Secularism - Food For Thought
We are a diversified society, with all probability catering to every
possible religion existing on this planet. This’s a good thing and we should
cherish that we are somewhat tolerant to every sentiment and variety of views, which
are both personal and religious. Equate that with few other so called developed
or even underdeveloped nations and you will see how far we are superior in
terms of our day-to-day behavior and approach towards things which might hurt
individuals, a group or even a community. People from that side may vehemently
disagree on the existence of any discrimination based on cast, creed or
religion but it is no secret that it exists there. May be little but for sure
it does and we have enough proof to verify that.
Now go through the first and second sentence of this post
again. When it comes to sentiments, it is more of a mutual respect for each
other’s feelings. No government or law frameworks can teach people to be
compassionate about what the other person might be feeling about a certain
thing. This should come from within. Humanity and compassion is something which
even the textbooks would fail to teach anyone. And compassion comes from many
things that we do in our daily lives. Starting from the way we talk to the way
we drive on our roads, it only reflects the depth to which we care for our
fellow citizens. Our interest, disinterest, hobbies, political views and even
our food habit are kind of parameters which showcases our approach in
considering someone else’s opinions before we voyage out for anything. For
harmony to exist we need all to adhere to few basics when it comes to acknowledging
someone else’s feelings.
But does this in real sense happen in India? I mean, cutting
across religions, do we see people reciprocate each other in terms of their
respective religious sentiments? I am told we are a secular nation, which
unfortunately because of few morons has got a new meaning to itself. Now in
India secularism necessarily means bashing of Hindus, their religious believes,
their Gods and everything else that has got any relation with Hinduism;
directly or indirectly. We randomly see pseudo intellectuals throw their five
penny worth intellectualism at us in ridiculing one or other Hindu sentiments
and runaway like crazy frogs. All these utterances then are conveniently gets
wrapped under the secularism Teflon and delivered to us again and again by our
hyper active media in an attempt to rub in the salt on our already toxic wounds.
Latest one of such adventure is the national attempt at ridiculing Lord Ram. I am ok with my God having a criticism or two but just getting overboard in our criticism so much so to even use outright filthy language like loser, rascal and many such is about the line where it starts to hurt. Women like Priya Ramani (someone doesn’t possess something called enough brain to go beyond writing third grade Bollywood gossips) write pages on how she finds Lord Ram a loser. Not just that, she even tweets nonstop against Lord Ram with each of her Tweet containing a word or two against the Lord, which in milder terms can best be described as foul. Nobody questions her uncouth and uncivilized attempt in maligning our God. She still is protected from rebuttals and repugnance because as per few morons she has just done a very right thing on the larger interest of secularism. You know how Hindu bashing is directly related to Secularism in India. Insulting our God who is considered pillar of our religion and that too so openly and blatantly with such awful language is secularism? Where is the compassion here for what others have to say? Does idiots like Priya Ramani know, by their scrubbings they possibly would be hurting a lot of people beyond certain acceptable limit? But who cares since it is Hindu bashing after all, hence secularism. No? Perhaps Priya Ramani must try at a similar endeavor about Prophet Mohammad to help us get the answer in clear terms.
Latest one of such adventure is the national attempt at ridiculing Lord Ram. I am ok with my God having a criticism or two but just getting overboard in our criticism so much so to even use outright filthy language like loser, rascal and many such is about the line where it starts to hurt. Women like Priya Ramani (someone doesn’t possess something called enough brain to go beyond writing third grade Bollywood gossips) write pages on how she finds Lord Ram a loser. Not just that, she even tweets nonstop against Lord Ram with each of her Tweet containing a word or two against the Lord, which in milder terms can best be described as foul. Nobody questions her uncouth and uncivilized attempt in maligning our God. She still is protected from rebuttals and repugnance because as per few morons she has just done a very right thing on the larger interest of secularism. You know how Hindu bashing is directly related to Secularism in India. Insulting our God who is considered pillar of our religion and that too so openly and blatantly with such awful language is secularism? Where is the compassion here for what others have to say? Does idiots like Priya Ramani know, by their scrubbings they possibly would be hurting a lot of people beyond certain acceptable limit? But who cares since it is Hindu bashing after all, hence secularism. No? Perhaps Priya Ramani must try at a similar endeavor about Prophet Mohammad to help us get the answer in clear terms.
Today I got to read this in Bangalore Mirror. The headline
itself speaks a lot about the content that follows. “Draconian cattle
protection rules back in guise”. Draconian? Really? I urge the features editor, if
Bangalore mirror has one to reconsider the words he/she uses in the tabloid and
that too on the front page. If a simple bill which is meant to protect our cattle
(remember India lives in villages and to realize how important cattle are in
those parts of India, you don't necessarily need to possess a Nobel laureate's acumen) is termed as draconian, then what
about our land accusation bill? What about our primary anti-terrorism law POTA?
Or for that matter even our domestic violence act? But hell, we can still call the
bill draconian and never be questioned because it suits best to make the
headline appear extremely secular. Here are few excerpts of the bill and my
guess if it is actually draconian or not is as good as anyone else’s. As per
the bill, it has got restrictions in terms of the manner and avenues available
at our disposal before we can consume cattle as our food. Mind it, it never stops
or restricts anyone to consume various animals (read cattle) as food, unlike
many buggers would suggest it actually does. It only outlines a guideline for
all of us to follow before we kill those animals for food. Do you see any harm
there? On the bigger interest, shouldn’t there be such rules and frameworks? What
is the bigger interest you may ask? I will answer that with a question. Show me
one such developed nation where there doesn’t exist similar rules to protect
the cattle so that rampant killing for food could be curtailed. And why it
should be curtailed? Otherwise an unbound and uncontrolled killing has got
impact on agricultural production and the GDP thereof in future. Let’s not even
get started on the adverse impact that we will have on our milk produces if we
allow uncontrolled slaughter. And how precariously we lack to meet our milk consumption demand is no more a secrete. But here in India who really cares for the GDP or
any such nonsense? For us it is all about secularism, err.. pseudo-secularism
that matters.
Accompanying the article contained a photo with a small kid
holding a placard that reads – ‘My Food, My Right’. Heavens, who disputed that right?
And when? Does this bill infringe into that basic right of yours? Did this bill
in anyway stops you from having the food of your choice? I agree, this bill
prohibits cattle, more specifically Cows, which were once used for milk
production from being butchered in their old days for food. Forget about any
religion here and think – an animal which might have served you for decades
with her milk; you might have seen your own kids growing up with that nutritious
drink because of that poor animal suddenly becomes so disposable an object
since she can’t reproduce anymore? Just because she can’t fulfill her basic
utilization anymore, she automatically becomes an object to be killed and
consumed? To hell with your bloody food habit; where is the humanity here guys?
Where is the compassion for a speechless animal who has served you for so long?
Have you ever cared to look in her eyes to see the unspoken pain that she would
be going through when you finally decide to dispose her off to the slaughter house?
How you can even think of any such end to that poor animal, which itself is a grossly
deplorable thought process to begin with. You keep on shouting about
your rights as if an animal doesn’t have any. Who gave you the bloody right to kill an
innocent animal and that too after enjoying its service for decades?
This is the real motto of the clause in the bill. To engender
some humanity in you, if you have long forgotten that you guys are humans. Why
give religious angle to the rule without an ounce of understanding of the bill, which Bangalore mirror tried it’s best to do?
What else one can say the reason for BM to use the line ‘BJP in power’ many
times in the post? May I just drop a question here? What BJP has got to do with
the Cattle protection bill? The bill is not passed by BJP but the union cabinet
in accordance with our constitution and it is only the state that is duly
implementing the rules. Rather being questioning other states which are
chickening out in implementing this rule of the land we are questioning
the state which in fact is doing what an elected government should do. Why?
Where the state government gone wrong in here that you have started accusing
the party in power of biased approach? I agree BJP might be using the bill to
protect cow slaughter since cow is considered a sacred animal for Hindus as the
cow is not just an animal for majority Hindu households but a bunch of
sentiments. Even then, do you see any wrong there if at all the real motive of BJP is to
protect a primary Hindu interest? As I said earlier, shouldn’t we be
considerate of each other’s sentiments if we really want to call ourselves a
harmonious society? When killing cows really hurts the sentiments of Hindus so
badly, can’t we refrain ourselves from doing that? Or Hindus being the majority
doesn’t deserve to carry any sentiments as it might go against the secularism
as per the morons I have addressed earlier? Can’t we produce beef from animals
grown specifically for this purpose? Just like how we meet our chicken and mutton
demands.
But no, we would still cry foul for the nonexistent
discrimination and accuse everyone of sabotaging the fundamental rights with
our baseless allegations but can’t just be a little considerate of the sentiments
of the other side. We would routinely expect the other side to reciprocate with
kind when it comes to our sentiments while we never would do even a thousandth of
it when it comes to pay back the favor. When there are avenues and ways where
we can have options to both meet our food need as well as respecting some
religious sentiments; we won't work towards that option but will remain hell-bent on insulting someone’s
beliefs and cry foul for everything else. Perhaps, this is the outcome of this refurbished new kind of
secularism – “We are aggrieved, you mend yourself; you are aggrieved, don’t
look at us for change but mend yourself again”.
Before
I cape the post, how about a demand for pork to be served in every government establishment's canteen,
mid-day meals in schools, college cafeterias and even on our Air-India flights which seldom fly? My Food,
My Right…. No?
So Correct. Humanity must supersede everything else. Because all religion's core ethos are nothing but humanity only.
ReplyDeleteRegarding politics around issues pertaining to minorities and appeasement thereof; well no need to write any blogs on that. It is well understood and noted.
Any way a great post as always. Keep that up Bro!!
good one.... well done...
ReplyDeletei would like to know what do u think is the definition of the word secularism?? i do not disagree with anything you have said here, i would just like to know in what context is this word used in this article.
ReplyDeletethanks