That big O

“Shhhhhhh… not so loud” was the immediate response from my girlfriend to whom I dared to ask, “Have you ever had an orgasm” during our fifth date. Call me naïve; I always believed that women knew more than men when it comes to matters south of the border. This belief came from the fact that most schools have sessions for young women at puberty- preparing them for the changes ahead. “What did I say?” was my response. I was watching her cheeks flush and her eyes giving me the “how dare you” look. I agree it was a bit bold of me to ask this question to a girl I have barely known for a week but I was not trying to get into her pants, I truly wanted to know what the word meant.

Dictionary describes orgasm as ‘sudden muscle contractions experienced by sudden release of sexual tension’ but I feel this is lame. For me, orgasm must be like God. Each one has experienced it differently and has different words to describe the feeling; while it exists in theory, in reality many have not seen or experienced it. Without further blasphemy, let me get to the point. Sex is such taboo in our society that nobody, let alone our parents, tells us that it could be pleasurable. The only “talk” that most of us receive from our parents is on the eve of our wedding day when they let us know “what goes where” to prepare us for our wedding night. Sex is a “duty” to be performed by the couple to bring in another generation – this was how my grand uncle described it to my cousin getting married. I can imagine his shock at the lack of knowledge of the grand uncle. The point being, if we hardly get to hear about ‘sex’ how would we know it could be pleasurable too? This brings me back to the question I asked my girlfriend – “Have you ever had an orgasm?”

When I talk to my friends I get various responses on the subject. While the guys describe it crudely as ‘the fleeting moment between ah and aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh’, the girls are even more confused at the question. Research on this subject – that’s right, there are people who research it, shows that most women only experience orgasm when they ‘take matters into their own hands’ and in majority cases orgasm is an utopian dream that never happens. Prudes be damned! These were not the older generation women who could mostly blame a bad partner, these were liberal women who have been around the block and are not afraid to ask what they want from their partners.  Yet, the O word seems to elude women all around.  What could have been the reason that men so easily achieve and women find difficult to achieve or have given up on.

The reason could be that for men, sex lies in between their legs and for women, it lies in between their ears. It’s all in the mind stupid! If you are not in the moment or the mood, the physical activity will not be pleasurable. As one of my girlfriends put it “Men don’t get it. Women are like elevators, you can keep hitting the buttons repeatedly, it wont make us come faster”. How true.  The facts is, men cant figure a woman’s erogenous zones and feel that anything could be grabbed and pressed for pleasure. I don’t blame them; that’s how most men get their pleasure and it never occurs to them that, women are not mere service providers they need the pleasure too. Consequently, men go about their business and women fake it to boost the male ego and partly because they don’t want to look incapable of having orgasms.

Of the many women who participated in the survey, 8 out 10 agreed that they fake it each time just so their partner does not feel inadequate. They shared that they later ‘finish’ in the shower. Many women did not even know what an orgasm feels like and most of them assumed it to a tingling sensation that one feels while getting intimate. The reason this never gets discussed is because each women feels there is something wrong with her and that is why she cannot feel it.  It is embarrassing to admit it while she sees the porn star climax in couple of strokes. If only women take the time to educate their partners about “how they like it”, they might be able to enjoy a fundamental experience and it will not seem so much like a chore anymore.

So long.....

They need your time

I have said this before and I will sure say it again, the most important gift you can give to the person you love is your time. Very often we mistake physical proximity as emotional closeness and the fact that we live under the same roof means “giving time to family”.  Clearly, the concept of emotions comes to us as second language. It is not a boy-girl thing here; we are all alike in this department. The problem is we are so wrapped around the tiny world that revolves around us that very often we don’t see the telling signs of a loved one in trouble or a family member hit hard times. In a few cases, they try sharing a problem with us and we are so prompt is giving our perspective that we barely listen to the problem leave alone the depth of its manifestations. As a result, when you actually realize that you have been overlooking a serious problem, it would have already caused irreparable damage.

Chuck is a successful lawyer working for a big firm in central London. Life is going good. He is married to a beautiful woman, Jill and having two kids. He is a hardworking guy who brought many prestigious accounts to the firm and was the “go-to” guy in firefighting situations. He was recently made senior partner and there wasn’t a thing he would want to change about his life. There is a saying – “if everything seems to be coming your way, you are possibly in the wrong side of a one- way”, it proved to be true in his case. One day all of sudden, Jill starts showing signs of nerve damage as her hands get into involuntary spasms during driving the car and she crashes into a tree. Though she is unhurt from the accident, it becomes a major suspense to doctors to explain the spasm as there is nothing physically wrong with her.  After undergoing all possible medical tests, doctors’ advise her to consult a psychiatrist. Chuck scoffs at the doctors and tells them that they are trying to cover up their incompetence by implying there was something mentally wrong with his wife. He takes Jill home and advises her to relax as this could be a mental fatigue. Chuck has a younger brother, Adam who works as an office clerk in a bank at Manchester. Adam is not as successful as Chuck nor has a bright career as him. He is more of person who has always lived in his elder brother’s shadow. Adam is not married and lives in a tiny apartment. The one thing that keeps him going is the fact that he has an elder brother who expects him to succeed in life. 

Adam is like the forgotten / unwanted relative to Chuck who drops by every Christmas and spends those 10 days with his family. Chuck has his own circle of friends and he would ensure that he does not take his family or his brother to his office parties during Christmas. It was not because he kept his personal life separate from his work life; it was mostly because his family weighs him down. Chuck was the hot shot, high flying lawyer of the firm and he felt that showing up with a family would make him look like any normal person. It would rob him of his sheen. With Adam, Chuck was even worse. Chuck felt ashamed of moderate successes of Adam’s life and would never let anyone at work know that he had a brother. He had carefully built this enigmatic approach to his private life. One day, Adam gets fired from his job and is so overcome by emotions that he calls his brothers office to find some solace and support. After many tries, he cannot get through to his brother who is caught up in meetings all day. The next day, he shows up at Chuck’s office to have lunch with his brother and talk about his problems. Chuck is furious at Adam for having shown up unannounced and refuses to talk to him in the office. Not wanting to create a scene, he asks Adam to wait in the cafeteria till he finishes his meetings and then they could have lunch together. Adam is happy to wait and is proud of his brother who always could be depended on.

At lunch, Chuck shows up with a frown and admonishes Adam for coming to his office and creating an embarrassing situation. When Adam tries to tell him that he wanted to talk about his problem and that he tried calling but could not reach, Chuck makes a big speech about how important his time is and success does not come easy or by asking people for help but comes from working hard to achieve it. In the end, Chuck writes a 1000 pound cheque to Adam and asks him to leave without embarrassing him further. When Adam says, he doesn’t need the money, Chuck gives him a hard look and tells Adam that he has always been a disappointment to him and the money was just to help him cover costs till he got another job. Then he walks away, leaving Adam with a cheque and lots of hurt feelings. Back home, Jill’s muscle spasms were getting worse and hampering her from doing basic tasks. Chuck tells her that he would not mind taking her to a psychiatrist if she stops behaving so neurotic that she has to fake problems to seek attention. Jill is put under psycho analysis to get to the root of the problem that is acting out in form of muscle spasms. After months and months of psycho analysis, the psychiatrist is unable to make any headway and one day invites Chuck to inform him that Jill is trying to actively block him from helping her out. He also informs Chuck that there is some deep routed anger or insecurity that is causing her to behave this way and advises him to talk to her about it since that was the main symptom to be treated if she has to get better.

Chuck plans a holiday with his family and decides to have the talk with Jill on the holiday and in a relaxed atmosphere. Couple of days prior to the holidays, Chuck’s firm lands a huge account and Chuck is advised by his managing partner to entertain the client during the long weekend. Chuck informs his wife about the change of plans and she flies off the handle as she was looking forward to the holiday. Chuck tells her that the holiday could be re-planned but the client was important to the firm. A week later he receives a call from the psychiatrist that he has finally understood the problem with Jill. Jill used to be a much sought after model, working for an expensive brand when she met Chuck and they got married. After marriage she moved to London to be with him. She had to give up her career and all the perks that came along because she wanted to give her time to the man she loved. Initially it all looked good, but she soon realized that she was not a priority for Chuck. Chuck had a feeling that being the man he had to provide for his family and grow in his career, he expected his family to understand this and adapt. Jill could not adapt to being second priority and would constantly make plans with Chuck which he cancelled more often than not to cater to the pressing demands of work. Jill could not explain to him how much she yearned for his attention and constantly felt guilty for seeking his time. The problem was simple; she needed his attention and time while he didn’t have the time to give. Being unable to communicate this and him unwilling to pick on the hints manifested the problem to such an extent that her mind was playing sick to seek attention. The psychiatrist advised Chuck to make Jill feel wanted again if he ever wishes to see her get well. The disease was in the mind and the solution was simple.

That evening, Chuck received a package marked “private and confidential”. Upon opening, he found a note from Adam – “I am sending you the good things and taking away the bad thing”. Enclosed were all the childhood photos and small gifts given by Chuck over the years. He was surprised that they were so carefully stored by Adam. At the bottom of the box was the cheque – which was written by Chuck a few weeks ago on the back of it were these words –“I just wanted to talk to my brother…..”  Chuck was suddenly overcome with emotions; he had always neglected his family and given precedence to his work. He owed his family and Adam an apology and to try to make up for the lost time. When he tried to reach his brother at his residence, he was informed by the landlord that Adam had committed suicide 4 weeks ago and while cleaning out the apartment; he had found a package marked to Chuck which he sent out couple of days ago. Chuck was trembling, overcome with guilt and emotions about how he treated his brother whose only fault was seeking time to talk to his elder brother about his problems. Chuck did not even get a chance to say a good bye to his brother Adam who always looked up to him.

Credits: Few events mentioned in the post have been picked out from the series “Mad men”

So long…..

The clique

Pollsters and opinion makers be damned! India is going through a strange phase where anything you say or do makes you a Sanghi or a Congi (derisive for RSS affiliate and Congress affiliate). Social media and main stream media (electronic and print) space for independent opinions is shrinking, and how! People have stopped voicing their opinions for the fear of being targeting or attacked personally. To be fair, the voices of the “sanghis” are more prominent as they have stolen a march over the “congis” in media management, I hope then when “Congis” play a catch up they don’t forget the words of their VP “keep the debate dignified and stick to facts”. One cannot have both sides barking at each other and most debates taking a turn south.



To make a good case, first convince yourself that you are a true son of motherland, and then convince yourself that the whole world is out to get you and you have to fight the whole world to achieve greatness. Also convince yourself that nothing about you is worth changing because – let’s face it- you were the last perfect creation of the maker. Now you have a potent and lethal combination of delusional and crazy – somewhat effective – but largely authoritarian politician. Let’s name him Modi. This man once believed that states should be allowed to make own laws as state legislatures are evolved enough and don’t need a ‘big brother center’ to make decisions on its behalf. Yet for some strange reasons, he does not believe that individual local bodies are smart enough to look after their interests and need the state government taking all the decisions. Contradiction? Hell- no!!! If you listen to him, you would see the logic and probably he would convince you that all these are necessary contradictions in a country like India. You see, the man can sell you anything. For long he convinced most of us that the Sun rises and sets due to his good governance model. It is a necessary quality in a politician to be able to sell ideas, but going to extremes makes the citizen feel foolish. The man has to know limitations. Some humility can go a long way in the making of a good leader.


On opposite end, we have a likeable, soft, visibly pampered and mostly untested politician. Let’s call him Rahul – ‘naam to suna hoga!’. Now, Rahul believes that he alone cannot make everything happen, it’s a rare admission of limitation by any politician. He also openly says that a country as large as India cannot be governed from Delhi; it needs to be decentralized to its villages and town local bodies – which make him a believer in federalism. He says, India is so uniquely divergent that the only way it can grow is by not trying to look for a “one size fits all” solution and rather give each region the power to decide what is best for it. Except for currency, armed forces and national flag nothing is supposed to be common within all constituents of India. He is neither all powerful nor claiming credit for all that goes good. He believes that career politicians are meant to win elections and technocrats are meant to run the Government efficiently. He is as un-Modi as anyone could possibly be.


If you look at the followers – or clique of both these personalities, they are largely similar. They feel their leader is the best (that’s a given). They believe the opponent is evil (duh!!) and they spend a large time talking derisively about the opponent than taking about their own achievements. Like I said, largely similar; however, the similarities end here. Modi followers are loud mouth, brash and invective. You see they have bought in the fact that the universe is conspiring against their leader and it becomes their job to fight the universe. So heightened is their sense of belonging that they more often attack their own party men who are trying to talk some sense into them. Rahul followers are exactly the opposite; they are polished elite with sound command over language and facts and are condescending to the opponents. You see, to them their leader is born with divine right to rule and they find it absurd and laughable that anyone could hope to take away that right. They are not loud or call others names but would make your head spin when they use minimal words to make maximum damage to opponent’s reputation. The fight among these cliques is worth watching, Modi followers forever froth near the mouth and making angry intonations and Rahul followers smiling and hitting the opponents hard with erudite ease. Another common element between these seemingly different people is the absence to tolerating independent voice. While anyone critiquing Modi becomes a “Congi dog or pig” almost immediately; anyone poking holes in Rahul’s theories immediately becomes a “sanghi terrorist”. It’s amazing how independent voices are being silenced by making personal attacks and abuse hurled just because that person managed to get his/her opinion about the opposing theories of governing India. Latest casualty was noted author and Nobel laureate – Dr. Amartya Sen – his personal life was abrasively discussed and a noted editor recommended that his Bharat Ratna (highest civilian award in India) be taken away. All because he said, in an interview that Modi is not his choice for being the Prime Minister of India. So much, for having freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution.


Post script: We have heard Rahul talk sense to his followers on many occasions to keep the engagement civil but we are yet to hear Modi tame his followers. In fact he eggs them on many times by using his speeches to make personal attacks himself.


So long…..

Food for thought

July 2013 – 65 years after her Independence, India finally enacted an ordinance (decree promulgated by the President upon advice from his council of ministers) to provide food as a matter of right to all her citizen. This is in tandem with the rights based approach that the present Government has been trying to enforce. Consequently, Food Security Bill (FSB) can be spoken in the same breath as MNREGA – aka right to employment and RTE – right to education to all children below the age of 14. Needless to say, we have market economists estimating the amount of money gone in the drain in a bid to make India hunger free in next 3 years. We have figures from a conservative 1.2 lakh crore to a much ambitious 6 lakh crore being touted as the “real cost” of this ambitious project. Then we have every person who has an opinion asking “can we afford this” with the fiscal deficit and all. Then we also have politicians terming this as “feel good” before the general elections to the Parliament of India scheduled in May 2014.



Each of these stories have a certain merit and we may want to delve into that in a bit, but can we deny that the FSB was need of the hour in a country like India where the top three reasons for mortality is hunger, lack of health care and malnutrition (not necessary in that order). As we are discussing the pro / cons of this bill we have so many women undergoing miscarriage / so many kids malnourished beyond repair / so many people dying on streets due to hunger. Access to nourishment should have been obvious choice to all citizens but we are starting with access to grains – yet most of us feel that these are doles and it won’t help anyone. Most of the intellectuals throw “teach a man to fish” argument to make their point. I am using this space to make a case for the FSB and why even the 6 lakh crore would be money well invested / spent – based on your bent of mind.


First, we have to address the costs argument. India has one of the largest public distribution system (PDS) and it has been in place for around 5 decades now. We often hear that there is rampant pilferage and re-routing of the food meant for distribution to local brewery or retail market and having just second and third quality grains made available in fair price shops for the consumption. Make no mistake; the main reason for having these fair price shops in the first place was to make nutrition available to the masses who could not afford retail purchase. When we re-route grains meant for fair price shops, we are actually staling from the poorest of the poor and providing them second / third quality grains – in a bid to make them realize that they are living on charity. In each of the 29 states on India, there is massive corruption in the PDS and crores of rupees meant to nourish the masses are siphoned away by few individuals both within the administration and outside and the end consumer is left high and dry. It would be a fit case to abandon PDS long ago, but for various considerations the PDS system continues. Maybe there are too many livelihoods dependent on pilferage and siphoning. It has become a mafia of its own and successive state governments either actively participates in the plunder or at best look the other way while this is happening. Yet, we have never heard any politician say a word against the PDS or dismantling this creaking system – mainly because in some form or shape its touching lives of millions and we could always improve to plug the leaks. I must say that in the past 10 years, around 10 -12 states were using the PDS exceedingly well and implementing the schemes in letter and spirit. So there is a light at the end of this 5 decade long tunnel. I am arguing a case that it should be mandatory to cost the bills and show revenue streams to cover the costs – we are presently opaque in this regard. However, the costs should not be an argument to scuttle bills that touch millions of lives for basic necessity like food.


The FSB will use the existing PDS system to provide a fixed amount of grains at a fixed price per person / month. This would be a right – meaning administration will have to beg / borrow or steal but cannot refuse grains to people demanding it. It would, in a way, force the administration to keep a tab on the pilferage and siphoning. You can no longer hide behind the argument that we have grains shortage or bad storage. It’s a right and if you don’t have grains, you will have to reimburse costs for the purchase. Unless the Government wants to plunder, it will be forced to keep a check on the facilities. Not only grains, FSB ensures lactating mothers and children under 14 cooked meals as form of nourishment. This would mean bundling existing schemes – which are run separately and delivering it to the benefit of common man. It would not be fool proof but it could be improved upon gradually and we need close monitoring and regular audits.


Let me take up the argument of FSB being a vote catcher or fiscally poor bill. Sure, any bill that ensures food or jobs or healthcare or homes would be a vote catcher and this would be the case anywhere in the world. The question would be, would we make a positive impact or just get votes? On that, my considered opinion would be to err on the side on benefitting the masses. It is not a dole; it’s a right and should be considered as one. No longer would we depend on the charity of fair price shop owners. About being fiscally unsound, any expense made by Government is called fiscally unsound so long as it would not get a return on investment. But again, Governments are not limited company running behind profits- they are societal trust meant to redistribute wealth earned in form of taxes to benefit the masses - the good of the majority. In any given year Government forgoes revenues worth upward of 4 lakh crore in form of many various incentives – be it free electricity, free land , tax holidays etc. given to corporate India and yet every day we hear new scams that involves these very same people who are trying to get out of turn benefits from same Government. Meaning, there is no end to corporate greed and yet we don’t seem to talk about it a lot. We count it as a necessary evil and offset it to the employment / revenues generated by these corporates. These are also sunk costs to the Government and have a per-capita impact on economy. Our economists enjoy counting every cent spent on the poorest and give a go by to the million showered on the richest. If we can sustain revenues forgone to corporates, we can always sustain the costs of FSB which is a basic need, especially when we have poor performance on nutrition indices. So long as we have even one person dying on the road due to hunger, we need a FSB that provides them a right to life – basic right ensured in our constitution.


So long……


PS: Author is not against corporate India and does not imply that all of them are corrupt. Instances are used to make a case for food security bill.

Water - the elexir

Paani da rang vekh ke… aakhiyan de anju rul de……. This is quite literal in the rural regions of India during the summers. The quality of water available is so bad that it’s not even fit for bathing let alone drinking. “The next world war will be fought for rights to water…” ominous words coming from Kofi Annan ex- sect general of the United Nations in the year 2005 did not ring a bell to most. After all, who of us would take water conservation seriously? For most people, the fact that 71% of earth’s surface is covered with water is a major point in the subconscious mind while they expend this natural resource. How often have we seen a tap / pipe leaking by the roadside and even bothered to stop and think of the amount of water that goes wasted, unused? Frankly, we don’t. For we know, come monsoon the nature is going to return the bounty to us in form of rain and all that we waste will get replenished in one go



I would not want to use this medium to profess but to give some perspective to the readers, even though 71% of the surface of earth is covered with water, less than 1% of this is potable – meaning fit to be used by human beings. Almost 2% would be the upper limit for water fit to be used by living beings. Meaning, all the animals, most of the plants and human beings have to subsist on 2% of the water available in nature. Given the rate at which the population is growing and the rate at which we are wasting water, in the near future we will run out of water fit for consumption. We could always think of desalinating the sea water and make it fit for consumption, but the cost involved are so large that we will have to ration the supply of water and probably sell it at a premium price. The problem is, I can’t stress enough on how dangerously close we are to a disaster and how less we are informed about the consequences. Every day we see people waste water mostly because they are not aware of the costs involved with this wastage. I would like to use some time in suggesting ways to conserve water for us and for future generations to come.


Afforestation: Trees are a natural way of conserving water and increasing ground water level. During the rainy season nature showers us with a bounty of water and most of it ends up in the drains and goes unused. If we plant enough trees in our locality and build communities which insist on green cover, we contribute in conserving water by the way of building ground water level. Most communities use underground water by drilling bore wells going as far as 300 ft. in search of water. We are paying a huge price by plundering the water table willy-nilly. Municipal heads and communities have to ensure that bore wells are not used for construction of high rises and for domestic use we don’t drill beyond surface water (about 30 ft.). Communities can invest for rain water harvesting so that they could use rain water for consumption post natural filtering process. This would reduce the dependability on ground water by 30-40%. Imagine the amount of water conserved within a city or a nation if we enforce these green laws seriously.


We could use simple change of habits and conserve up to 50% from our daily consumption of water. Using a bucket and tumbler for bath rather than shower saves about 3 buckets of water per shower, using bucket for washing utensils, rather than washing directly from tap, using the stop flush instead of flush tub saves up to 8 liter of water per use. Ensuring we double check the tap leakage and mend our faulty plumbing regularly saves more water than we can imagine. Simple things make large changes and we must always remember the adage “little drop of water makes a mighty ocean”. Let us do our little bit every single day at our homes to make a difference to this world. In our office space, the less we comment about it, the better. The lack of ownership of the office space makes us splurge on the resources and the various facilities that are mandated by corporates to its employees ensure a steady availability of these resources- despite the splurge. We could save on power consumption, save on water wastage from taps and water coolers, save on the water we flush in sinks to wash our coffee cups. Any mid-sized office space wastes about 1000 – 5000 liters of water (this is capturing the waste not the use of water). Imagine the amount of potable water a city like Pune or Bangalore with huge office space wastes in a single day.


The next time we splurge, lets us remind ourselves that while we are wasting water, scores of people in rural India are passing days looking for tankers to supply them water even for daily usage, let alone for drinking. While, it’s not my case that we should not live in comfort, but we could always look out for the less fortunate who do not have access to basic services which everyone deserves. The next time you ask, “Why should I save if I can afford?” remind yourself that you have to save because we can afford to save.


So long…….

Children of a lesser God

What is it about a child that makes us all have a soft spot? Maybe it’s the innocent smile, maybe the soft delicate features but it’s mostly about children being the future. Whether its individuals or countries, we would like to invest into our future generation and make sure they bequeath a safe and secure world which they will then handover to their future generations after they have made their contributions. Children depict potential too. Potential to change status quo, potential to bring a fresh perspective, potential to surmount challenges that the present generation finds insurmountable. There is not a country in the world, even ruled by hardcore dictators, that does not invest in its children. Above all, children are a hope that our tomorrow will be better than today.

Gun violence is not new to the US. It’s generally accepted as the collateral damage of defending the individual rights to own fire arms. The process of purchasing firearms (even assault rifles) is much simpler than getting a driving license, maybe as simple as purchasing a toy gun. You do not even have to register yourself as a licensed arms holder  – maybe the most they do is ask for a ID proof to check for US residency status. In case, a gun is used for violent means, it won’t be easy to trace the owner as the weapon is not registered. In 200+ years of democracy and over 150 years after civil war, the Americans are lax about sale and purchase of firearms. It’s a astonishing fact for an Indian (belonging to India, not the native American) who will not be able to buy a handgun, let alone an assault rifle (which is illegal anyway) without providing adequate argument for the need to own one – on the lines of threat perception. Even then, they are supposed to register themselves and get ammunition on need basis. In many cases, police can ask you for account of ammunition used and in cases they deem fit, revoke your license to hold arms on account of being a ‘irresponsible’ user. This in a country where, in most cases, Police arrive late to scene of crime. In that background, US seems the wild west to most of us, where one can own an assault rifle without a threat perception and buy ammunition on the same lines as one buys groceries.

The carnage in New Town, CT changed the perception of all of this. The image of a 20 year old mentally unstable kid getting access to an assault rifle and then going on to use that in an elementary school to mow down 20 kids (aged 5- 8) and 8 teachers was shocking enough to awake the nations conscience. Everyone asked the question, how far we can defend individual freedom at cost of such impending risks. Consequently, the President of the United States came up with proposed “gun control law” that would stop sale of assault rifles to individuals and issue firearms only upon strict background checks. The response was obvious; the killing of 20 kids of such innocent age is enough to shake the collective conscience of any nation, let alone the oldest democracy. It also moved me to see the President attend the memorial services of these kids and bemoan at the loss of so many futures / so many kids whose potentials could not be achieved because of the senseless act of violence. The whole thing moved me emotionally and am sure in each house that CNN beamed these pictures, people said a silent prayer and vowed –NEVER AGAIN. I do hope something good comes out of this so that no parent will have to lose a child / teenager to mindless violence.

While all this show of empathy is appreciated and understandable, I do not understand how the people of the world’s oldest democracy can be numb to the carnage wrought by American drone attacks on cities in Pakistan and Afghanistan on a daily basis. Being an Indian, no one knows the impacts of terror better than us. We face existential threat far greater than the Americans can understand. We are hit by mindless terrorism very often, sometimes so often that our Government is perceived as ‘weak’ in the fight against terror. Even then, the worst we demand is an all-out war against Pakistan to teach them a lesson or two on civility i.e. in the heat of the moment. Facing terrorism makes you understand the value of life and we Indians would never authorize our Government to send drones to bomb cities of any country – where it is impossible to ensure that targets are found solitary and precisely. Every time a drone attack is authorized, on an average 10-15 people are ‘taken out’ along with the intended target. These numbers are conservative because in many cases, dead bodies are not found or blown up beyond recognition. In almost all cases, children ages 7-18 years are among the ones that are killed or severely maimed by a drone attack. Consequently, if these attacks go on for another few years, we would have a whole generation of Pakistani and Afghan kids who are living with a physical disability or living with a scar of having lost a loved one to these “imprecise” and may I say ill-informed drone attacks. While the law provides countries with means of providing harshest punitive action on individuals/ groups who ‘wage a war’ or attempt to wage one against any sovereign, trespassing into borders of sovereign nations using technicality of unmanned drones to strike to kill individuals on basis of intelligence reports is a measure no one should support. It’s a shame that a country known for its “rule of law” has to resort to quasi illegal means to take out targets based on lurking suspicion. What is worse is that young children are almost always caught in the crossfire and dismissed as “collateral damage” or “budding child terrorists”.

In a recent BBC program covering the impact of drone attacks, during an interview a doctor serving in Peshawar government hospital [NWFP] informed the host of a disturbing statistic. Every month, thousands of children mostly aged 7-18 are admitted to the hospital who have to undergo amputations or have suffered irrecoverable damage to body parts apart from losing family members to this violence which has continued for past 10 years. One can’t help but contrast this to the moving memorial service paid to victims of the New town massacre. The children of any country are the same – innocent / aspiring and full of potential. Only difference being in one case a nation mourns the death of its children and in other case, they are so brutalized that they are numb to all aspects of humanity. In many cases, they don’t even have anyone to shed a tear on their loss. It’s a shame that we discriminate between children, while one understands the US mourning the death of its young citizens, the ones they killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan were as innocent if not more as the ones who died in New town on December 14^th 2012.

So long….

Yet another died! – Why are in such a hurry to ‘move on’

The header can be misleading – to an extent but the thought behind it is what matters. I am not for a moment going to talk about the spiritual aspect – giving sermons on value of life et.al. I am making a comment on the cold nature in which we perceive fellow human beings. India is known as the motherland of religion and culture. Almost every religion owes its birth or growth to India. The mixture of various religions has also meant that this land for long has been known for spirituality and meditation. So much so, that Indians – even to this day state spirituality and culture as a major export of India to the world outside. It would come as a huge shock to all involved that Indians are shockingly low on respect for human life. Maybe it is because there are 1.2 billion of us and we figure a few lost here and there isn’t going to matter much to the count. The point is not about the numbers, it’s the simple pain and anguish that ought to be caused at the loss of life – basic respect to LIFE.

I would begin to state the main reason that got me thinking about this topic was the recent visit to Jallianwalah Bagh by the visiting dignitary from the UK, who wrote in the visitors’ book of the memorial about the horrors of the events which took place 94 years ago and how it was never to be forgotten. The event referred to here was the cold blooded killing of an assembly at this place 94 years ago (April-13-1919) by General Dyer. It was a major jolt to reputation of the British Raj and contributed in a big way to anger the freedom movement in India. Though General Dyer faced the consequences of his action immediately and was forced to retire and sent back to England, it also brought about dramatic change in the way the armed forces of Britain handled India. The point I am making is that an occupying force was shocked and devastated by the indiscretion of an officer while wielding the arms that it forced them to re-think the entire policy and also suggest minor punitive action on the concerned officer. Today, (94 years hence) the visiting dignitary sort of apologized on behalf of the UK for the massacre. I wonder how many of us, Indians know or remember what happened in Jallianwalah Bagh on April 13 1919. I bet everyone in Punjab lives and breathes it, but the knowledge about it in rest of India is shockingly low. We have ‘moved on’. It takes a visiting dignitary from a foreign country to remind us to “never forget” such incident. Maybe the thought behind it is, ‘Don’t forget’, not because who inflicted wounds on whom, but because humanity died!

We Indians will from time to time realize that we are shockingly found wanting standing up for human right. Even when we do, we do it for wrong sets of narrow political reasons and not because we feel that we have to stand by it because that was the India our founding fathers envisaged. Maybe we have spent so much time killing each other to get ahead, that our collective conscience is numbed or maybe we have faced so many attacks on us that loss has become a way of life. I was in New York City’s ground zero (where the twin towers stood) a couple years ago on 9/11 and I could see the tears, the candles and the solemn atmosphere all around as if to remind that the memories of those who died there on that fateful day more than a decade ago continue to live in the minds of fellow New Yorkers (supposedly the busiest people in the world). I could not hear anyone suggesting ‘we have moved on let’s not talk about the attacks, let’s talk about economy or challenges we face in employment’. They all genuinely believed that the occasion demanded we set aside our problems for a few minutes and say our silent prayers towards the lives which were abruptly ended on that fateful day. Mere presence on that spot was enough to move anyone into a silent prayer whether we belonged to NYC or remember having seen the attacks first hand. For all the human rights violations done by their Government in other countries, the sentiments shown by citizen towards the plight of fellow citizen was moving to say the least. I enquired and found that every year the practice is followed and every year the number of people present generally grows. Even the President is forced to pay visit and pay homage to honor the memory.

Contrast that with anything we experience in India. Over the past 65 years, we have seen 5 wars, a decade long insurgency in Punjab and Kashmir, a gas tragedy in Bhopal killing and maiming hundreds, one anti- Sikh genocide in Delhi, manufactured riots in Bombay and rest of India after Babri demolition, repeated bomb blasts in Bombay, anti-Muslim riots of Gujarat and several small riots across various cities. Many of these were caused by external aggressors or infiltrated terrorists, but in majority of the cases, it was Indians causing casualty to fellow Indians. How many times have we stood to pay homage to the people who lost life and make an earnest effort that as a country we make sure the justice is delivered to a fellow Indian who lost someone dear in these dastardly acts. Instead, we make political capital out of these events and our leaders ask us to “move on” and think about bread butter issues. This constant moving on has made us a numb nation. The numbness is so chronic that we never feel anything anymore, we have developed this “resilience” – a made up word used to depict the lack of humanity in us. It is this resilience that makes us say – “Muslims deserved this retaliation” or “When a large tree falls, the ground beneath sakes” or “We have given them money to compensate, what more do they need” or “Look at my economic plan, forget the riots” or “Why are you politically hounding my leader”. We hear these heartless comments day in / day out from the people who are supposed to lead us and yet we continue to elect the same set of people. We have become so insensitive to loss of human life that the only time we care is if someone in our family is affected. India does not stand up for human rights violation in Myanmar or Syria or Egypt or Libya or Sri Lanka or Af-Pak region. In fact India does not stand up for human rights violation within India itself. In each case, there is some strategic goal that India aims to achieve in lieu of looking the other way when human rights are violated. The result, today, routine human rights violators like the US and UK gets a chance to look better than India on international forum. India today, stands for nothing- everything about India is negotiable and maybe that’s why Indians are treated so shabbily everywhere we travel, after all people who don’t respect rights of other humans have no right to claim some for themselves.

So long….

The Last Man Standing – Justice Markandey Katju

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech – a right mostly abused by politicians who are better served a dose of silence and online trolls who somehow don’t understand the difference between freedom and abuse of freedom. Be that as it may, what’s shocking is the same trolls attacking someone for having an opinion – probably unpalatable to some, probably absurd to some, probably offending a few but damn right needs to be said. How is the same freedom of speech which is used as a cloak of defense to justify online abuse not granted to someone because his opinions are “inconvenient”? The first amendment of the United States Constitution – grants rights to hold an opinion and there is not a reason that we have to be unanimous in our opinions but there is a reason that we have to make sure alternate opinions is heard. What is the true of the US is also true of India. This post is about why so many people want to shout down the PCI chair and very distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court – Justice Markandey Katju because they rather have someone mute, man the chair.

India has never seen so many changes all at once as it has seen in the past decade. Call it the telecom revolution or long oppression of the voiceless masses or whatever that seems a good explanation to this new zest to be heard. Everyone wants to be heard and uses innovative as well as provocative ways and means to be heard. This has changed a lot in the way we function as a system and the sudden information overload or information revolution or RTI has caused violent outbursts on the internet by people who seem to probably make different meanings of same set information. Obviously, this causes a lot of clash of opinions and it soon degenerates into petty name calling and outright hounding of minority opinions. That’s a reason why I blog, because these are my ideas and I don’t need validation from anyone. Coming back to the topic at hand; during the good old days, the Government was the disseminator of all information and it was their job to make things sound palatable to general public. The politician was the only voice and the entire machinery of Government (including Judiciary) was silent. The only way the system propagated opinions was by file noting and judgments. These were again vetted by the Government owned broadcasters and disseminated in palatable manner to general public. The system was self-healing and self-preserving because there was no alternative voice of dissent. It was expected the people manning the Government machinery (minus the politicians) are silent minions whose voice is the voice of the politician heading the Government. Their deliberations were behind closed doors and one had to wait for an ex-officio Police Chief or Judge or bureaucrat to come out with his biography to know startling facts about various ways the system is subverted by politicians.

The RTI has meant that now every voice comes out into public domain. File noting is openly discussed and judicial verdicts are openly discussed. This coupled with a 24x7 media, hungry for “breaking news” brews a dangerous cocktail, where many a time news is manufactured to feed this hungry monster of news seeking public. All of sudden the cracks in the well-oiled system start to show up. We now know which official objected to which politician in what case and which judge made what adverse remark against which Government official in which case. Once again, the media takes these innocuous remarks and builds a story – many times backed by facts – but often times backed by blowing hot air. Point being, every anchor on every media channel wants to make his opinion on the story rather than report the facts. This was unethical in good old days of print journalism. News was meant to report facts of matter and not propagate personal opinions – except the editorials- which were also balanced in their critique. So does this mean, what our media is doing is unethical and we should muzzle them? NO.  We have people working with the Government – Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Navy, Chief of Air force, Chief Justice of India, Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CBI chief, C&AG and the CEC address the media or organize press conference to voice their opinions on events that are currently under their consideration or matters of public importance. In the good old days, this was considered as exceeding the brief, but now we have learnt to expect voicing of different opinions within the Government machinery as a sign of good times. We now feel that the democracy that our founding fathers perceived will finally exist in letter and spirit in the times to come.

The other aspect of this is what we have come to understand as media trolling (online and other wise). All this openness has made attacks on opinions more prominent and vicious which degenerate to name calling and questioning personal credentials. It is one thing when politicians do it for marginal and short term benefits, it’s disgusting for the rest of us to follow suit.  This brings back the question to where we began, when we have accepted so many changes in such a short period of time, why not accept one minor thing – like I have an opinion there must be someone who has a contrary opinion and it isn’t my job to make that person change the opinion by shouting down the person with help from other like-minded people. Media houses do this on a regular basis; internet users do it even more. The case study being Justice Katju, the chair of Press Council of India. Justice Katju was never known for meek insignificant statements. While he served as Justice in the Supreme Court or Chief Justice to Madras or Allahabad High court, he always made news for his stern remarks as well as his knowledge of literature which became an integral part of most of the judgments passed by him. I have always known him for calling a spade a spade. Many a times, he does sound like an overbearing parent scolding an insolent child, but you could never call him partisan or question his integrity. When he was appointed the Chair to PCI, I must say it shocked me. How a person who never minced words could be again appointed by the same Government to whom he must have felt like a thorn in the flesh.

The moment he took up the task of making media accountable and forcefully so, the outrage against him started pouring out. The various editors started foul mouthing his impeccable credentials –while they themselves had a shady past. People began questioning why he was selected to Chair the PCI and started making innuendos that he was the man hired by Government to cut the media to size. There were several voices of restrain too – N. Ram (The Hindu) and Kumar Ketkar (Dainik Bharat) who advised the editors guild to look dispassionately at the points raised by Justice Katju rather than merely trying to shout him down. Reason and responsibility was never known to media who by then had become this behemoth who could devour people’s reputations at blink of an eyelid. Then several such instances came up which showed the dark underbelly of the media – paid news, made up stories, seeking ransom to cover-up etc. which  justified the initial concerns raised by Justice Katju. Meanwhile, Justice Katju took up cases where many State Governments used to control media in their state by controlling the Government advertisement funds. This deep nexus was uncovered – where media was forced to give glorious coverage to Government and ignore its devious details for want of the funds, which was majorly provided by Government. He made forceful arguments against such corrupt practices employed and called for dismissal of Governments which seek to control media. As a result, he stood out like a nail in the eyes of politicians – a nail that has to be hammered but they all awaited a false move.

Justice Katju also wrote columns from time to time in various newspapers. Opinions which one may agree or disagree – like the case of 90% Indians being fools or idiots. I did not agree with this column but I respected the opinion because it takes either a brave man or a fool to criticize 90% population of our country. To me Justice Katju was never a foolish person, he said things in a forceful manner –that being his mannerisms or idiosyncrasy and left it to us if we want to accept it or reject it. Another thing I always liked was his standard line – “this is my opinion. I would request you to come up with arguments to change my opinion” – true democratic style of functioning. Wonder how many politicians can claim being so democratic in approach. He also wrote a critical piece about late Bal Thackrey when most of us were still posting obituaries and most recently his post on the development model of Narendra Modi. In each case, he has the courage of going against the flow of wind – not just for foolish bravado but backing it up with solid points that cannot be brushed aside. You can love Justice Katju or hate him, but you simply cannot brush him off by calling him names or questioning his credibility. I have special mention to politicians – who while still holding constitutional posts themselves, regularly write columns – mostly propagating their own political causes, standing up to say Justice Katju should not have a voice because he holds a quasi-judicial post, just because his opinions have become politically inconvenient to them. What hurts more is rest of us following suit in condemning a man who for all I know should be preserved – because they don’t make the likes of him anymore!

So long...

Not my country – experience of being a minority or a woman in India

 

In many ways, 65 years of Independence and thousands of years’ worth civilization has failed to teach India and more importantly Indians, a few things about good human behavior. Firstly, the words – “India is my country, all Indians are my brothers and sisters……” does not ring a bell with most of us. I am not sure; if this happens in other societies and I am aiming for utopia here, but I am aware that what happens in India is wrong both on ethical as well as legal level.  The identity “INDIAN” remains a detail held only on the passport. Outside the passport, we have so many identities that our identity as Indian - the basis of which the founding fathers gave us our rights and obligations remains vague to most of us. Twice every year – on August 15^th and January 26^th – we wish ourselves Happy Independence day and Happy Republic Day as Indians and then go back to our other identities for the rest of the days.

This is not an easy topic to address, it seems like I am preaching - like holier than thou – but I am aware of so many instances where I must have behaved exactly like the rest of us – whom I am targeting here. We in India do these things routinely, so much so that it becomes part of our culture and even when someone points it out, we refuse to reconsider our approach towards fellow citizen. In most cases, we have a standard reply “It has been like this for as far as I know, so stop lecturing me”. On a TV discussion, during the famous India Against Corruption (IAC) hunger strike for a tough anti-corruption legislation in August 2011, one member casually suggested – “Do you feel, IAC would have had same traction on minds of Indians if a Muslim drove it?” He was soon shouted down by ubiquitous IAC volunteers on TV as well as other “armchair” advisors who felt this individual was Government operative who wanted to give a religious shade to the movement. Initially, I laughed at this comment. Later, I was thinking and asking myself – when was the last time a minority ran a successful movement in India? Did we ever hear about a Christian / Muslim / Sikh / Parsi leader running an anti-corruption drive or leading a movement against religious bias or movement against terrorism or any political movement for causes big or small? Think really hard. Probably rack your brains… you will find there are none. It is shocking isn’t it? In a country of 1.2 billion, with minority population of 25 – 30%, we don’t have one major movement run by a religious minority leader.  I am sure most of us would not even notice that in cases of religious violence too, it’s mostly the Hindus who champion the cause of minorities to lend credibility to the movement for religious equivalence. This is so prevalent in our society that many justify it saying- So what?  after all Hindus make for 70% of the population. So let me ask my friends a few questions today, would Jayprakash Narayan cause the same impact on India if he were a Muslim? Would Anna Hazare cause same amount of support if he were a Christian or would the Mandal politics be as effective if it was run by a Sikh? I am sure, people will say a lot of minorities took part in these events and it would be unfair to say it was run by Hindus only. I know that, I am simply commenting on the people who led these movements and why these movements got traction.

We Indians are notorious for our caste and religion divide. So much so, that it becomes very easy for any Government to kill mass movements. The simplest thing is to point out blatantly that the person leading the movement happens to be from a minority community and wants to run down the image of India at a world stage. The movement dies so fast, that we would feel it never existed. Isn’t it strange that even as we keep saying that as Indians we are all equal in front of our constitution, we have often heard people say “If he has so much problem with India, tell him go to Pakistan”; “If they think India is so bad, they are free to leave”; “We don’t want outsiders to tell us what we should do”. This monopoly of ability to criticize my country that rests with the Hindus does not rest with others. A Muslim reformer is reminded of Pakistan and a Christian of Europe or US and Sikh of Khalistani movement to shut them from uttering anything against India – even obviously wrong things. Why is it that after 65 years of Independence, the minorities have right to live in India, right to move in India, right to vote in India, right to fight and die for India but no rights to criticize and improve India? Why are valid and thoughtful inputs provided by religious minority groups lost in the storm of religious jingoism caused by the majority group politicians?  It is very sad, despite our shared past and equal stake in bright future, a chunk of Indians are not able to voice their opinions freely – at least not as freely as the rest of us.

If being a minority in India seems bad, imagine being a woman in India.  Since before her birth, a girl child starts feeling being unwanted in this world. Infanticide of female fetuses must be unique to India; at least I am not aware of any other country where we selectively kill the female fetus from preventing birth. Though it seemed a rural phenomenon at first, this misogyny is not limited to rural India. We have seen huge number of urban middleclass couples travelling to secluded towns and rural areas to get female fetuses aborted – even at advanced stage of pregnancy. Then there are cases of midwives killing the female child by drowning them in milk so that the next pregnancy results in a male child. In cases where the female child escapes these acts, her interests are always sacrificed for the male child of the family. Be it her nutritional needs or her educational needs to even medical needs, a girl child in India (mostly rural India) learns very early that she has to sacrifice for the man’s needs. Very early she is taught that a woman cannot survive alone, she needs a support of a man throughout her life – father while growing up, husband in her youth and son in her old age. While there may be a sentimental value attached to this teaching, systematic brainwash of a girl from a very young age makes sure that she never learns to stand up for her rights. At all stages a woman learns to compromise with what she has and never yearns for better life. This romanticization of a woman’s ability to sacrifice was depicted in the movies of 19^th century and it glorified a woman for the sacrifices she makes. What followed was the collective psyche of the India accepting the fact that a woman is meant to sacrifice for interests of male family members – consequently, the woman who doesn’t, invariably gets depicted as a selfish bitch or a ‘vamp’. There was nothing like a female sexuality, there was only satisfaction of male sexuality and that remained the extent of female sexuality. The movies depicted this in a worse manner. This statement made by a script writer tells the story – “The only way a woman could have sex outside wedlock was via sexual assault. Hence, the 19^th century movies mostly had a sexual assault scene – where a virtuous girl was forced into sexual ways. The other was a vamp who seduced the male lead. There was no space for a virtuous girl to experiment with her sexuality. Once the 20^th century dawned, and the scripts began having bold ladies experimenting with their bodies, the assault scenes and vamps vanished”. So very systematically over a period of last 100 years, we have pushed women in background as “service providers” to men, incapable of having desires or personal goals. This was done earlier by brainwash and later by invoking ‘culture ‘and most recently by threats. Even to this day, a woman who lives life on her terms is targeted for being against our ‘culture’ and in many cases sexually assaulted to show her – who is the boss.

A Chinese proverb describes culture as “setting up a bunch of rules and following them strictly for a long period of time”. If we over a period of last 100 years drew up a culture of religious hatred and bigotry and misogyny, could we not start now to make new set of rules – rules which mandate people to respect religious beliefs of others as one would respect one’s own. Rules to respect diversity as part of being Indian, rules to understand and appreciate that we may have different backgrounds but we have a shared future, rules that women not only mean a half of our population- they are the better half. If a country known for violent wars could make a culture of non-violence to seek freedom, nothing is impossible for INDIANS.  Let’s pledge to build a better culture for our future generations to follow, let us not seek ways to divide us but build a culture to unite us.

So long…

Spirituality – Religion in 21st Century India gets more complex

My first brush with religion was as a boy of 5 (as far back as I remember). My mother would sit me down with my sister every evening at about 7pm and ‘make us’ pray to Lord Ganesha – the first among God’s – the ‘Vighnaharata’ – the destroyer of all obstructions. I never much understood what I was saying or whom I was praying to, except I believed that my mother knew it and so it must have been right. This ritual went on for about another 7 years. The only time of the day when my sister and I would prostate before the almighty and mime words in Sanskrit and pay our obseience to our maker would be the 7pm evening prayers. I give credit to my parents for never trying to force religion on me. I always assumed it was their background as medical professionals that made them have healthy reverence on the almighty but never too clingy and over dependent. I must have been about 12 years old when religion hit me hard. On one of my visits to Bombay (Oh! How much I loved those yearly visits), I happened to notice that my cousins – who were much younger than I was, had memorized Sanskrit hymns for every occasion. There was a morning prayer; there was prayer before meals, an hour long evening prayer and a prayer at bedtime as well.  To add to that my cousins were followers of Sathya Sai Baba and attended classes to learn more Sanskrit prayers. I felt an inferiority complex for the first time in my life. I felt I was the atheist of the family who many times gave a miss to the 7pm evening prayer (my 5 minutes with God) and here were my cousins, much younger than I who spent so much time just praying. Once or twice, I even heard few relatives commenting that we (my sister and I) were not brought up well and religious culture was not imbibed in us. I did feel I was missing out on something. It was the cult feeling – everyone in the family was overtly religious except for me.

I do remember asking my mother, why we have to say the same prayer every day while my cousins know so many hymns and ‘shloka’ in Sanskrit. To which her reply was simple – Ganesha was the provider of knowledge and students my age should seek knowledge. “If you pray to him daily, you will, through him, learn about other Gods” – still remember her short reply. Needless to say, I spent most of my childhood either playing games or studying math – my mother loved math and had always aced it – I was performing not too bad, but excellent was my benchmark. As far as I remember, my sister and I were the only 2 kids in the family whose benchmark was always higher in terms of behavior and academia. It was like my parents were making up for the lack of religious enthusiasm with acute detailing of acceptable behavior and academic levels. I must give the credit where it is due, if I am of some standing today, morally or academically, the credit goes to relentless pursuit of perfection on basis of ‘active pursuit’ by both my parents. Needless to say, very early in my life, my subconscious was developed for ethical behavior than ornate display of religious devotion.

I must be biased in my views, but religion has always been personal to me. It was so, because it was fiercely personal to my parents too. I remember not having remembered what religion or caste most of my school friends belonged to. In fact, it was news to me in 8^th grade, when one of my teachers told the class that one can guess a person’s religion by knowing the name. I remember discussing the topic with my grandmother, who then gave me a detail picture of how divided we are within Hinduism – caste and sub-caste wise; and at a higher level on basis of religion. I must say, it was the day I lost my innocence. I started to read into people’s names to find a trace of the religion they belonged to. I mean – innocently- it was a new science to me and I wanted to make sure I perfected it. I don’t blame my parents or even grandparents for any caste bias they had in mind. They were after all from a different generation and these identities mattered a lot to them. I remember my father’s shocked face when I told him “I don’t like you treating Muslim patients to working in Muslim area”. Yeah, ghettoization began long before I arrived in this world, apparently. I had always known my father in two shades – smiling and happy when I was good and unforgiving when I did something bad- that day I saw a third shade- of disappointment. He sat me down and calmly explained to me how religion was irrelevant factor for a doctor to treat his patients. He went on explaining at great lengths of how we are born equal – irrespective of caste or religion and we all seek to pray to the same God whom we refer to in different forms. I must say, to this day, I try and follow those words in letter and spirit but I never really knew what they meant then. Soon we got more involved into academia and pressures of higher studies took precedence over all other issues – religion included. For the next 6- 7 years religion was wiped out of my memory… until 2002 riots came long.

I remember as if it was yesterday, I was arguing with a bunch of classmates on what happened in Gujarat. It was an emotive issue and the whole of India was divided into “pseudo-secular” and “hindutva” ideologies. I was called ‘pseudo’ secular because I believed that one must not harm others at all cost. Enforcing law and order is duty of state and not for individuals to arrogate it onto oneself. I must say the scars of what happened in Gujarat left indelible mark on my conscience because it challenged each and every doctrine of life – as I had learned from my parents. Apparently, religion had become an ornament one must ostentatiously wear and show off at every possible occasion. I could not accept universal acceptance to this new doctrine. While we were debating religion, lot many channels started mushrooming (television boom) who gave religious sermons. India was never as openly Hindu and so unabashedly too. Every channel, worth its salt had a “baba” who would preach you Hindu way of life. Not to be left far behind – Muslims had one channel, Christians had foreign English channels and Sikhs had Punjabi religious channel. In short, religion had become such a important part of everyone’s life. Everyone I knew was following some “baba” or “fakir” or “pastor” and I was left behind the learning curve with only values on humanity with no grasp of religion. I remember being outcast in many a discussion – “Which baba is God?” I had enough people telling me – this topic is not for you, you are an atheist. I was not. I would be proud of being an atheist if I was one, but my subconscious was trained to “religion is personal” not to be discussed or debated. Apparently, we had become so involved in religion that we needed to see a living, physical form of divine and not just accept the existence of a divine spirit. Religion was the most – in your face thing. Everyone, who was anyone, came out with ridiculous proposition of how we Indians need to safeguard our “religious culture”. It goes without saying that many of these involved in what women could or could not do.

We saw a spate of violence against “immoral” pub going young women or couple canoodling on Valentine’s Day or women visiting holy shrines or women having a grip of their bodies or sexuality. As an adult myself, having met my fair share of women, I knew that women were as free spirited as I was and I had no right to demand something from another human being that I would not do myself. ‘Women’ was the rare unifying force for all the various religion and caste that exists in India. All the religious leaders or caste ‘panchayat’ or ‘Khap’ were unanimous in their decree of making women freedom subject to restraint from the male members of her family. At first, people privately disagreed or refused to follow the ‘dictat’ but once the spate of violence increased targeting young women on pretext of “protecting culture”. India – I mean liberal values within India stood up and fought these fringe elements that had made their way into mainstream tagging onto the coattails of religion. “Babas” faced a unnatural prospect of being question of what they considered was Gospel according to them. As days passed by, every now and then a baba was exposed for improper sexual conduct. The skeletons started falling out – from baba of ‘puttaparthy’ to ‘Nityanad’ to several other small timers were being exposed by the day. Many others got involved in politics and were caught off guard wielding clout. Rest of Babas, were plainly using ashrams for illegal trafficking. All of sudden, so much muck was being raised on the so called “holders of Indian culture” that these pseudo vigilante movements against women morality stopped abruptly and died an unnatural death. Volunteers of these fringe groups could not justify calling a woman immoral when his baba was caught sleeping with 3.

I was once told that Indians can let go of religion but religion shall never let go of India. Sure enough, the religion struck back this time targeting free speech, literature, arts cinema and whole host of things. Today, as we speak, there are fatwas or threats being issued against some painter or film maker or writer for “hurting religious sentiments”. This time the vengeance is even stronger because in some form, the state is protecting these fringe groups. Somewhere, it seems the constitution mentions that free speech or expression can be curtailed if it happens to hurt sensibilities of some fringe element – provided the fringe element threatens violence. I would really like to read this constitution that is strictly subscribed by these states and not seen by the rest of us (including the Supreme Court). How is it, that religion which should have been a part of individual identity – a personal part, becomes so larger than life that it infringes upon people’s right to expression through their art / literature / film?  How can a State, sworn to protect individual fundamental rights of citizen under the constitution, abdicate their duties to pander to fringe elements. Why is India the only country which has more exception than rules? We must try and answer these questions in the context of importance of religion is one’s life. If I can write an article disliking a tenet of the “Holy Quran”, should I be condemned to death for blasphemy? If I write a movie script depicting fundamentalist Hindus blowing up the ‘Taj Mahal’ do I mean disrespect to all Hindus? If my friend – who has a natural talent for music has to give up her singing because its “haram” in Islam but the same Mufti is silent about several people who kill in the name of Islam, should I not question that Mufti’s understanding of religion? If in any form of art, I offend my God, who by the way has no qualms about being depicted naked, should I be persecuted in my own country? Finally, is religion the only significant thing left on which we are ready to kill/ maim / hurt fellow Indians with whom we share this wonderful history of togetherness? I do hope someone is listening to my silent prayers and sooner than later we will again defeat these fringe elements and relegate them to the fringes. Nothing can be a good reason to harm a fellow human being – not even religion.

So long…