Politics of Religion and Politics of Division

There was a time India was ruled by the British empire. Children today and for years past in schools have been taught of the atrocities committed on the citizens of this country and the oppression and slavery that was inflicted upon this country of ours. In explaining to us how it became possible for the British to effect such control over, what is today a vast nation, we often hear the phrase " Divide and Rule ".

In an effort to garner enough support and in an effort to divert attention of the people from real and pertinent issues like their freedom, the then ruling monarchy, used a system of creating social divisions on the lines of religion, caste, lineage and geography. Today, 60 years hence, Indian society continues this British tradition through its own people and its own politics.

You name it we fight over it. Religion, Language, Caste, Sex ... everything. As societies grow and develop they give rise to newer generations of people more open to new concepts and Ideas. The US for example at a time hated the Beatles and their brand of rock and roll. This was shortly followed by the hippie era and the Californication of America, mostly because of a generational shift in acceptance of this new music. This is a very simplistic example but similar analogies can be drawn with the abolishing of ideologies like slavery and womens rights in the states.

I see a similar generational shift in India at this point in time. The religious liberalization of India is afoot. Would your parents have mailed pink underwear to politicians 50 years back if they had been caught playing footsie in a restaurant ? ... such displays of defiance in support of personal freedoms were not non existant but were certainly rare. So why am i talking about this now ? ...

Because it disappoints me greatly to see a soft spoken, young politician like Varun Gandhi go out and spout the utter crap that he did in Philibit. I do not understand the need to make false statements, and engage largely uneducated people in such religious rhetoric which in todays times it is extremely easy and extremely pertinent to direct efforts towards more progressive ideologies like development, education, industry, infrastructure. In a day and time where these things were mere pipe dreams and the economy was in shambles i can see why people would chose to pick subjects like religion as the basis for their campaign. I am not surprised to see this from the BJP but i am very disappointed to see this from a young politician who is reportedly highly educated.

Lets look at some of the statements Mr. Varun Gandhi made.

"this is not a 'Hand' (Congress symbol), it is the power of the 'Lotus' (BJP symbol). It will cut the head of .......

Jai Shri Ram."

We need to move out of the dark ages Mr. Gandhi. The viability of decapitation as a solution to end religious differences has long since been debunked. Instead you could have chosen to say that a) you will aim to introduce a uniform civil law for people of all religions, thus enabling society to function under a secular uniform value system regarless of personal beliefs b) you will aim to separate religion from political agendas and manifestos thus forcing minority groups and parties to address real issues of their respective groups c ) you will strengthen law and order in your constituency thus preventing crimes regardless of the religion of the person who perpetrates them.

Instead you chose to focus on regilion and make false statements about Hindus being raped by people of other religions

You sir are not a Hindu, or an Indian in any measure ... you are an opportunistic politician who aims to rise to power by dividing a people who have the golden opportunity of uniting under a common banner of progress and economic upliftment. Shame on you.

The shiv sena, Bajrang Dal and the usual chorus of voices has risen in support. It is not their voice that matters ... it is my Vote that does.

I vote against division, I vote against being swayed by religous bullshit being spewed, I vote against decapitation and hand cutting and going back to the dark ages.

I vote for a united, uniformly governed and progressive thinking India.

Ban the Cheerleader, Save the world.

Welcome to India. Land of the Kamasutra, Tantric Sex, 2.5 million HIV cases and the only “ developed / developing “ country to show a 600% increase in rapes over the past 20 years. The funny part is it is also home to a self professing and hypocritical moral police brigade, hell bent on showing that sex has no place in the average Indian’s culture. The latest stunt has been to ban cheerleaders from a popular sporting event.

Sex … We all do it, people suffer from doing it without protection, people do it without mutual consent and people do it well if the book is anything to go by. Yet most Indians would prefer to keep the origin of life a secret not to be alluded to in public.

Over the past month the following incidents have all happened at the same time. The chasm between fact and perceived moral standards is glaringly obvious. While these events are not chronological, they are all within the last few months.

1. Introduction of Sex education in schools is stopped and deemed to be unnecessary and against Indian culture.
2. Video Message of under-aged college students having sex is circulated.
3. Ban on women cheerleaders wearing inappropriate clothing, since it is demeaning to the image of a woman as per Indian culture.
4. Molestation case of 40 men molesting 2 women in Mumbai.
5. Tourists raped in several Indian tourist destinations.

Clearly the moral standards we apparently aspire to are not being met. In most cases this would be a good enough indicator that the social outlook toward sex has inherent problems. However there is and has always been a huge wave of denial regarding India’s social problems with sexuality. It almost as if we were saying “If we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.”

So where does this need to hide sexuality come from?

How is this connected to acts of sexual hostility?

Why does moral policing specially in case of sexuality find a fairly significant wave of support even in a time and age where social development, interactions and outlook are being pushed toward more “progressive” ideas?

The first question has no single definitive answer. It is important to remember that India is only India since 1947. Before that it was a fragmented collection of Kingdoms and princely states collectively colonized by the British; each kingdom and state with its own social structure and hence its own social outlook toward sex.

The beginnings of social regulations on sex can be traced back to Manu Shastra. Where in the “rights” and “wrongs” of sex, were defined. The place of a woman in society was defined as one where a woman would have no will of her own. These tenets introduced the idea of certain sexual acts being shameful. They also set a precedence and justification for a gender bias which was not socially institutionalized prior to Manu shastra. It is also important to note that Manu Shastra stated that a woman was to be considered “holy” and was to be respected as such. This enabled a largely patriarchal society to systematically dictate behavior that was becoming of a “holy” figure. The hypocritical ideology of a “respectable” woman thus comes from the fact that the woman had no role in defining the idea of what was considered respectable.

Most Hindu kingdoms and states followed this ideology and with the introduction of shame and guilt, it did not take long for the guilt to permeate to other aspects of sexuality. Women were converted into possessions and figureheads rather than active social partners. Needless to say Islam and Christianity also have had definitions of “right and wrong” with regard to sex and sexuality, which continue to influence societies to this day.

However religion and gender bias alone is not to blame for India’s sexual repression. Social structuring, parental relationships and education or the lack there of, play a huge role. Dr. Erwin Haeberle’s article, draws an interesting comparison between human capacity for language and sexual behavior.

Human beings have an innate capacity to learn a language and communicate effectively through it. Chomsky’s work in linguistics largely revolved around this premise. It is however important to understand that while the capacity to learn a language is innate; the language that is learnt is determined by the society the child is born into. Similarly while the capacity for sexual expression in innate the method of expression depends on the society a child is born into.

“Some societies have different "secret" languages for males and females, and children will learn these too, according to their sex. Furthermore, if they have intelligent parents and good teachers, they may learn to speak exceptionally well. By the same token, harsh and ignorant parents may keep their children mute or inarticulate, or may cause them to stutter. On the other hand, some mistreated children may develop a "loose tongue" and use it to vent their hostility; others, who are more fortunate, may choose their words carefully to express only love and devotion. Finally, some people may voluntarily give up the pleasures of speech and, for some religious or moral reason, take a vow of silence.


Human sexual behavior develops in a very similar fashion. Children learn to adopt that behavior which is acceptable to their particular culture. They also acquire different masculine and feminine qualities according to their sex. If they have tolerant parents, their erotic capacities will grow, but a puritanical education will make them feel guilty and block or cripple their sexual responses. On the other hand, some frustrated children develop "loose morals" and use sex mainly to express their hostility; others, who are well satisfied, choose their sexual partners carefully and shower them with affection. Finally, some people decide to give up the pleasures of sex and, for some religious or moral reason, take a vow of chastity.


However, the comparison need not restrict itself to this individual level, i.e., to personal idiosyncrasies, failures, or successes. Human sexuality and language are also comparable on a general level and can be examined for their collective implications. After all, as every linguist knows, different languages express different basic philosophies. They paint different pictures of reality and reflect different approaches to life, in short, every language preforms the perceptions of those who grow up with it. Quite apart from specific personal opinions, large groups of people together learn to view the world differently according to their different "native tongues" “

Thus through a systematic repression of sexual behavior, through constant reprimand of any form of sexual expression and through a very puritan view of acceptable social standards for sexuality, India continues to doom its future generations into growing up as a sexually repressed society. Failed marriages, rapes, molestation, sexual harassment, child abuse are all prevalent problems in India and they will continue to be so until people actively make it a point to stop policing themselves and the people around them with regard to natural sexual expression.

Now this brings us to the last question. What I have stated is not an unknown insight into social behavior. Then why is it that in a day and age where Indian media and metropolitan youth show a remarkable increase in sexual expression, there is still a significant wave of support for moral policing?

The answer can be attributed to another well observed social phenomenon. As a society progresses financially it is known that power structures change. Political, social and religious establishments hold sway over masses through systems of political propaganda, a depiction of power through numbers and through religious indoctrination. As the financial independence of the individual increases ( specially in a capitalistic environment ), these establishments start losing their power to control these masses. Education and social interaction becomes more accessible to the individual dispelling the control exerted upon him/her.

In an attempt to entrench themselves into the social system, these institutions take to extremism and fanaticism. Every affluent country has its share of extremist groups and organizations. This becomes far more pronounced in India due to the glaring gap between the affluent and poor sections of society. Amartya Sen said that India was under a very real threat of simultaneously developing into New York and sub-Saharan Africa. That statement is socially pertinent as well.

It is easy to blame the politicians, religious groups and extremists. It is important to realize it is we who give them the power they wield. Unless people make an effort to understand and recognize their own repression, Indian society’s problems with sexuality will continue to plague its mental and social development.

What is Human ?

Why do we strive to set things right ? ... what is right ? Why do we seek freedom, justice, fairness ?
Is it human nature ? Or is it social indoctrination ?

Look deep inside yourself and you will find that using pure logic, this is a very tough question to answer.

In fact this question that seems on the surface to be a matter of conviction and belief and principles has been a subject of much debate. Which brings me to this post.

The great debate :

Human Nature : Justice V/S Power.

Prof. Noam Chomsky





Dr. Michael Foucault




Widely respected as two of the most influential intellectuals of our time, Chomsky and Foucault debated the idea of Human Nature, the concept of justice and the idea of power defining our interpretation of " what is right ". Firstly the amount of thought and logic put into the debate is truly astounding. But what is more important is to notice the distinctly opposing views despite the eventual goal being the same.

I have watched the debate over and over again and attempted to read some of the work written by both ( all though i admit it is very heavy reading). From a personal point of view, i tried to approach the matter with the assumption that it is possible for there to be a basic human idea of " what is fair ". So it might follow that i am with Chomsky on this one. However while Chomsky suggests a more evolved form of Anarchy as the solution, Foucault argues that it is impossible to be truly Anarchist since there are always power flows and balances in a society and any change can and will only come through them. There i agree with Foucault. While the idea of true Anarcho - Syndicalism might be close to an ideal to try and achieve, the path to affecting change comes from understanding the idea that change must come by trying to move away from social conditioning.

The debate - Part 1




On a personal note, this debate takes greater importance for me as i get closer to heading back home. My stay in the states, the education, opportunities and exposure it has given me are priceless. Like many of my friends i aim to go back home and do good things, both personally and socially. It is a time of great change and opportunity in India. Perhaps a better understanding of what to strive for goes some way in aiding the process of affecting change.

A couple of days back i watched the video about the violence in Assam. It was extremely disturbing and made me ask the very question this debate is about.

Was the video of the violence a true reflection of " human nature " ? Since we seem to see incidents like that repeatedly over the course of history.

It is still a tough question to answer, but there is at least an ideal to strive toward and there are beginnings of recognizing the path to change.

The only true way to move away from social conditioning, i.e move away from mob mentality and move away from being cogs in a machine, is to teach future generations to think for themselves and question everything, including their own nature.

Much debate and discussion

3 AM half asleep arguments seldom tend to be fruitful but here is one that defies the norm.

A friend : " Why does it take so much effort and time to convince you that you may be wrong ? "

Me : " Because if i didn't believe strongly that i was right, you wouldn't need to convince me in the first place. "

This got me thinking. Am i just obstinate ? or is there some merit to the way i am ?

All honest debates and discussions occur because each side believes it is right. Any pretense to suggest otherwise is merely a simple tact to soften the other sides defense of their idea. The idea of having an open mind to everything is in my honest opinion, pure fiction. In its truest form having an open mind to everything is quite simply not having an opinion at all. It is not stance of humility but rather a stance of indifference.

" A man will do anything, no matter what it is, to secure his spiritual comfort...A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval. " - Mark Twain

When you believe in an idea or argue against one, it is simply because you either approve / disapprove of yourself for believing in it.

Now this is not entirely constructive and it is not conducive to learning new ideas but it is still necessary and has been an incredibly important part of our intellectual development as a society. Allow me to explain.

This conversation happened coincidentally at a time when i was reading a great book titled
"Great Feuds in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever "

Hall Hellman writes of some of the most interesting and intense disagreements of our time in Science. As i read through the book the realization that these feuds were more about personal beliefs and approval rather than science becomes very clear. These feuds changed science, religion and philosophy to shape those fields as we see them today.

Some of these arguments actually impeded the development of science in their time and although it is amusing and even irritating to see that from today's perspective, it is important to realize that the feud was necessary. The ideas, arguments and justifications thrown at each other from both sides were important to the evolution of new ideas.

It is the same on a personal level. The disagreement, the argument, the reasons, justifications and criticisms launched at each other during a discussion / argument are necessary to spark new thoughts and new ideas. That mental conflict is necessary to give birth to doubt which in turn sparks a quest to look for new answers.

We tend to shy away from conflict, diffuse the argument, agree to disagree, don't talk about uncomfortable subjects or worst of all, just agree that you could be wrong. Thus begins the process of dumbing yourself down to be agreeable.

So get out there and argue some, its good for you.

( Here is another Mark Twain gem to end this rant! )

" Oh, dear, we are all like that. Each of us knows it all, and knows he knows it all--the rest, to a man, are fools and deluded. One man knows there is a hell, the next one knows there isn't; one man knows high tariff is right, the next man knows it isn't; one man knows monarchy is best, the next one knows it isn't; one age knows there are witches, the next one knows there aren't; one sect knows its religion is the only true one, there are sixty-four thousand five hundred million sects that know it isn't so. There is not a mind present among this multitude of verdict-deliverers that is the superior of the minds that persuade and represent the rest of the divisions of the multitude. Yet this sarcastic fact does not humble the arrogance nor diminish the know-it-all bulk of a single verdict-maker of the lot, by so much as a shade.

Mind is plainly an ass, but it will be many ages before it finds it out, no doubt. Why do we respect the opinions of any man or any microbe that ever lived? I swear I don't know. Why do I respect my own? Well--that is different. " - Mark Twain

Addictions

Ok time to pick up a touchy subject. Addictions.

A few weeks back i read an article.

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/06/22/hscout605801.html


Then i imagined a world without the things that people get addicted to. After all , thats the cure we seek now isnt it ?

No alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs, no weed, no gambling, no chocolate ... no video games.

I can't bring myself to say people wont get addicted to something else. Yet again we seem to be shirking responsibility as a society. Addictions are a direct result of the addictive substances and not the fact that people get addicted to things to escape or to satiate. Thats what we try to convince ourselves of. Why ? ... Because its an easier pill to swallow. Because those of us who aren't addicted in obvious ways can feel better about ourselves. So more irresponsible parents, teachers and " experts " can feel better about themselves while the people they were supposed to take care of and nurture get addicted to these malicious addictive substances ... like nintendo.

Here is what is see to be the truth. Addictions are a symptom. An ugly manifestation of the huge holes that most people in our society find in their lives. Everyone is addicted ... to some extent. It is not going to change because we seem to be hell bent on treating the symptom. While the disease which is widespread and deep rooted we choose to ignore. Its almost as stupid as putting up a sign that says ' No drugs - School area '. The fact that people are distributing drugs and the fact that kids and adults alike chose to take these things in spite of knowing about the detrimental effects of some of them is a sign that the problem lies elsewhere and the anti drugs campaigns and signs are like putting a white sheet over the giant pile of shit in the middle of the living room that everyone wants to ignore.

There was another article on the web a few days back, where a doctor in the national psychiatric association was pushing to get video game addiction officially listed in the list of addictions because she found out her son was addicted to a popular online MMORPG.

How did she realize her son was addicted ? ( This is the fun part ).

One day she found that ...
a) He had lost all his friends b) His grades slipped from As to Cs c) He spent inordinate amounts of time in his room.

I find it astounding that she couldn't tell this was a problem long before her son lost his social life, ignored his education and became a recluse.

She chose to blame the video game. I blame the lack of guidance and attention from the boys parents, friends and teachers. But hey they probably don't want to hear that ... so lets start up a campaign to get this video game classified as a " disease ".

Most of all ... I blame the kid if he got addicted. IF he did it by choice ? more power to him. Maybe his friends suck, maybe he doesn't have the desire to be educated and maybe his parents suck so bad that he chooses not to see them. But if he got addicted without realizing it ... it is pathetic. A strong lack of personal conviction and control which no one should be required to teach someone. We all make choices ... everything is a choice ... and we have no right to shirk that responsibility.

This isn't the first time human beings have looked toward an outside entity to blame / praise when they want to shirk the responsibility that falls upon them. We've been doing that for ages and it isn't about to change. I doubt i'll be seeing ' religion ' being classified as an addiction anytime soon though.


Our problem is the inability to face our problems, take the blame and work toward improving. Perhaps if we all did that from time to time ... people could all be drinking, smoking, video game playing, chocolate eating, gambling bastards with perfectly happy lives.

Anger is good

A chance discovery on a mostly mundane Tuesday afternoon at work sparked what promises to be a most interesting phase in my intellectual growth. ( What little there may be! )

I am sitting at work watching a clip of Lewis Black, thinking ' this guy is pretty hilarious' and agreeing with most of what he had to say. I had thought about a lot of stuff he was talking about ... not being from the US i could only be amused by the truth in what he spoke about.

Reading the comments under the video led me to the name of another comedian who apparently was the inspiration for Lewis Black's style of comedy. The name was " Bill Hicks ". I had never heard of Bill Hicks before but i had heard him unknowingly.

For all the tool fans out there that didnt know it ... the guy on Tool's Aenima cover is Bill Hicks ( shown above ). The 3rd track ' Third Eye ' comes from Bill's comment ... " Watching Television is like taking a can of black paint to your third eye. " The opening lines asking you to question authority are written by Bill Hicks himself.

A connection between Tool and Bill hicks was enough to get me interested. I finished watching every clip there is of Bill Hicks, on youtube. I came to a realization of why Bill Hicks was so impressive as a speaker and why his views were so profound.

He was truly Angry.

Angry at a world where human beings invested in keeping other human beings divided, because it is easier to control a divided society. He was Angry at a government or for more philosophical purposes an " Authority " that took away choices from people and most of All he was angry at people who were happy and content with not having those choices.

Anger is good. To me it is a reminder that i am not happy with the satus quo. I am bothered and irritated by the fact a large portion of Humanity has resigned itself to " falling in line " and subscribing to ideologies that take away their choices. And no i am not talking about just totalitarian governments, or religion, or politics or any of these things. I am talking about this tendency some people have developed, where the less choices you have the happier you are because it is easy to pick from a smaller pool.

That is devolution. That is not natural selection. If you or I start finding it too tough to pick from all our choices, if we are too lazy to educate ourselves about our choices and their consequences, and if we want our choices made for us, thats devolution. By natures law our lack of thinking will and should lead to our demise.

And time and again we have people who grow and think beyond that devolved form of existence. They should be our teachers and philosophers. Instead we censor them, brand them as rebels and kill their creativity. And in many cases, we just plain kill them. We grasp at straws to hang on to our devolved existence and in the process kill anyone or anything that threatens to wake us up.

It makes me sad as i am sure it made Bill sad, that such a large portion of such a promising species does not understand this and chooses not to realize its potential.

" The world is like a ride at an amusement park. When you chose to go on it, you think its real cause thats how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and its very brightly colored and its very loud and its fun ... for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question, " Is this real ? .... or is this just a ride ? " ... other people have remembered and they come back to us and tell us when we are afraid, " Hey! Dont worry. Dont be afraid, ever... cause this is just a ride! " and we ....

... Kill those people. "


This little routine of his comes of as funny, and light hearted. It is however a sad reflection of our reality. We should be angry that things are this way. We should not be fearful though ... because fear leads to anger expressing itself through violence. We need to express anger through a positive channel ... like Bill did. Make people aware ... encourage people to think ... make a difference, some difference ... no matter how small. Don't sit quietly taking all the crap that comes your way ...

... cause it makes me angry to see you do that.