Nepal's Pashupatinath and de-culturing

Nepal priests to conduct worship at Pashupatinath-South Asia-World-The Times of India

Nepal was the only country in the world that proclaimed Hindu Dharma as its state religion. Soon after Prachanda and his cohorts took up power in Nepal, one of the first things they did was to remove the word "Hindu" from the country's constitution. Hindus the world over felt a twinge of discomfort when they read about it (this blogger included).

Karl Marx had this to say about religion, amongst other things - "It is the opium of the people." Whether his view was more nuanced than what this quote implies is a different topic. But as far as his followers are concerned, this statement pretty much sums it up. Religion and pre-communist tradition are something that have to be shunned. Atheism, nay, a form of nihilism and communism go together, that way.

Back to Nepal, the Pashupatinath temple is a very old and sacred centre of religion. Legend has it that Sri Shankaracharya instituted worship in this temple and appointed a lineage of priests (called ravals) from Karnataka. This tradition has gone on for centuries. When monarchy reigned in Nepal, Hindus and Hindu institutions flourished. That the pontiffs of the Kanchi Matha were held in high esteem by the king of Nepal is well known.

Communists, completely supported by the Chinese, started their activities within Nepal long ago. With bloodshed and rivalry within the royal family, their ascent to power accelerated. And finally, Prachanda got democratically elected as the prime minister. He belongs to the Communist Party (Maoist) of Nepal. The fact that he owes much to China can be seen from the name of his party as well as by his act of traveling first to China instead of India, as was the norm. The cold shoulder to India is quite evident here. It may not be long before Indian citizens need a passport and visa to visit Nepal, just like everybody else. India might need to worry about open borders with Nepal - but that is a separate issue.

The ascension to power by Prachanda was marked by the abolition of monarchy. Beginning with that, a systematic change of traditions instituted by the royal family has started. The change of the rawals is but a marker in the process of this "deculturing".

Monolithic religion-ideologies such as Islam, Communism and Christianity have one thing common amongst them. Wherever one of these has risen to power, the clock on history and culture is reset - as if there was no history and culture in these lands before the advent of these ideologies. Pakistan is an example in point. Textbooks are full of glorification of everything Islamic and condemnation of all else. Two generations of readers of such text books are all it takes to obliterate a country's indigenous traditions. Harappa is still in Pakistan, but from those textbooks, its achievements pale in front of those of a Ghauri or a Ghaznavi as Mohenjodaro et al were pre-Islamic sites and therefore jAhil. Mao's cultural revolution is similar.

A similar effort seems to be afoot in Nepal. Textbooks will, in all likelihood, be the next target if not already targeted. And it will be decreed in them that Nepal was under continued oppression till they were "liberated" by Chairman Mao's ideology, whose able representative is Chairman Prachanda. Whatever good remains will be credited to the new ideology and all things bad will be cast as the relics of a forgettable past.

The following quote by an American author sums it up quite well -
“Only when the war propaganda of the victors is entered into the history books of the vanquished, (and this is also believed by succeeding generations), only then will our reeducation have succeeded”

ಭೈರಪ್ಪ ಚರ್ಚಾಪಟು, ಕಾದಂಬರಿಕಾರನಲ್ಲ - ಡಾ|| ಯು. ಆರ್. ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿ

ಇಂದು ಮುಂಜಾನೆ ಏಳುತ್ತಾ ವಿಜಯಕರ್ನಾಟಕವನ್ನು ಕೈಗೆತ್ತಿಕೊಂಡಾಗ ಕಂಡ ವಿಷಯವೇ ಇದು. ಎನ್. ಎಸ್. ಶಂಕರ್ ಎಂಬುವರೊಬ್ಬರು ಎಸ್. ಎಲ್. ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ "ಆವರಣ" ಕಾದಂಬರಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದು ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಣಾತ್ಮಕ ಪುಸ್ತಕವನ್ನು ಬರೆದು ಅದರ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಯ ಸಮಾರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರನ್ನು ಕರೆದಿದ್ದರು. ಅವರಲ್ಲಾಡಿದ ಭಾಷಣದ ಸಾರವೇ ಈ ಬರಹದ ತಲೆಬರಹ.

"ಆವರಣ"ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ಹಿಂದೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವೆ. ಆಗ್ಗಿನಿಂದ ಈವರೆಗೆ ಆವರಣದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಚಿಂತನೆ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಹೌದು - ಇದು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಬೇರೆ ಕೃತಿಗಳ ಹಾಗಿಲ್ಲ - ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಕೃತಕವಾಗಿ ನನಗೆ ಕಂಡಿತ್ತು ಎಂಬ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದೆ. ಅದನ್ನೇ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿ. ರಝಿಯಾ ಮತ್ತು ಅಮೀರರು ಬಹಳ ಕಾಲದ ಮೇಲೆ ಸೇರಿದಾಗ, ರಝಿಯಾ ತನ್ನ ಗಂಡನೊಡನೆ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾಳೆ; ಪ್ರೀತಿ ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬುದು ಇವರ ಒಂದು ಅಹವಾಲು. ಕಾದಂಬರಿಯ ಕಲಾತ್ಮಕತೆಗೆ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಮೀಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದಿದ್ದರೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆಗಾಗಿ ಬರೆಯುವ ಲೇಖಕರೆಂದು ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಸುದ್ದಿವಿವರವನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಓದಿದಾಗ ಒಂದು ರೀತಿಯ ಅಸಹ್ಯಭಾವನೆ ನನ್ನಲ್ಲುಂಟಾಯಿತು.

ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಕಾದಂಬರಿಯ ಕಲಾತ್ಮಕತೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇವರು ಹೇಳುವ ಮಾತು. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ "ಒಳನೋಟ" ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಅಂಬೋಣ. ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಬೇರೆಯ ಕಾದಂಬರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿದರೆ ಆವರಣದ ಒಳನೋಟ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗನ್ನಿಸಿದರೂ ಬೇರೆ ಲೇಖಕರ ಉತ್ಕೃಷ್ಟಕೃತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಲಿಸುವಷ್ಟು ಒಳನೋಟವಿದೆಯೆಂದು ಹೇಳಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಮಾತು ಒಂದು ಕೃತಿಗೆ ಮೀಸಲಾಗದೆ ಸಾರಾಸಗಟಾಗಿ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರಿಗೆ "ಒಳನೋಟ"ವೇ ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದರೆ?

ಒಪ್ಪೋಣ, ನನಗೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಭಾಷೆ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸೊಗಸಿಲ್ಲ ಅನ್ನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. "ಕವಿತ್ವದ ಆರ್ದ್ರತೆ" ಅವರ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಇಡೀ ಪ್ರಬಂಧವನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸುವಾಗ ಆದೂ ಧ್ವನಿಪರಂಪರೆಯುಳ್ಳದ್ದೆ ಎಂದು ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಜನ ಒಪ್ಪುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅವರ ಕೃತಿಗಳು ಕಾವ್ಯಸದೃಶವಾಗಿಯೇ ಆಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಅಥವಾ ಅ.ಮೂ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವಿಕ್ರಮ್ ಸೇಠ್ ರ "Golden gate" ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭೈರಪ್ಪ ಬರೆಯಬೇಕೆಂದೋ?

ಈಗ ಅ.ಮೂ.ರವರ "ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರ"ವನ್ನೇ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಿ - ಪ್ರಾಣೇಶಾಚಾರ್ಯರಿಗಾದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ವಾಸ್ತವವಾಗಿ ಅವರಷ್ಟೇ ವ್ಯಾಸಂಗವಿದ್ದ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾರಾದರೂ ಕರ್ಮಠರಿಗೆ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಛಕ್ಕನೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಿಕ್ಕುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. (ಪಾ. ವೆಂ. ಆಚಾರ್ಯರ ಇದರ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ಲೇಖನವನ್ನೋದಿ). ಅಷ್ಟು ದಿನ ಒದ್ದಾಡುವ ಪ್ರಸಂಗವೇ ಬರುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಬೇಕೆಂದು ಪ್ರಾಣದೇವರ ಗುಡಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಾಣೇಶಾಚಾರ್ಯರನ್ನು ಕಳಿಸಿದ್ದು ಚಂದ್ರಿಯ ಜೊತೆ ಇವರನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಲೆಂದು. ಇದು ಕಥೆಯ ಮುಖ್ಯಕೊಂಡಿ. ಇಲ್ಲೇ factual ಆಗಿ ತಪ್ಪು ಮಾಡಿದ ಇವರು, ಬೇರೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಒಳನೋಟವಿಲ್ಲ ಅನ್ನುವುದು ಅಷ್ಟು ಸಮಂಜಸವಾಗಿ ನನಗೆ ಕಾಣಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಾಣೇಶಾಚಾರ್ಯರನ್ನು ಚಂದ್ರಿಯ ಜೊತೆ ಸೇರಿಸಿದರೆ ಅದು ವಿಪ್ಲವವೇ? ಇದನ್ನು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ "ದಾಟು" ವಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಚರ್ಚೆಯಾದ ಜಾತಿಯ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿ. ಜಾತಿರಾಜಕಾರಣದ ಒಳನೋಟ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡಷ್ಟು ನನಗೆ ಬೇರೆಲ್ಲೂ ಕಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನದಿಂದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ ಓದುಗರನ್ನು ಯೋಚನೆಗಿಕ್ಕುವ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಪರಿ ಅನನ್ಯಸಾಧಾರಣ. ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು "ಆವರಣ"ದಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿರುವಷ್ಟು ಒಳನೋಟ ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಅತಿ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯಕೃತಿಯಾದ "ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರ"ದಲ್ಲೂ ನನಗೆ ಕಾಣಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಅ.ಮೂ ಅವರ ಬಿಡಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ, ಸಣ್ಣ ಕತೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಒಮ್ಮೊಮ್ಮೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಒಳನೋಟ ಕಂಡಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರನ್ನು ಒಳನೋಟವಿಲ್ಲದ ಸಾಹಿತಿಯೆಂಬುದು ಅ.ಮೂ ರವರ bias ಅನ್ನು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ತೋರುತ್ತದೆಯೆಂದೆನ್ನಬೇಕು.

ಈಗ "ಚರ್ಚಾಪಟು" ಎಂಬ ಹಣೆಪಟ್ಟಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ. ಹೌದು, "ಭಿತ್ತಿ"ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರೇ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಂತೆ ಅವರು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಚರ್ಚಾಪಟು. ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಕಂಡ ವಿಷಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬರೆಯಲು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಹಕ್ಕಿಲ್ಲವೇ? (ಹೌದು, ಅ.ಮೂ ರವರಿಗೂ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರನ್ನು ಟೀಕಿಸುವ ಹಕ್ಕಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ನನಗೂ ಅವರನ್ನು ಟೀಕಿಸುವ ಹಕ್ಕಿದೆ). ಅವರಿಗೆ ಮನಸ್ಸಿಗೆ ಬಂದ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಪುಷ್ಟಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಬರೆದರೆ ಅವರು ಚರ್ಚಾಪಟುವಾಗುವರೇ? ಅಥವಾ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರೆತ್ತಿದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉತ್ತರಿಸಲಾರದೆ ಮೊದಲೇ ಸೋಲೊಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡು ಈ hit and run ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಅ.ಮೂ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆಯೇ?

ವಂಶವೃಕ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾತ್ಯಾಯನಿಯನ್ನು ನರಳಿಸಿ ನರಳಿಸಿ ಕೊಂದದ್ದು ನನಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟವಾಗಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಆ ಪಾತ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಮರುಕಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು ಹಾಗೆ ಚಿತ್ರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯವನ್ನು ಬಿಡಲು ಈ ಕಡೆ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದೆ, ನವನಾಗರಿಕತೆಯನ್ನು ಮೈಗೂಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳದೆಯಿರುವ ತ್ರಿಶಂಕು-ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಆಕೆಯದು. ಇದನ್ನು ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿಯೇ ತೋರಿರುವರಲ್ಲ? ಎರಡೂ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಗಳನ್ನು ತೋರಿದರೂ, ಕಾತ್ಯಾಯನಿಯನ್ನು ಕೊಲ್ಲುವುದು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರಿಗಿಷ್ಟವೋ ? ಅಥವಾ ವಾಸ್ತವದ ಪ್ರತಿಬಿಂಬವೋ? ಜೀವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವತಃ ಬಹಳ ಕಷ್ಟ ಪಟ್ಟ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರಿಗೆ ಜನರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಾಳಜಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚು. ಅವರು ಅಮಾನವೀಯವಾಗಿ ಪಾತ್ರಚಿತ್ರಣಮಾಡಿರುವುದನ್ನು ನಾನು ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಂಥ ಮಂದ್ರದ ಮೋಹನಲಾಲನ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೇ ಅನುಕಂಪ ಹುಟ್ಟುವ ಹಾಗೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು "ಸಮಾಜಿಕ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿಯಿಲ್ಲದ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯ ಹಂತಕರ ದ್ವೇಷದಿಂದ ಬರೆಯಬಲ್ಲ"ವರೇ?

"ಮಂದ್ರ"ವನ್ನು ಎಷ್ಟು ಜನ ಓದಿದರು? ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಆವರಣದ ರೀತಿಯ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೆ ಏಕೆ ಸಿಗಲಿಲ್ಲ? ಅಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯ ಏಕಾಗಲಿಲ್ಲ? ವಾಸ್ತವವಾಗಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಕಲಾತ್ಮಕತೆ "ಆವರಣ"ಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಬಹಳ ಹೆಚ್ಚು. ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸದೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ಕಲಾವಿದನ ಏಳು-ಬೀಳುಗಳನ್ನು ಬಿಂಬಿಸುವ ಮಂದ್ರ ಸುಂದರವಾದ ಕೃತಿ. ಆದರೆ ಆವರ ಬೇರೆಯ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯವಲ್ಲ. ಹಲವರು ಮೊದಲ ಅಧ್ಯಾಯದ ನಂತರವೇ ಪುಸ್ತವನ್ನು ಮೂಲೆಗುಂಪು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಕಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಆದರೆ ಆ ಕೃತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾರಸ್ಯ ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಓದುವವರಿಗೆ. ಕಲೆಯ ಆ ಮುಖಗಳನ್ನು ಆಸ್ವಾದಿಸಬಲ್ಲವರಿಗೆ. ರಸಾಸ್ವಾದದ ಆ ಮಟ್ಟ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯವಲ್ಲ, ದುರದೃಷ್ಟವಶಾತ್! ಜನಪ್ರಿಯವಾಗಿ ಅದನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕಿದ್ದರೆ, ಅಸಭ್ಯವಾದ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ವರ್ಣಿಸಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಿತ್ತಲ್ಲ? ಆದರೆ ವಸ್ತುಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಅದು ಹಾಗಾಗಲೇ ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಕೇವಲ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆಗಾಗಿ ಬರೆಯುವವರು ಭೈರಪ್ಪ ಎಂಬುದು ಹುರುಳಿಲ್ಲದ ಮಾತು.

ಆದರೆ ಕೃತಿಯು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯವಾದರೆ ಅದು ಲೇಖಕನ ದೌರ್ಬಲ್ಯವೇ? ಈ "ಅನಾವರಣ" ಪುಸ್ತಕವನ್ನು ಬರೆದ ಶಂಕರ್ ಪ್ರಕಾರ - ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಮಾರಾಟವಾದಷ್ಟು ಆ ಲೇಖಕನಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿಯಿದೆಯೆಂದೇ?

ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು ಸತ್ಯವನ್ನೇ ಎತ್ತಿ ಹಿಡಿವವರು. ಕಹಿಯಾಗಿ ಕಂಡರೂ ಅದು ಸತ್ಯವೇ. ಮೊದಲೇ ಹೇಳಿದ ಹಾಗೆ ಎರಡು ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ಸತ್ಯದ ಬುನಾದಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಂಬಂಧವನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು. ಸುಳ್ಳಿನ ಬುನಾದಿಯ ಮೇಲಲ್ಲ. ಸತ್ಯವನ್ನಾಶ್ರಯಿಸಿದರೆ ಮೊದಲು ಕಷ್ಟ ಅಥವಾ ಕಹಿಯಾದರೂ ನಂತರ ಸುದೃಢ ಸಮಾಜ ಬೆಳೆಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವುದು. ಸುಳ್ಳಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಸುಳ್ಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳಲು ಹೋಗುವ ಇಂಥ "ಶಂಕರ್" (ಎಂಥ ವಿಪರ್ಯಾಸದ ಹೆಸರು - ಶಂಕರನೆಂದರೆ ಮಂಗಳವನ್ನುಂಟು ಮಾಡುವವನು!) ಅಂಥವರಿಗೆ ನಿಜವಾಗಿ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿಯಿದೆಯೇ?

And that's the trouble with India

And that's the trouble with India

Though the tone of the above well-written article can at some times be seen as complaining, the statements made in that are all, unfortunately, true.

Being a witness to the daily traffic in Bangalore and its horrors, I totally agree with the basic thrust of the article that India has a lot of catching up to do in the infrastructure area. Or, India has to risk going back in time. I felt vexed that several people and politicians look at development of roads as something that harms agriculture.

It will benefit the reader to read the article with an open mind.

Reading this article was like an emotional roller coaster for me. Naturally, a question arose as to what the role of the individual is. This is something that I have to reflect about. It sure means paying taxes and staying honest. But is there something else that we as individuals can do?

Janaagraha is a good movement in this direction in Bangalore. But honestly, I have not found time to check it out even after a couple of years (as a come-back-Bangalorean) in Bangalore. I also don't know anybody who has directly worked with this organization.

Macaulay's birthday and the English Goddess

I got to this blog via SepiaMutiny. I am, to plainly state it, angry. A person named Chandrabhan Prasad celebrating the birthday of Macaulay? Thomas Babbington Macaulay, we learned at school, came up with his notorious "minute on education" where he proposed to create a class of Indians that were intellectually and mentally English but were physically of course, Indians. In other words, he wanted to create a class of coconuts who could successfully mediate between their white masters and their subordinate internally brown countrymen. Actually, when I studied it, it was made to seem as if it were a good thing. As I became older, I realized how nicely the Indian text books were pulling wool over their children's eyes. Several people I know regard their lack of knowledge of their mother tongue an issue of prestige. A Kannada speaking lady I knew once said thus in a falsely complaining tone about her son, "He scores well in all subjects except Kannada". And this was with a smug smile. As if her son had done a great deed by not knowing Kannada!

Coming back to Macaulay, he had said something as ridiculous as this :

I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues...... I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia

And our government lavishes praise upon this man! The *whole* native literature of the whole of India is not worth a single shelf of a good European library? vyAsa, vAlmIki, kAlidAsa, pANini - no good? Even fairly knowledgeable people know how ignorant that statement of Macaulay is. To be fair, Macaulay admits:

I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit[sic] or Arabic.

Since he admits his lack of knowledge, his entire statement on the net worth of Indian literature becomes fallacious. How could he claim something like this without knowing Samskrit or Arabic? Chandrabhan Prasad, by following Macaulay has become a classic example of a blind man following another blind man. Or is it a man who can see following a blind man for some nefarious purpose?

I am not against the English language at all. In fact, I love English as a language. The fact that I am typing up this article in English shows that. English is the pathway to modern science and literature. It has played an important role in unifying India. I cannot even begin to list the many advantages of knowing English. But to disregard my own language to promote English is something I cannot even dream of doing.

The theme of "globalization as evil" has been played up by left leaning people so many times that I've become quite sick of it. But when I see such episodes, I am forced to pause and think. It is quite obvious that English is important only because of the economic benefits it can bring to somebody. I am sure that the Japanese or the Germans don't have this problem of being forced by their government or by their peers to learn English. They are quite comfortable in their own language and are in fact, proud of it. But that is because they are not impoverished people. The matter is of economics. It is not the case of literary merit or linguistic facilities that English might offer. I would even say that any Indian language has more literary and linguistic potential than English. English accommodates and conquers - much like in the story of the Arab and his camel in his tent. Languages live and die with their speakers and English is more alive than ever because it is probably the language with a presence all over the world. It does not, however, mean that other languages are linguistically worse.

Now to Chandrabhan Prasad's opinions. He writes:

Will the future generations of Dalits/Adivasis fit into a world shaped by their
own Goddess? The answer is a clear NO. The remedy for that NO is to accept the
Goddess in Her entirety – and become English speaking at the earliest.Goddess
English is all about emancipation. Goddess English is a mass movement against
the Caste Order, against linguistic evils such as Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, Telgu
[sic] and Bangla for instance. Indian languages as more about prejudices,
discrimination and hatred and less about expressions and communications.

Hindi, Marathi, Telgu [sic] are linguistic evils? What makes a language evil? Its speakers? I wonder what Kancha Ilaiah would think of Telgu(sic) replaced by English. Dalits have not spoken with each other in English for the past thousands of years. They have used their own languages. They have created their own words. And they want to throw all of this to serve Goddess English? Dalits can use their own language, be it Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Bangla, to express themselves. This can even be a fitting response to casteists! Especially in Kannada, the Dalit baNDAya movement has been quite famous and successful too. Several poets have used the baNDAya movement for self-expression and emancipation. How would the other Dalit even come to know of such expressions of freedom and rebellion if they were not in his own language? One just cannot disregard one's own language. Chandrabhan, can you get rid of your face because you don't like it? Why this self-loathing? If you as a Dalit cannot respect yourself, how can you expect others to treat you well?

I understand that casteism is an evil. But you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater! English is a good language and one must learn it to understand the world. But at the same time, you cannot deny your mother tongue without denying your identity in the process.

Chandrabhan, if you want to kill your identity, it is your personal choice. Just don't expect other self-respecting Dalits to follow you.

More on Karnad, Bhyrappa, Tipu Sultan etc., (response to a comment)

I started writing this as a response to a comment that December Stud had made. Since it became a much bigger piece, I decided to make it a separate post.

December Stud (DS in the piece below),
You've agreed throughout in your comment with whatever Chi.Mu and NSL said.But in the end you ask the question, "why the controversy?". This is basically coming back to square one. I agree that Shankaramurthy might have done it just to polarise society and get votes and so on. But there are other internal and important issues. Since it has been raised now, it is better to beat it to death completely so that it can never raise its head again.

Do you believe it is OK if a text book hails Tipu Sultan as a hero just because the government believes that calling him a hero will appease minorities which will then lead to communal harmony? You've already shown that you agree that Tipu has committed those atrocities. So, at the very best, Tipu is a gray character more on the darker side than a pearly white all-good side. I think most detached observers will agree with this characterization.

Now, do you think that relationships between communities can be based on deception and lies? In other words, should it be "forgive and forget" (implying knowledge of atrocities and then consciously acknowledge it and ask for forgiveness - just as America has done with Native Americans) or "deny and maintain status quo" (Politicians starting from Gandhi and Nehru have gone the minority appeasement route and they just managed to create Pakistan and the Babri Masjid demolition controversy)? If "forgive and forget" had really been used, so many people probably would not have been killed and this unnecessary tension between the two communities might not have existed.

If the truth of the matter that Tipu was a dark gray character is acknowledged, history would have played its role of conveying the truth well. History, as I see it, has its value mainly in showing us the good and bad of the past so that we in the present can learn from them.

If people also acknowledge that he destroyed 8000 temples and converted thousands of people to Islam by the sword - but also gave a pittance of a dENige (done when Tipu was mentally fragile) to Shringeri and Nanjanagud and even ShrIrangapaTTaNa - what should Tipu be seen as? In light of the letters that Tipu wrote to the Sultans of Afghanistan and the inscription on his sword, you tell me what Tipu should be seen as. Objectively.

Lot of people have this thought in the corner of their minds that to be objective, one must support both Hindus and Muslims and that is why, DS, you probably did that (still :)) thing in your comment. But in this case, an objective - not saffron or green colored - view will still lead you or any one to see that Tipu was a bigot. Now, being a bigot might be fine from a Muslim perspective - which is the main problem - as Tipu did whatever his Holy Quran told him. But an objective consideration will lead you just to this. But let's not go there for now.

If this fact of Tipu's bigotry is wilfully suppressed and children are taught something else (a la glorious romantic novels from Bhagwan Gidwani) to subserve an ideology or a mistaken notion that appeasement leads to the common good, I feel that the Government is doing something dangerous. Instead of releasing the pent-up pressure in a pressure cooker, people are just trying to be indifferent to it. A little more time and it just might just explode causing a lot of harm to everybody, concerned or not. This resentment of the other community is exactly that. Acknowledge its existence and the root cause for it and try to alleviate it. Denying that the problem exists is just like the ostrich putting its head in the sand. Systematic indifference from the government is the cause for all the Hindu-Muslim clashes happening now.

If this is done, actually the BJP will suffer in the polls as it will have no plank to stand on. So far, it has used only Ramjanmabhumi and the image of Hindus as victims and images of glorious Hindu past (very similar to the Muslim League's pitch to Muslims) to garner votes. If everybody is educated, then politics will become issue-based and not caste/religion based which will be quite a welcome change for India. Shrewd politicians across the political spectrum (the Communists, the Congress and the BJP) have foreseen this problem and it appears that they want to keep the flame of hate burning to provide heat for themselves.

Otherwise the country might just become prosperous! And politicians will be given no easy plank to stand on! Of these, the people with the most simplistic and stupidest ideology are the Left and they are the ones who back the Islamists to the hilt also. These guys have the unique ability to see the world only in terms of the oppressors and the oppressed. And they use this perverse perspective everywhere. It is they who want to rewrite all history in that light (or should I say darkness?). Also, communism is the one ideology that thrives only in strife and poverty. So it is they who really want to keep the country poor and illiterate to serve their own selfish needs.

In my opinion, educating people about the truth is what is necessary and this is always better than any stupid revolution. What is happening now is precisely the opposite and that is why VijayaKarnataka (in spite of its being bought over by the Times of India group) should be commended for trying to bring this to light and educating the public.

Thank you for the thought-provoking comments.

Girish Karnad, SL Bhyrappa, Tipu Sultan and others

Girish Karnad is a multi-faceted personality. He is one of the few Jnanapeetha award winners of the country - he is one of the seven award winners from Karnataka. He is a popular playwright, movie director and actor. In fact, I don't think any of the Jnanpeeth awardees across the country is as popular an actor as Girish Karnad. He has acted in movies of several languages - including Kannada, Hindi, Telugu and Tamil. None can disagree with the fact that Girish Karnad is a really talented man. But, alas! He is human. To err is human and to show that he is human, Girish has erred! Not that he has not proved his erring er.. human credentials before...

Any man is entitled to his opinion and Girish Karnad deserves to have his. Several men of his age have been enamoured of socialism and Girish Karnad is no exception. However, those men were honest. I would not have written this blog had he held his opinions honestly. I thought the earlier incidents were exceptions - but this time he has shown that he is not an honest man and lives for his political ambitions only, whatever those may be.

Anybody in India in the last couple of weeks is sure to have come across the controversy courted by DV Shankaramurthy, the education minister of Karnataka when he said that Tipu Sultan was anti-Kannada and that he should not be celebrated as a national hero. I tend to agree with him and you can find my thoughts about the matter here.

Now, Girish Karnad could have kept quiet like several other litterateurs who did. But he did not. He called for an open debate with the minister and firmly contested that Tipu Sultan was a national hero. Of course Karnad had already written a play titled - "The Dreams of Tipu Sultan" in which he portrayed Tipu Sultan as a magnanimous character and national hero. Since these things did not go together, Girish Karnad had to protest. He was accompanied in this task by the usual "secular" suspects - BK Chandrashekhar and GK Govinda Rao.

But this time, Karnad had not counted on SL Bhyrappa, arguably Kannada's finest novelist, writing a piece about this in the popular Kannada daily Vijayakarnataka. Bhyrappa argued quite eloquently that Tipu should not be celebrated as a hero. The most important thing that Bhyrappa mentioned was in his last paragraph. He said that relationships between communities, (Hindu and Muslim in this context) should not be built on false foundations - but on solid truths. Calling Tipu a national hero basically attempts to whitewash the atrocities that he had committed in the name of religion. True attempts at reconciliation should focus on the truth, forgiveness should follow and only then could a real relationship develop. Bhyrappa, in my opinion, is right on the money here. He also provided good historical proof about Tipu's atrocities. He also castigated Karnad for making a hero out of Tughlaq in a play of the same name while history said something else. Bhyrappa urged Karnad to pay attention to history whenever historical characters were used in creative endeavors. He also accused Karnad of misusing art to serve an ideology whereas art ideally has to be beyond all -isms.

This piece begged for a response from Karnad and sure enough, there was one in the Vijayakarnataka published a few days later. But, unfortunately, Karnad's piece was not a real response at all. In his piece, Karnad failed to answer any of Bhyrappa's concerns. Instead, he accused Bhyrappa of becoming a "dhiDIr"(quick) historian overnight. About the liberties taken with Muhammad bin Tughlaq, Karnad replied that Tughlaq was just a figment of the writer's imagination. And since any writer had the freedom to do that, Karnad was justified in doing what he did.

Now, I ask Girish Karnad - if Tughlaq was just a purely fictional character, then why did Karnad have to call him Tughlaq? He could have called him Abdul Hasan or even Imran Khan!! The name Tughlaq has historical significance. So when people watch Karnad's play, they end up thinking that Mohammed Bin Tughlaq was actually a very kind and considerate ruler whereas history mentions the exact opposite! It then becomes obvious that Karnad wanted to get into the good books of Marxists and the Minority by pandering to their ideology and religion respectively.

Karnad also did not answer the important question of whether art should be subservient to any ideology be it religious or political. Art ideally, in my opinion, is above such ideological squabbles and is mainly for enjoyment by the connoisseur.

Karnad then resorted to hit and run and name calling tactics - typically employed by several left-leaning folks. This is known as vitanDAvAda in Samskrit/Kannada. When one cannot face an issue or argue well, vitaNDa is resorted to. Karnad had directed a couple of movies based on Bhyrappa's novels - "vamshavRuksha" and "tabbaliyu nInAde magane". Since Bhyrappa wrote against Karnad's ideas, the latter came out and said that those movies Karnad directed were Karnad's weakest creations. The fact that those movies won Girish Karnad a foothold in the parallel cinema circle and some awards were conveniently forgotten. Karnad used those movies when he wanted and now when he was confronted with something unpleasant, he resorted to name calling. This was just dishonest!

Shatavadhani Dr. R. Ganesh did a good piece refuting Karnad in Vijayakarnataka, which now has become a veritable battlefield for fighting several battles - minorityism vs non-minorityism, the role of art in ideology, literary vs historical portrayal and others. Dr. Ganesh brought focus back to the crux of Bhyrappa's article (the last paragraph that talks about how relationships have to based on foundations of truth and not otherwise) and showed how Girish Karnad had failed miserably to write a rebuttal to that.

Another point that is worth a mention here is that unlike Karnad, Bhyrappa is no "dhiDIr" historian. Having read several of Bhyrappa's works, I know the attention to detail paid by Bhyrappa to historical facts. Just read his "sArtha" and "parva" to understand that. Though there are a few debatable points in his novels, Bhyrappa tries very hard to portray the facts as they are. He studies a subject for several years before he actually commences writing. Bhyrappa's immense talent and creativity then lies in how he creates and manipulates characters in that setting.

Karnad, on the other hand, probably knows his history too. But, if he really feels that ideology is above art, he's probably OK with creativity being used to even distort historical facts. Evidence to this can be seen in how Karnad has twisted the stories of yayAti and yavakrIDa (I agree that is not "history" but still...) to suit his needs. But there is a big debate over whether history lies mainly in facts or solely in the interpretation of those facts. Karnad may just be reinterpreting the facts, albeit a bit too freely.

Even with all this, Karnad's criticism, unfortunately I feel, stops with the Hindu society and does not extend to other (deserving?) parts of Indian society (including Islamists and Christists). Is this because he knows that to get "rAjAshraya", he needs to pander to the Marxists and Minorities? It could also be because Hindus normally don't protest and when they do, they do a pretty crude job of it. So it is easy to malign the Hindus and get kudos whereas it is not the same with the other sections. There it is! It finally boils down to economics and incentives. Karnad has plenty of incentive to criticize the Hindu society and not otherwise.

Could it be possible to say that Karnad and his likes have sprung forth mainly or only because of prevailing conditions in society? In that case, it could be that Karnad has unwittingly chosen to do what he does!

Arjun Singh - the culprit behind the present reservation issue?

Did Arjun Singh's quota gamble backfire?

This is a good piece of reporting by rediff. Looks like Arjun Singh is in a soup now. But it makes me angry that these politicians' quests for power are literally toying with millions of innocent lives with absolutely no concern whatsoever. I hope Arjun Singh's personal quest fails and he ends up a toothless governor of some state.

As far as the Congress failure to make political capital out of this issue is concerned, we will have to wait and watch.

Secure your flock, Reverend - The Da Vinci Code will release soon in India!

The Da Vinci code is a famous novel by Dan Brown. I use the word famous as that is what it is - famous. I read it almost two years ago and I did not consider it spell binding for all the hype it had. I even have my own hard cover edition - gifted to me, of course. It is a good story and quite well written - I must say. But it definitely does not deserve so much hype.

This novel garnered more media attention when Ron Howard decided to direct the movie and guess what - Tom Hanks would be playing the key role of Robert Langdon. Isn't that a winning combination at the box office? I too was looking forward to this movie - in spite of my having read the novel.

But wait! We have our government in India which is supposedly secular but actually uber-religious! The recent tendency began most notoriously with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses". Many years after this nATak, I managed to get the book from my library in the US and read a few pages from it. I really didn't find it all that offensive - but since I am no Muslim - which Muslim will pay heed to me?

Since then, fatwas have been the order of the day. Because Muslims got easily offended, Hindus too thought (they were partly right too, I feel) that they too were being offended by so many things in the world. So they began their processions to censure MF Husain whenever the chance arose. While painting sarasvatI in the nude is not a wise thing to do for a person living today, we must see that sarasvatI as well as other manifestations of the Divine Mother have been celebrated, clothed or not. Many of the verses in our purANas and tantras would invite the wrath of the puritanical and simple minded VHP type folks. But one thing has to be mentioned here that the underlying feeling was that of deep devotion towards the Divine mother. I don't know if MF Husain deliberately painted Goddess sarasvatI in the nude out of malice. If he has not, I don't think he should be vilified.

Coming to the current case, the Catholic Church in India has decided to edit parts of "The Da Vinci Code" before screening it. Look guys, as everybody understands, this is a fictional work. Even if it is loosely based on history, there is no reason for it to be banned. The clergy can just warn (or even threaten) its flock to stay away from the screening of this movie. I am sure this is what is happening in the US where a hue and cry was raised when Da Vinci code was first released as a book. Mary Magdalene and her relationship with Jesus Christ was discussed ad nauseam everywhere - in print, on the Internet, on TV and even on the radio. When the same book was released in India, why was this not raised? They could have done a Satanic verses on this book as well, right? I think the difference is subtle but significant. The NDA government was ruling at that time and so it would seem to the clergy that their voice would go unheeded. But now we have the lady originally from so close to the Holy See wielding unquestioned power in India that even the normally silent Catholics are getting vociferous. Even in America which is more of a Christian country than India will ever be, this movie was screened without edits. Now why on earth are we indulging in this kind of useless activity? When there are millions of people who wouldn't give a damn (oops..) about what movie you're screening, why should these guys even bother? Keep your flock out of it, Reverend - I say.

But I must say that intolerance of all forms is steadily growing in India. Hindus feel that they are subject to unfair treatment (being a Hindu, I too feel some of it). Historically, muslims have always felt a feeling of persecution. And it is not new to Christians at all, whose ancestors also were persecuted by the Egyptians et al. All of us feel that we are being victimized and each one feels that their faith is in jeopardy. Who is responsible for this? The media, I think, has a pretty big role as without them, nobody would know of any possible 'injustice'. Sometimes I think Marx was right about something being the opium of the masses. But an irreligious society becomes colorless, bland and uninteresting. Religion, organized or not, offers a lot of color and variety to life as a minimum, if not wellness in the life after. Instead of celebrating this diversity, I don't know why people are at each others' necks.

But, as a Hindu, I must say that we have never proselytized. We don't have that kind of zeal to reap a "harvest of souls". We also do not impose jizya on our non-Hindu brethren. We have never converted unwilling people by the strength of the sword and neither have we ridiculed other religions, though simple-minded and primitive they may be (this is my addition). Both the other semitic religions have done everything the Hindus haven't done. The Hindus (I must clarify, the advaitins) also recognize that all paths lead to the Supreme.

Now what or who a Hindu is, is quite a different question and has been answered quite well in one of the links featured in one of my previous postings.

So "the Da Vinci Code" must really be a non-issue to all parties concerned. But only if they pay heed to the little voice in their heads...

Sonia's shenanigans and the media laps it up!

Sonia Gandhi has resigned from the membership of the Lok Sabha and also from a couple of chairperson posts. This resignation happened after Jaya Bacchan was disqualified from the rAjya sabha after she was found to be in "an office of profit" - whatever that means.

Now Jaya Bacchan was an MP of the Samajwadi party. Some major fight between the Bacchan family and the Gandhis might have resulted in this reaction. Jaya was not even allowed to resign. She was disqualified by the president and humiliated. The BJP and other opposition parties rightly opposed this and signaled double standards when they showed that Sonia Gandhi too was in the same boat as Jaya and she was still a member.

If you ask me, the BJP campaign has borne its results. It has made Sonia resign. It is good that Sonia resigned because she would have had to face the embarrasment of getting disqualified. Sorry, the preceding sentence does not reflect reality. Sonia and her troop of sycophants had almost enacted an ordinance to basically ensure that the no-office-of-profit-when-you're-MP-rule did not affect Sonia. The press saying that this act of Sonia takes the wind out of BJP's sails is incorrect. The BJP ship has reached its destination on this one at least.

Now Sonia, I must say, is really smart. She used this opportunity once again to show what a great tyAginI she is. And the Congress and its cronies are now blowing their trumpets on how Sonia is the right successor to the legacy of Gandhi and Buddha! I am ashamed to see the English media (TV mainly) is shamelessly lapping this up while ignoring the obvious.

If somebody doesn't pay his taxes and gets rapped by the tax guys, one doesn't call him a great man when he actually coughs up the money to IT. This is exactly what has happened.

Now we see that there is already a rule in existence and that has been used unjustly to oust an opponent. But unfortunately that rules applies to you too. And so, you better resign! That doesn't make you great. It makes you a person who has been driven to that action by the law. Using this for political mileage is indeed a shameless act on the part of the Congress.

At least the New Indian Express and Vijaya Karnataka had their headlines showing the same sentiment as me. They said that Sonia had fallen into her own trap! That is a good headline for me. At least some one is speaking the truth!

'Varanasi attack linked to anti-Bush protests'

'Varanasi attack linked to anti-Bush protests'

I did not expect LK Advani to make such a statement in the wildest of dreams. If someone wanted to protest Bush's visit, they should have done so when Bush was in India. Bombing a totally unrelated place for something else is total equine excrement. Reading his statement in detail, it seems as if Advani basically wants us to know that the elements behind the anti-Bush protests were the same as those that set off explosions in the Hanuman temple. Though I kind of agree with that statement, he should have worded it more carefully.

For me, this bombing is a clear act of terrorism. Such attacks will continue till the government actually tries to do something about it. On December 13 2001, the Parliament was attacked and yet India did nothing. Akshardham, the Delhi blasts and the Bangalore attacks happened - but still nothing. The Varanasi attack is just another in the sequence. Won't this encourage the terrorists to do more? I think we have a good executive and a good judiciary - but the legislative arm of the country has been rendered ineffective because it's been infected to the bone by self-serving politicians.

Outlook's web Bureau goes as far as insinuating that some extremist Hindus (read Sangh parivar) caused the explosions in vArANasI, so that it could create an excuse for them to indulge in violence against 'minorities'. That is a dangerous and irresponsible opinion. For all its evils, I don't believe that the Sangh organizations can indulge in such shameful violence, though they might resort to retaliatory violence. Outlook again accused Advani of using this tragic incident to extract political mileage, while a Muslim leader has been praised for his call for peace and restraint. I knew that Outlook was left-leaning - but I did not know that it could go to such lows.

Basically what is happening now is that the news channels are having a field day - they don't have to look for an item to report! This incident has happened. So expect them to show pictures of the injured and interviews with the relatives of the deceased ad nauseam for another week. Such insensitive and TRP-mongering news reporting brings out the worst cynic in me.

vArANasI is the cultural and spiritual capital of India. By attacking the temple of Hanuman - who is considered as an icon of strength and bravery - and that too in vArANasI, I can understand what message the terrorists are trying to convey. They are saying - "look, we bombed the temple of the God you worship as the embodiment of physical and mental strength, that too in your most holy city and nothing seems to be happening" to demoralise Hindus. I think it is time for Lord Hanuman to take the matter into His own hands now. If not, is it in our fate to witness even worse incidents before it is time?

UPA government's dangerous move to communalise the Armed Forces

The Acorn >> It's vital to keep religion out of it

This is one piece of news I had been wanting to write about. The Acorn has written about it so eloquently and well that I just need to link to that article.

Read it to see how the UPA government is bent upon making India backward.

Katas Raj

Katas Raj is the name of a Hindu site of pilgrimage. It is now in Pakistan. Though this place has many references to it in the purAnAs and the mahAbhArata, I got to know of this place only recently - after Advani's controversial trip to Pakistan. It is known in Pakistan as Katas (no Raj after the name)

Apparently the name kaTAs rAj is derived from kaTAkSha (meaning glance). This place is supposed to be one of the places where Lord Shiva wept out of grief on His wife's (Sati) death. The profuse tears from Shiva's eyes filled two lakes. One is the present Katas and other is a site in Ajmer. The more interesting aspect of this lake is that the Pandavas spent four out of their twelve years of exile here.

A note of clarification here - it was Lord Rama of the rAmAyaNa who was exiled for fourteen years. The Pandavas were asked to spend twelve years in exile and an additional year incognito (which they spent at virATa's kingdom).

Back to Katas, yudhiShThira, the eldest of the pANDavas, exhibited his wisdom in answering the questions of an invisible yakSha. This wise act essentially gave life to the other pANDavas who were lying dead after drinking the water of this pool.

This is a fascinating story in the mahAbhArata and is wonderfully thought-provoking. For details, go here

The temple and lake constituted a great pilgrimage centre till the Partition of India. The temple was hopelessly defaced during Muslim invasions and mainly after the partition and its picture below (from the BBC) speaks volumes about the defacement and destruction wrought upon this temple.



Below: A picture of the deity (from Outlook India) at the Katas temple



This brings to mind the thought that less than sixty years ago, this place was India too. Anybody in India could have gone there. This barrier between India and Pakistan is after all man-made. The fact that man-made barriers have caused physical and cultural damage to this extent is overwhelming.

To be fair to the Pakistani government, they want to identify this as a world heritage site and develop it further. Of course, they will get some much needed tourism money from Sindhis and other Indians for whom Katas is really important.

An informative (but in a rather condescending tone) article can be found here.

I hope the peace process between India and Pakistan goes on in a peaceful manner.

A letter to the Pakistani people on vichaar.org

http://www.vichaar.org/2005/06/14/a-letter-to-the-pakistani-people-from-indian-bloggers/

Just an excerpt...

We like Pakistani people. And we dont just mean Adnan Sami, Jal or Strings – we mean regular Pakistani folks. In fact, we like most people and cultures. Heck, we tolerate Laloo and he’s totally out of this world. We can understand your accent much easier than his!

This is a hilarious and very well written letter! I couldn't contain my laughs! Too funny. People must check it out..

The mess LK Advani is in

'A Classic Exposition Of A Secular State' : outlookindia.com

There has been a hue and cry raised over LK Advani's statement. The RSS and VHP have opined that Advani had cheated millions of Hindus by his statement that Jinnah was a secular politician.

Looking at Jinnah's speech that has been excerpted in Advani's article, we see that Jinnah indeed seems to espouse a secular cause. It may be a case of Jinnah talking the talk and not walking it, but his statement at least is an unambiguous expression of secularism. Secularism mentioned here is not the Indian variety but of the real variety where religion doesn't interfere with policies of the government.

Advani has merely quoted it and said that the three countries of India, Pak and Bang would do well to follow it. Hasn't he actually put the ball in Pakistan's court? Pakistan as of now is a theocratic (well, almost) dictatorship and it would do very well indeed if it followed the controversial speech fragment. Indirectly, it was a reprimand.

If this is all that Advani said, where is the need to go ballistic by the VHP and RSS? The reaction has probably happened this way - India's pain in the neck is Pakistan, which wouldn't have existed but for Jinnah. So, by saying that Jinnah espoused secular ideas, the Partition becomes justified; especially the bloodiest part of it where millions of people were killed during the crossing. I don't think calling Jinnah secular is the same as condoning the deaths of millions. I don't know, but would Jinnah have rued his decision to part ways with India if he saw the present condition of Pakistan?

In the VHP/RSS cadre, I have come to see plenty of people who seem to be intelligent but after you ask them a couple of questions, they either feel offended or call you names. Don't get me wrong, I support many of the activities done by the RSS - building a strong nation, acting as a unifying factor for almost a billion Hindus across India and the world, social service and tons of other useful activities - all these are great and very necessary. But the current crop of RSS/VHP leaders seems to lack the farsight and wisdom to run organizations as big and important as these. Firebrands are good - but having them at the helm of affairs is probably not so good.

Personally, I too don't like Jinnah as he seemed to be responsible (from what I had read before) for fanning passions and dividing a country along religious lines, inadvertently causing the deaths of millions of people. But the statement that Advani has taken from the speech *is* an expression of secularism whether I like Jinnah or not. As I said before, Jinnah may or may not have really meant what he said - but the words are there for us to see!

Another thing is that Advani had been listed as one of a group of individuals that tried to assassinate Jinnah. Was Advani actually trying to whitewash his involvement by singing a paean and that too, quite cleverly?

The media has always taken statements out of context and has twisted them. This seems to be a similar case. Praveen Togadia has gone crazy again. I wish a body with such a good name as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, that was founded by great spiritual personalities such as Swami Chinmayananda would have somebody more sensible and sober doing its talking for it. Togadia doesn't look the part and he definitely doesn't talk like it.

It could just be that Advani got carried away in a torrent of emotions and didn't realize what he'd said!

With him resigning from the BJP head position, it would be very interesting to speculate on the fate of the BJP going forward as the second string leadership is not ready yet and Advani and Vajpayee have been sent home.

Govt’s Doctor plays The Cigarette Censor - Newindpress.com

Govt’s Doctor plays The Cigarette Censor - Newindpress.com

This is absolute nonsense! Is this an April Fool's joke or what? To be clear, I don't smoke. But what on earth is the government doing? It is trying to stop smoking in movies and on television!!!

I really don't know who could be behind such a - what is the word - draconian act. This is a Nero-esque kind of law. Do people know it is a democracy ?

Anyway, this doesn't mean that smoking will be banned in public places. It is next to impossible to implement this. People will continue to smoke and spoil their health. Though the intention behind this law is good, don't we all know that the way to hell is paved with good intentions?

This is not like what has happened in the US. Something like that - something sensible - would have been good. All our government does is something as ridiculous as this.

Tomorrow, if somebody in the tobacco industry bribes a section of the government, the laws will be reversed and probably everybody will be asked to smoke.

Now I have to look back at my own feeling that India is developing as a country. I am inclined to say now that it is not. How can a country with such stupid and impractical lawmakers ever develop?

I am irritated, amused and saddened at the same time. I don't care about India's image in the world, though that is important, as long as the government is doing the right things for its people. Actions such as these are not right. Something deep inside me was pricked by this - though I don't smoke and I was off typing this rant in a flash.

May good sense prevail everywhere!

ಏಳು ನೂರು ಅಡಿಯ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಮೂರ್ತಿ ರಾಮನಗರದ ಬಳಿ

ಈಚೆಗೆ ಶಾರುಖ್ ಖಾನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ನಟನಟಿಯರು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಷೋ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಅದು ನಡೆದದ್ದು ಸಂಘಮಿತ್ರ ಫೌಂಡೇಶನ್ ಎಂಬ ಸಂಘಟನೆಯ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ. ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಒಂದು ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷೆಯ ಗುರಿಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಆ ಗುರಿಯೇನೆಂದರೆ - ಏಳುನೂರು ಆಡಿಯ ಬುದ್ಧನ ವಿಗ್ರಹದ ಸ್ಥಾಪನೆ.

ವಿಗ್ರಹವೆಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂದು ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಬಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ರಾಮನಗರದಲ್ಲೇ. ನಿಮಗೆ ಜ್ಞಾಪಕವಿರಬಹುದು - ಶೋಲೆ ಎಂಬ ಭಾರೀ ಹಿಂದೀ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಚಿತ್ರೀಕರಣ ಇಲ್ಲೇ ನಡೆದದ್ದು.

ಮೂರ್ನಾಲ್ಕು ವರ್ಷದ ಹಿಂದೆ ತಾಲಿಬಾನ್ ಆಡಳಿತದ ಅಫ್ಘಾನಿಸ್ತಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಮಿಯಾನ್ ಎಂಬ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೃಹತ್ತಾದ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಪ್ರತಿಮೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮದ್ದನ್ನಿಟ್ಟು ಸಿಡಿಸಲಾಯ್ತು. ಇದೀಗ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದರ ಪುನರ್ಜನ್ಮವೆಂಬಂತೆ ತೋರುತ್ತಿದೆ.

ಹೊರಗಿನಿಂದ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಆಲೋಚನೆಯೆಂದೆನಿಸಬಹುದು. ಗೌತಮ ಬುದ್ಧ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ದಾರ್ಶನಿಕಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗ್ರಗಣ್ಯ. ಅವನ ಶಾಂತಿ ಸಂದೇಶ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದಾದ್ಯಂತ ಹರಡಿದೆ. ಅವನ ತತ್ತ್ವಚಿಂತನೆ ಆಳವಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಿಶ್ವದಲ್ಲೆಡೆ ಅವನ ಅನುಯಾಯಿಗಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅವನ ಜನ್ಮದ ದೇಶವಾದ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವನ ಗುರುತಿಗಾಗಿ ಏನಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ಮೂರ್ತಿನಿರ್ಮಾಣದ ಕಾರ್ಯ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ವಸ್ತುಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಬೇರೆ. ರಾಮನಗರದ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಹಲವು ಸಸ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಾಣಿಸಂಕುಲಗಳಿಗೆ ಸ್ಥಾನವಾಗಿದೆ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನೋಡಿದರೆ - ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಡಿಸ್ನಿಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬುದ್ಧಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೊರಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾಗುವ ಸ್ಥಳ ಹಲವು ಎಕರೆಗಳಷ್ಟು. ಇವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ನೆಲಸಮಮಾಡಿಯೇ ಬೇರೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಈ ಸಸ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಣಿಸಂಕುಲಗಳ ನಿರ್ನಾಮಕ್ಕೆ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಸಿಗುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ಇದನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸಿ ಪರಿಸರಾಂದೋಲನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿವೆ. ಇದರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಆದರೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರವನ್ನು ಈ ಸಂಘಮಿತ್ರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ತನ್ನ ಬುಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವಂತಿದೆ.

ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಹೀಗಿದೆ. ಇವರಿಗೆ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಪ್ರತಿಮೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವಷ್ಟು ಭಕ್ತಿಯಿದ್ದರೆ - ಬರಗಾಲ ಪೀಡಿತವಾದ ಉತ್ತರಕರ್ಣಾಟಕದ ರಾಯಚೂರು, ಗುಲ್ಬರ್ಗ, ಬೀದರ್ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಜನಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಾವಕಾಶ ದೊರೆಯುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ರಾಮನಗರ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ತೀರಾ ಸಮೀಪದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿನ ಜನರು ಉದ್ಯೋಗಕ್ಕೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೇ ಬರಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಸ.ಸಂ ನ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಅಷ್ಟು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದಲ್ಲವೆಂಬಂತೆ ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಬಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ತಂಡೋಪತಂಡವಾಗಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಜನರು ನುಗ್ಗುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಯಾವುದೋ ದೂರದ ಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಪ್ರಯೋಜನವಾದರೂ ಏನು?

ದುರದೃಷ್ಟವಶಾತ್ ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್ ಅವರು ಬೌದ್ಧಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದರು. ಇದು ದುರದೃಷ್ಟ ಹೇಗೆಂದರೆ - ಇವರ ಬೆಂಬಲಿಗರಾದ ದಲಿತರನ್ನು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ಈ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮರುಳು ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಪ್ರತಿಮೆಯನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸುವವರನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ದಲಿತ ಜನಾಂಗದ ವೈರಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಕಾಣಲು ಸ.ಸಂ ಕುಚೋದ್ಯ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು - ಮಾಡಿಯೇ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದೇ ಹಲವು ದಲಿತ ಮುಖಂಡರು ತಮ್ಮ ಪಂಗಡಕ್ಕೆ ಹೆಸರು (ಪಬ್ಲಿಸಿಟಿ) ಬರಲಿ ಎಂದು ಇವರ ಜೊತೆ ಸೇರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆಗ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ತೀರಾ ಹದೆಗೆಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಪಾಪ, ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರರು ದೇಶಭಕ್ತರು. ಜಾತೀಯತೆಯ ಸೋಂಕಿಲ್ಲದ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಮೂಲದ್ದೇ ಆದ ಬೌದ್ಧಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದಾಗ ಇದರ ಅರಿವು ಅವಿರಿಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ದಲಿತರಿಗೆ ಬೌದ್ಧ ಧರ್ಮ (ನವಬೌದ್ಧರೆಂದೇ ಇವರು ಕರೆಯಲ್ಪಡುವುದು) ಕೇವಲ ಒಂದು identity ಆಗಿದೆ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಬಂಡಾಯದ ಸಂಕೇತವೂ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅದರ ತತ್ತ್ವಶ್ರೀಯನ್ನು ಅವರೆಂದು ಕಂಡಾರೋ!

ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಬುದ್ಧಿ ಬಂದು ಇದನ್ನು ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಾಡದೇ ಇರಲಿ ಎಂದು ಬುದ್ಧನನ್ನೇ ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥಿಸುವ.

|| ಇತಿ ಶಮ್ ||

'US still open to India's UNSC bid'- The Times of India

'US still open to India's UNSC bid'- The Times of India

Is the US really open to India's UNSC bid ? I don't think so. Of course, they want India to be a permanent member of the UNSC without giving India the crucial veto power. What is the use then?

As somebody elsewhere thought, I think India should threaten quitting the UN. Indian peace keepers have given their lives for unknown people halfway across the globe in exchange for nothing. I agree that the UN gives a forum to India to present its concerns and all that, but does the present UN have any power to enforce the decisions taken ? The disturbances in Africa are too numerous to mention and the UN has been a bit helpful in handling those, but not a lot.

It looks like the UN is going the way of the League of Nations. "Might is right" seems to be the way in spite of the UN's existence. Only powerful countries like the US can have their say in the UN. And if they can't have it their way (remember Colin Powell's pathetic WMD presentation?), they don't care. If all countries go this way, why does the UN even need to exist?

The Security council seat is definitely prestigious and will mark India's ascent to the status of a world power. India is a bigger and more powerful country than France and Britain, both of which seem to be spent powers (correct me if I am wrong). China got its seat because of Jawaharlal Nehru's misplaced magnanimity - but it is definitely a country to reckon with and is no push over. Russia is still there but is no match for the cold USSR that was an able counterweight to the mighty US of A. So, IMO, the US and China deserve to be in the Security Council as permanent members because of their clout. India deserves to be there more than France and probably Britain too. Brazil deserves to be there as the most powerful country in South America. Japan and Germany - I don't know.

But without a veto, these 'permanent' members will be no more than flags on the wall. Recently some nut case Indian minister said that it would be OK if India got in without a veto. No, not at all. You either are a permanent member with a veto or you are as bad as any other non-permanent member.

You can ask what a common man like me gets from India being a veto-powered UNSC member. It is a question of patriotism for people like me who like to see their countries recognized as world powers.

We come back to the question of the utility of the UN. Some countries probably get a lot of value from it - but for most of the others, it is just a place where you can meet with diplomats of other people and brag. If countries were humans, you would need a place for the people to get together and talk - like a pub or a coffeeshop. In that way, I think the UN is a little more than a glorified coffeeshop. Am I getting carried away because of the raw deal India seems to be getting? Probably.

From my textbook learning of history, it seemed like the UN was the best thing to have happened to the world. WWF, UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, FAO are all (probably) worthy agencies of the UN. But in the present world, does this still hold?

Also, how good is the UN a place for getting your job done? More than a coffeeshop or not? A coffeeshop still has value - but the member countries should realize that the UN is what it really is - a coffeeshop.