No money could ever purchase their dignity and dedication towards the sport and the pride for their Motherland. Considering the fact that, it is the most followed sport in India and thus making the presence of bookmakers inevitable. It cannot be denied that these greats were approached with hefty sum of money but never was there an instance when they succumbed to such temptation. May be that’s the reason why some of these players are respected as Gods of Cricket.

Nonetheless history had to repeat itself and as always such golden era was to be followed by a dark age. The generation next, that got spoon fed and received everything served to them had to disrespect the hard work and dedication put in by the past generation. Dhoni & Co. completely got into glamorisation of the sport. They have all the achievable feathers in their cap but unfortunately lost the respect of the cap in the bargain. Never in the past has match fixing allegations been so obvious that it has been an open secret. It is something that everybody knows but tends to forego. Sponsors and bookmakers now have such a strong say in the team selection that the selectors and team management’s role is gone with the wind. Cricket at times seems better scripted and directed than movies that where written by Salim – Javed. Ever heard of the saying -‘Truth is stranger than fiction’? Since time immemorial, mankind believes that impromptu work can be more entertaining than something that is thought out and planned. But incidentally these players have started to believe otherwise.

Is this the end of a Golden Era of Indian Cricket or just a phase that can be curbed down with proper action? 

Being Biased or Chivalry

In the last season of the television show - Bigg Boss, the host Salman Khan was termed as biased by many watching and ardently following the same. Some said if Salman can so strongly advocate the eviction of Kushal Tondon (accused of hitting an inmate intensionally) he should have done the same in case of Tanisha Mukherjee pushing him.

                                               

I in here, have a couple of very simple and straight forward questions. Which one is worse - a man hitting a woman or a woman hitting a man? Secondly, should you sacrifice principles and rules for money?

To start with the first one, i think man hitting a woman is totally demeaning and unacceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. Merely for the fact that by definition man is supposed to be physically stronger than a woman.

At the same time a woman hitting a man is even worse and more often than not i would blame the male counterpart to be at fault. Women are gentle, sensitive, caring and by nature nonviolent. Hence if a certain woman hits a man imagine the magnitude at which she is hurt so as to have compelled he r to become violent. Hence a man who has forced her to reach such an extent should be punished.

                                                

In our context, Kushal, who had no personal grudge against Tanisha still target her in the ‘Box’ task and many others to come (later on claiming that it was because of the clash between Gauhar and Tanisha). He himself got out of the box in less than a minute or so which clearly indicated his disinterest in the task. Now if he goes on to generate plans on how to evict the competing group and concludes that targeting Tanisha would be easier than the rest is clearly unjustifiable. Why was he so interested in winning the task all of a sudden? If you can go to such an extent, trying to anger a lady whom you had claimed to be your sister-like in the initial day of the house, Tanisha’s act of pushing him aside was completely justifiable and so was of the host Salman Khan who tried to explain things to a certain Kushal Tandon. If this is biased then i guess Cavalry is dead.

                                 

Secondly, when kushal was banished from the house on the grounds of intentionally hitting Andy ( another house mate) certain viewers desired to have him back and for the TRP and monitory reasons Kushal was called back into the house. If the channel has made a rule that hitting an inmate would not be permissible on any grounds/ under any circumstances then I guess they must have the dignity to abide by it. On the occasion of kushal being eradicated from the house, his friend Gauhar (again for whom the fight between Andy and Kushal was instigated) left the house along with Kushal stating Bigg Boss was unfair on doing so and she would rather leave. If that be the case, I wonder what light of knowledge she got overnight which alarmed her to return (Possibly monetary reasons). So in here we see three very strange but prominent elements of the society-

1. The producers of Bigg Boss, who once evicted Kushal for what he had done and then recalled him for no given reason. Can Bigg Boss Producers justify this? How for money and TRPs they compromised on principles.

2. Similarly for Gauhar. If she believed in Kushal and thought he was justified, why would she return unless kushal was taken back? Reasons might be pretty much same as in the first case.

                                         

                                           

If the host, who also is an individual and member of the human society, raises his voice against all this and condemns them for behaving in the manner that they did, IS HE BIASED against Kushal? Knowing the fact that Salman Khan has no occasion to be against Kushal Tandon who happens to be from his school, who claims to be a big fan of the actor, will he for no sane reason impound his own fan? One more thing I shall want to highlight, that is about the comments that kushal made after eviction and the ways in which he behaved apparently to gain publicity at the cost of Salman Khan. He must be reminded of the fact that once upon a time an aspiring actor tried to do the same calling upon press conferences and shit to defame salman and gain popularity today he barely exists in the industry. So chap try attaining success through hard work an and dignity rather than finding an easier way out that would take you nowhere.

                                                 

Why is India still a ‘Third World’

Allan Bloom once said, “Education is a movement from darkness to light”; is it so?

36% of the scientists in NASA are Indians, 34% of the Microsoft employees are Indian, we have 4^th largest army in the world, India has the second largest pool of Scientist and Engineers in the World, we export software to more than 90 countries, 66% of our total population is youth below 35 years of age and in spite of all these and many more we are still considered as the THIRD WORLD.

If I get into the ‘why’ debate, it can be manifold but for me the major reason for us still being a so called developing nation (which in itself is a paradox), is lack of indigenous ideas. In my course of life, I have come across people from almost all spheres and strata of the society. As per my observations and as proved by the above mentioned facts, Indians by no means lack talent and abilities. We have the capability of executing any given plan, materialising any strategy but what we lack in is - formulating them. Name a software or a gadget and we shall develop it faster and better than people of any other country in the world, show us an industry and we will master it, give us a sport and we play it better than you. What we are not able to do is - generate ‘new’ software, create a new gadget, come up with a new industry. Basically we are lacking innovation. Why 34% of the employees in Microsoft are Indian but not one of them could create a similar sector? Why in spite of 36% of the employees in NASA being Indian, we are not the first one to reach Mars or Moon? There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve – the fear of failure.

This is all mainly because we are becoming good followers, great performers but we need a guide, we need someone to tell us what to do. For me this degradation in the Indian mentality can solely be blamed on our education system. From the very start we are taught to learn and spill it in the exam. Our education system hardly ever gives us scope to be innovative. I remember during my school days nobody would dare to come up with a creative idea for the fear of failure or losing out on marks. None of us would try something new, give it a shot, at least make an attempt to think out of the book. Everyone would merely study what was there in black and white and vomit the same in the answer scripts. Creativity has been crushed by this system. This I say because it is not that we do not have the capacity to be indigenous or innovative, but this very ability has been destroyed. In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India stated - It is unfortunate that today education, in our humble opinion, appear to have failed to achieve its objective It will have to be stated that we are yet to reach the preliminary level of achievement of standardised literate behavior.

Now when I sit and think, I realise my initial days in the University of Glasgow, where we were divided into groups and were asked to develop a completely new product, design the business ideas and generate plans to materialise them. If my memory doesn’t ditch me, all my Indian friends in the class actively participated in the course work, helped the group in developing the plan but none of us could take the credit of coming up with the idea of the new product. But after a year’s education, when at the end it this same set of students were given yet another course work of similar sort, this time we all could come up with our own innovativeness. Hence a good education system did help us nurture our abilities which were somehow unmoved for so many years.

The competition has become so fierce that we are scared of generating ideas, we fear of losing out in the race. So tough has life become that we don’t dare to experiment. We are happy to lead the life by the formula. The zest to learn something new, to try and perform something different is almost lost. We are simply waiting for others to create things and then we follow or adapt the process. The fear of failure has got on us like a deadly virus. I wish we can change the pattern of education, I wish my countrymen can overcome this fear of failure and have the courage to be innovative. That I guess is the only way we can break out of this ‘third world’ tag.

why do we work?

Last weekend I came back home from office pretty late and was all tensed with work load. We were to go out for a family dinner. I was in no mood to go out and wanted to stay back. This was not the first time I was in such pensive mood due to work. It had become a custom in the recent past. Well nonetheless we went out for dinner, came back home and when I was about to go to sleep, papa called me to his room as he wanted to talk. 

I went to him and he taught me the most wonderful philosophy of life. He started firmly by asking "why do you think you work?" pretty ordinary question I guess. I replied saying "we work to earn money, to get successful or may be because it's fun to work." 

Papa: Not exactly. We work to lead a better life; we work so that we can earn enough to enjoy the pleasures and luxuries of the world. We work so as to have a fun filled peaceful life. Nobody has forced us into work. You are doing it by choice. If work is putting you under such pressure that you are not able to enjoy life, you feel tensed every time then the basic ideology of working is defeated. It indeed is important for you to apply your brains at work, get involved, give your best shot but at the same time do take advantage of the worldly pleasures. Go out and party. Enjoy the life. The tension and hardships related to work should be left back at the office. Once you are home, don’t carry your strain with yourself. We work to live we don’t live to work. To work is not the ideal of life. The basic objective is to lead a nice life. Now to lead a nice, comfortable and happy life, work is necessary that is why we work. If work is not allowing to lead that kind of a life then stop working because you aren’t reaching your goal.

This wonderful piece of advice from him apparently has changed my life. A complete turnover I must say. Such a beautiful thought which was so nicely and calmly described by him.

should we change with the change in situation ?

One who changes with time is not a man. Again, one who does not change with time is not a man.

To start with the first one, a person whose attitude and perspective changes with changing situation is certainly not a man of honour.  For instance, if with sudden change in one’s life he or she becomes arrogant, selfish and starts behaving differently; then, the person would not be held with high esteem. Such change can be anything, an upliftment, a failure, a loss or success. If a man succumbs to a particular situation and allows the circumstances to rule his/her nature and mode of living, the character would certainly not be admirable. Hence, this section of the debate says - come what may, the basic soul, the innate qualities of a man should not change.

The second side of the debate says, if we don’t change with the changing circumstances we cannot be considered as a man. We’d rather be programmed robots or any such non-thinking, non-living object with practically no brains to adapt. Now, this contradicts the first thought, where changing is rather unscrupulous. But if we don’t change, we aren't growing and if we aren't growing we are not living.

Speaking for the motion, it might be at times necessary to change or adapt oneself according to the scenario but then, in the process we just happen to lose something in ourselves which was good and noteworthy. Whereas on the other side they say, “we might lose something good, but we may gain something even better”.

Having considered all the thoughts bumping into my brain cells, I can conclude in the Shakespearean way as he once said “people don’t change; only their costumes do”.  What I mean to say is with changing time and circumstances, the basic characteristics should be retained while the peripheral qualities might be adapted and modified to suite the demand of the situation.

Might be a bit out of the context but this reminds me of my school Principal, Mrs. Kak, who would always tell us that there is a kid in us and come what may , growing age or changing life, we should always let the toddler in us alive. For according to her, only kids can live and enjoy life and the day the child dies we shall not be living but just be ageing.