Freedom of Speech - Where should be the boundary ?

What kind of democracy we have in our country? What happened in JNU can at no stretch of imagination be clocked as expression of a thought. The people who raised anti national slogans or who were present at the place where such slogans were raised were not illiterate. 

They were well educated. Therefore, what they did cannot and should not be either ignored or taken lightly. This is like cancer spreading very fast in the body of the country. Therefore, if the country is to be saved, the organ of the country which is inflicted with this disease should be removed. Not only these people should be dealt with severally but even those who are sympathizers should equally be dealt with in the same manner. All such people have become tools in the hands of the enemy. 

The aftermath of the JNU incident such as what happened in the Patiala Court was merely expression of anger. The common men of the country are grievously hurt by the conduct such people. The hurt sentiments need balm. The action of the media people was to rub the wound of common men. What happened in Patiala Court was expression of Aakrosh. For the unholy incident which happened in Patiala House Court, the lawyers who took the law in their hands were not so responsible as the Genesis of cause i.e. JNU incident and role of media was. Therefore, the mob of lawyers who went berserk and attacked the media people need to be handled leniently. 

But now the time has come where we have to decide and implement the boundary for freedom of speech else we may see such incidents more often.

Communalism and casteism. Which one is more dangerous?

Communalism and casteism. Which one is more dangerous? Ask the politicians and their answer would definitely be the former i.e. communalism. I personally feel that communalism is not so dangerous as casteism is. My personal assessment is that communalism divides the Indian society in few parts but casteism divides it in hundred parts. It is easy to fight communalism. On the other hand, it is very difficult to fight communalism. No one can talk of communalism. There is no bar on caste and one can boastfully claim that he is Jaat, Gujjar, Yadav, Thakur, Brahmin and so on. Forming organisation on the basis of religion is bad but doing so on the basis of caste is not bad or not so bad. Any organisation having the word, Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc. in its name is generally abhorred but no eyebrows are raised if an organisation is formed on the basis of caste such Kshatriya Samaj, Brahmin Samaj, Tyagi Samaj, Aggrawal Samaj, Jaat Samaj. Gujjar Samaj, Balmiki Samaj etc. In my opinion mushrooming growth of such Samajs are more dangerous for the society. If it is not checked, intracaste rivalry would take place and sporadic communal clashes would be replaced by hundred clashes of same magnitude. So let us wake up and fight vigorously this trend.

Friendship - Then and Now ( continued from previous post)

Friendship - Then and Now ( continued from previous post)
In the last post, I have narrated as to how a friend had authority over another friend. Real friend always tries to keep his friend on right path. If one lands himself in the company of bad people, real friend tries his best to salvage his friend by freeing his friend from such company.
I would like to narrate another incident of my life. I had also another friend. I had fought in the society for him for good cause. He too fought his parents and uncles for me when they had turned against me for my siding with my friend in a matter against the wishes his parents and uncles. The matter related to marriage of my friend. Before marriage of my friend, his parents, uncles, brothers etc. had faith in me. They recognised that both of us were fast friends.
Once we both had attended a wedding function in the village of the bride. There as usual, all who attended the function from groom side, stayed at night in a tent erected outskirts of the village. By and large, people in general had to sleep on the carpets and mats spread on the ground. Few cots (charpayees) were arranged for the distinguished and persons.
In one case, we found that some younger ones had occupied the cots whereas some elder ones had to lie on the ground. I, my friend and some other ones raised objection and forced the ones who had occupied the cots to leave the same for older people. Those who had to leave the cots felt insulted. When they came back to the village , they spread the rumour that my friend and others had picked quarrel with them over liquor. When the father of my friend heard this he felt hurt. Though he did believe that his son would quarrel for liquor, yet to become doubly sure he came to me and enquired about the rumour. When I explained about the incident, he became satisfied.

In due course of time we attended another similar marriage function. There, I observed that my friend picked up few cigarettes like some other did. I could not tolerate it. I told about the trust his father had reposed in him and asked how he was so shameless. He felt very much ashamed and crushed the cigarettes which he had picked up and thereby recognised the authority of s friend.

Friendship- Then And Now.

Like father, mother, brother, sister are name relations, friendship is also a name of relation. As former are based on bond of love between two persons, friendship is also so based on bond of love between two persons. In the present day society, we observe that the bond love between father and son, brother and sister and even husband and wife is weakening. No effort, whatsoever is made at any level to check this trend with the result that society is degrading fast. If the bonding force between blood relations is getting weak, what to speak of bonding force between two friends. It would be exaggerated to say that these days true friendship rarely exists. In fact, the purport and meaning of friendship has undergone tremendous change. These days, " friend in need is friend indeed " has become very old concept and archaic. These days who participate in " eat, drink and be merry " falls under the ambit of friend". Such friends cannot be located when need arises.
Now what kind of friendship was then? To answer this question, I would like to narrate an incidence. I was in B.Sc. My friend and I were room partners. We resided in a rented room. I had no addiction at all. I was under impression that my friend too had no addiction when we were together. Later on, I came to know that my friend had started smoking. He, however, did not dare to smoke in my presence. I had become suspicious and began to keep watch on him. One day, he told me that he was going to see a friend and named the friend. As I was already suspicious, I stealthily followed him. Standing at a place where it was dark, I observed that standing before a betel shop, he was smoking. I came back to the room. When he came back to room, I enquired about his meeting with his friend. He told me that he could not see his friend. Then, I asked why he was telling a lie. When he found that I had seen him smoking and was raising objection to his smoking he became very angry. He challenged my authority to raise objection on him. I did not react. I simply said that I had authority of a friend. I however assured him that thence I lost my status of his friend and hence I would not raise any objection in future. I told him that thence, my informal relationship between him and him had become formal one. When he saw that my reaction was very cool and he was losing a true friend in , he became perturbed. We were residing in the Sam room but he sent a letter to me by post. His letter was a sort of confession. He was afraid that this incidence might have spoilt my result and he would be blamed for it. He requested me to treat the incident as an exception. He promised me not to repeat it in future.

Freedom of expression: to what extent ?

Freedom of expression: to what extent, it desirable in a country like India? For whom does it more matter- to lower or upper strata or upper strata of the society? Whether it is being used for bringing cohesion in the society or misused more for further vested interest?

These are the questions, the answers of which are not so difficult. If we are a bit alert while reading a newspaper or watching TV, we would assess the impact of freedom of expression on most of us who are really gullible.
Let's us as to what extent freedom of expression is desirable in India to. From the question itself, it is evident that freedom of expression is desirable in India? The only issue is to what extent is it desirable.
We often observe that baseless allegations are made by politician of one party on the politician of the other not only in media but also at a public platform. We also observe that baseless allegations are hurled against the governments , the government servants. Mostly, such baseless allegations are made by the vested interests. First impression is last impression. The first impression created by the baseless allegations are hard to be erased. Till it is erased harm to large extent has already been caused to the target of the allegations. Politicians and governments have easy excess to the platform from which allegations have been made. Thus, the governments and politicians become to some extent able to counter the allegations. The government servants are however not so fortunate. They always become victim. We have seen what happened to a constable in Delhi. Because of a video in which he was seen as hurling a stone at a lady, he was sacked. Who was responsible? It was sheer unfettered freedom of expression, at least in my view. What reform has taken place in the police organisation or in the society? This is not only a solitary instance. We may find daily such instances on TV as well as in newspapers. My urge is that let's not become hostage to the vicious design hatched by media and we should not allow them to use us as tools. Let's not watçh the T V programme in which accusations are freely hurled and slanging match is taking place in the name of debate. TV debate is nothing but a verbal fight sans substance on the line " Pandit Soi Jo Gaal Bajawa"

Urge To Media-Electronic one in particular.

Urge To Media-Electronic one in particular.

We all know that media has wielded immense power so much so that it can make or destroy. Media has become so powerful that it has made almost everyone slave to it. We have become addicted to it. Our days start with print media and end at night with switching off TV. Electronic media has become so powerful that it can bring the son on the earth, it can make zero a hero, and within seconds, a hero to zero. The trend is that media is more interested in making a hero to zero. Both things i.e. making a hero from zero and vice versa are bad. My personal opinion is that media cannot create a hero out of zero and a zero out of hero. It can simply make us to believe so as we have lost our intrinsic capabilities to think over what we see and hear as we have become slave to media. It has really made us addicted. We can try and try to get rid of addition to the stuff media presents, we would urge media to change direction even a little bit not only for betterment of the society at large but for the betterment of media itself. It does mean that all sections of media is moving in wrong direction with the same velocity. Even to day print media appears to be more responsible than the electronic media.

I read one English and other Hindi Newspaper. The Hindi Newspaper is Dainik Jagran. On comparison of the contents, I observe that from time to time, Dainik Jagran bring story of the individuals, who lend their personal resources for the betterment of the society. I derive goodness from such individuals and ponder to do something for the society in a similar manner.

We know that there are good as well as bad people in the society. Both good happenings and bad ones are taking place daily. We should therefore urge the powerful media to present stories of such individuals so that the people in general and children and youth in particular derive impetus from these stories.

" Do Thy Duty, Reward is Thy no concern".

Sum Total of Life ?

If one who is walking stumbles and falls on the ground, he would definitely be hurt and feel pain even a mild one and minor. If one who is bicycling falls on the ground, he too would be hurt, may be injured also. The pain and sufferings which the latter would feel would definitely be more than what the former feels. Similar comparison can be made between a cyclist and scooter/bike rider; between scooter/bike rider and car rider and so on. It can be said that such accidents which cause hurt and injuries followed by pain are negative factors of life.

The cyclist derives more joy than a pedestrian; biker derives more joy than a cyclist; the car rider derives more joy from the biker and so on.

If the magnitude of joy and pain which a pedestrian receives through out his life is summed up, it would be zero. Similarly, if the magnitude of joy and pain which a cyclist receives from bicycle through out his life is summed up, it too would be zero. Further, if the magnitude of the joy and pain of biker which he receives from the bike is summed up it would also be zero. We would observe that if the joy which a cyclist derives from the cycle is less, the pain which he receives in case be falls is also less. On the other hand, if the joy which a bike rider derives from his bike is greater than that of the cyclist, the pain which the rider derives from his bike is greater.

An example may be given. If one who has climbed on a stool falls from it would receive little injury as compared to the one falls from a table. Likewise, if one falls from a rooftop he would gain more injury in comparison to the one who falls from a table.

Fall is imminent and inevitable. We cannot prevent it. Therefore, the more one reaches higher and gain higher satisfaction, the more he would receive injury when he would fall.

What I mean to say is that the sum total of the joy and sorrow which one receives in his life is always zero. Therefore, let's not complain about our present. Since sum total of the life of a poor is the same as that of the rich, there is no need for the rich to look down at the poor and there is no need for poor to be jealous of the rich. Since sum total of the life of a powerful person and that of the commoners is the same ( zero), the powerful persons should refrain from harassing the commoners and the latter should not try to snatch power from the powerful persons. Hence, we should follow the principle " Do Thy Duty, Reward is Thy no concern".

Judge by Deed, not by word

Judge by Deed, not by word.

Words may be harsh or mild. On the basis of the words, however, the nature of the person who has uttered the words cannot, in my view, be judged.
Words may indicate the nature and direction of the action that the words may entail. The words are, however, not always indicative of the direction of the action that may follow the words.
I am of the opinion that, on the basis of the words, no opinion can be formed about one’s nature. Similarly, the nature and direction of the action that may follow the words cannot always be determined precisely on the basis of the words. 
I would like to narrate what I had observed in my own extended family. In my extended family, we are three cousins. None of us has real brother. In my village, our ancestral house was common though we were living separately. The courtyard of the house was common and it was shared by the three families. 
Sometimes, verbal clashes used to take place among our mothers. During the course of verbal clashes, all sorts of abusive words were hurled from opposite sides. 
Once upon a time, fierce verbal clash took place between my mother and my elder aunt. My mother knew that my elder cousin was dearest to his mother. Likewise, my elder aunt knew that I was the dearest of my mother. Therefore, my elder cousin was target of my mother and I was target of my elder aunt. The verbal clash was so fierce that my elder aunt wished that god might snatch me from my mother and so wished my mother that god might snatch my elder cousin from his mother. My elder aunt and my mother were also taking vow that, thence from, they would treat each other’s family as untouchable. My elder aunt vowed that she would not drink water from my mother’s pitcher and so vowed my mother that she would not drink water from my elder aunt’s pitcher.
My elder cousin and I were there when the clash was taking place. My elder cousin could not tolerate it and left the scene in anger. I, however, did not get angry and remained present there trying to pacify both of them. At last, the heat subsided and the situation improved. Both of the women, thereafter, engaged themselves in their respective job.
It was the evening. My mother was preparing Chapati. I was taking meal. At the same time, an idea flashed in my mind. I saw that her granddaughter of about 5 or 6 was sitting on a cot. I called her. She hesitated. I knew the reason for her hesitation. I went to her, and applying lovingly a mild force, made her to share meal with me. Still she was hesitating. I started he feeding from my own hand. She then obliged. Neither my mother nor my elder aunt raised any objection. 
After finishing meal, I went to her earthen pitcher of my elder aunt and poured water therefrom into the Lota. I drank water and also made my niece to drink the same. Thereafter, I went to my elder aunt who too was preparing to prepare food and sat beside her. I reminded her of the vow she had taken during altercation between her and my mother. Thereafter, I asked her as to what would happen to her granddaughter because her granddaughter, having shared food with me, had become untouchable for my elder aunt. She did not utter a word. I further asked her as to what would happen to her pitcher because she would not drink water from the said pitcher thenceforth. Again she did not utter a word. This time, however, a smile was visible on her face.
I knew that my elder aunt was very kind hearted. She could never curse me from her heart. I knew that the words which she had uttered during the clash had no meaning. I was very normal. Keeping in view my own understanding of her, a novel idea flashed in my mind. With ostentatious seriousness, I told her that her heart was very pure and hence I would be victim to her curse with the result that the God would snatch me from my mother in the night. Accordingly, I, with ostentatious seriousness, enquired of her whether she would participate in the rites that would be performed next day for peace of my soul. I told her that if she would not participate in the rites, my soul would continue to wander on earth and could not rest in peace. At this, she broke down and tears began to flow from her eyes. She did not utter a word but hugged me.
What does the above incident indicate? Could the nature and conduct of my elder aunt and my mother be judged on the basis of the words used by them? Was the meaning and purport of the words used by mother for my elder cousin and the meaning and purport of the words used by my elder aunt same? It was not the same definitely. For me, those words did not carry any weight with them. I found no grains in the words. On the other hand, my elder cousin had taken the words used by the mother very seriously. For him, the words used by my mother carried heavy weight. He could not tolerate the impact of the words used by my mother and angrily left the scene. He had felt very offended. He practically stopped talking to my mother. The fact was that the same words had been used from both the sides and they were very hollow. While weighing the words, however, my elder cousin did not take into account the situation in which the said words were being used.
Let’s suppose someone from outside was present when this clash was taking place. Let’s further suppose that, having been aggrieved with my mother’s utterances, my elder cousin would have brought the issue to the Panchayat. Then, what would have happened? How would my elder cousin and I have narrated the incident?
I could not have levelled allegation on my elder aunt. On the other hand, my cousin would have freely and forcefully levelled allegation on my mother. I could not have contradicted the fact that my mother had used all the words which my elder cousin was mentioning before the Panchayat. I could merely contend that the meaning and purport of the words used by mother was not what my elder cousin had understood. I would not have become offensive because I had no grudge against his mother. My role would have been defensive. It would have been very difficult for me to defend my mother even though same words had been used by his mother and my mother. What would have then been the result? My mother would have lost the case and her image vis-à-vis image of my elder aunt would have would have suffered.
Similar things are happening to to-day. We are judging any one on the basis of his words and not on the basis of his deeds. We forget that the words have limitations and love, affection, sentiments, sentiments and similar abstract things cannot be expressed to the desired extent in the words. Therefore, what is required is that while judging a person, we should take into account his overall conduct, deeds, the prevailing situation, the age, education, background etc of the person and not merely the words. Words are factors to be taken into account but not the sole or main factor. It is not incidental but ancillary in nature but hence undue weightage should be attached to the words. The purport of the same words used by a child, a young person and an old one cannot be the same. Likewise, the purport of the same words used by a uneducated person and a highly educated one cannot be the same. Similar thing can be said about a peon and an officer who holds high post.
Why can the purport and meaning of the same words used by different class of people not be the same? This is so because, the level of understanding between the two sets of person is not the same. In my own case the level of understanding of the same words used my elder cousin and my mother was not the same for me and for my elder cousin.
In view of the above, I call upon the people who claim that they are well educated not to judge one inter se but also the people belonging to other classes not merely what they have spoken in public or in private but on their overall conduct and their deeds. If their conduct is beyond reproachable and their deeds are in the interest of the society, then their harsh and bitter words can be ignored and the same should not be treated as the subject matter of debate on any forum whatsoever.

IS HISTORY OF INDIA WORTH LEARNING?

IS HISTORY OF INDIA WORTH LEARNING?
There was a great philosopher, J. Krishnamurthy. His preachings have been compiled in a book titled as “Freedom From Thoughts” in English and “Gyat Se Mukti” in Hindi. 
On going through the said book, it would be observed that our thoughts about anything, any matter, anybody are nothing but result of our understanding about such thing, matter or person. On the basis our understanding, we form thought over the subject matter and cling to such thought as if how the subject matter has been understood by anyone else is unfounded. Difference of opinion thus takes place.
Before proceeding further, I would like to make it clear that I am not talking of those persons whose understanding is, by and large, same but, because of their vested interest, the present themselves before the world as if they are diagonally opposite to one another. Such people clash, not because of divergence of views or understanding of the issue but because of their own interest. They know that their views, by and large, converge but, in order to create their own constituency; they show that their views are altogether different. This we see more in politics and perhaps especially in our country. 
I am talking of those people who approach the issue honestly but do not take holistic view of the issue. They approach the issue from different directions. On approaching the issue, they don’t revolve around it to understand it from all angles. If one approaches the front of an object, he forms view according to how the object looks like from the front. He does not bother to go to the sides or the back of the object in order to grasp the whole picture of the object. 
After observing the object from front, he returns and narrates his own version of the object. By narrating his version of the object, he forms his own constituency. Those who have not approached the object are made to believe as to how the object looks like. 
Similarly, the other people who approach the object from different sides form altogether different opinions about the object. These people too come back and narrate their own version of how the object looks like and form different constituencies. What is the result? The result is that so many constituencies come into being and the people of each constituency are deprived from understanding the real nature of the object.
I was not a student of history. Therefore, I am not going to write what the historians have written about our country or about the great persons. I was a student of science. Therefore, I approach anything with scientific temper. This is the reason that I am approaching history of India with scientific temper.
My approach to history of India is based upon what I am observing to day in India. I ask whether Shri T.N. Sheshan created history by introduction of drastic reform in the manner in which the election was being fought before him or not? I ask whether Vinoba Bhave who launched and run Bhoodan movement created history of a sort or not? I ask whether Jay Prakash Narayan before the dreaded dacoits had lay arms had created history or not? There are so many great persons who have created history. But where are they? Who of such great personalities find mention in the history? Perhaps none of them. We have forgotten all of them. Tomorrow, we would forget Late Shri P.V. Narsinha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh who have laid foundation of the economy of this country. Tomorrow we would forget Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the missile man. Our children would not be taught in history so much about the said personalities as they would be taught about the rulers because it the rulers who are creating and making history. Thus, I observe that the present day history is what people in power today present before us. My observation is whosoever is in power today is making history. There are others too who are trying hard to make and create history but they are forced to subdue by the powerful organs and the institutions of the society. 
Let’s see what happened in the past. In Mughal India, there would have been some people who would have honest approach to the past of India but they could not afford to run writ. The approach, method, principles, and yardstick of the pre-Mughal India people must have been altogether different from those of the Mughal India people. Today, many books have been banned. In the same or like manner, many books who would have contained valuable information about the past India would have been banned or destroyed in Mughal India with the result that the post Mughal India people have now been deprived from knowing what kind of pre-Mughal India was. The only sources of knowledge about the past India are the books which have escaped the wrath of Moghul rulers. These books don’t find place in history of India because we have been made to understand history on the lines of British rulers. 
What happened during Moghul era, continued to happen during British era. The emphasis of the British rulers was to wipe out the past so that their culture could be imposed. They made all out efforts to impose their own culture, ethos, values etc. The manner and method adopted by the British rulers was, however, different from that adopted by the Moghuls. Moghuls used force to impose their own culture on the Indians whereas the British rulers used the means of education model for the said purpose. Whereas Moghuls used force to get Indians converted to Islam, the British rulers used missionaries and inducement to get the poor Indians converted to Christians. Because of conversion and imposition of culture by the Moghuls and British rulers, Indian society got fragmented badly so much so that, perhaps, the caste system which is in vogue in India today started to take place during Moghul era to escape the wrath of the Moghuls. 
In view of the above, what is taught today in history is what it was given to take shape by the Moghuls and the British rulers and, hence, at least I don’t believe in it. I don’t believe that the caste system like the one which is vogue in today’s India was prevalent in pre- Moghul India. This is so because, in the Indian society, where the concepts of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” and “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah” were the ideals, there must have been no room for discrimination on the basis of caste or creed. 
What I believe is that, whereas in the Moghul era, the caste system took place to use it by the Indians as shield against the tyranny of the Moghuls rulers, in British India, it was used by the British rulers to divide and rule the people of India. 
In Moghul India, the primary targets of the Moghul rulers were the Kshatriyas who too were the rulers and had arms in their hands. In order that the people might not become the targets of Moghuls, a large number of people would have adopted Islam or made Moghuls to believe on the basis of profession of such people that they were altogether different from Kshatriyas. For instance, it is said that Aahir, Jaat, Gujar and Rajput are all from Kshatriya origin. This seems to be true as there is lot of similarity between them as for as their temperament is concerned. Today, however, they are not one because they have been divided by the rulers of India. 
In the British era, the targets were the socially, educationally and financially weaker sections of India. The immediate need of such people was the social, educational and financial uplifting. Such people were not interested in the old Indian glory and culture. It did not matter to them who were and who should be their rulers. The British rulers took advantage of this situation. What the British rulers began to do? In order to pursue their policy of divide and rule, they began to fish in the troubled water by poisoning the mind of these sections of the society as well as the Indian Muslims. On one hand, they were luring the weaker sections of the Indian society, on the other hand they were creating bogey in the minds of the Muslims against the rest of the Indians (including the weaker sections). I observe that had the British rulers taught all Indians about the old Indian principle that all Indians are brothers ( “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”) and hence they should come together, shrink the social gaps, strengthen social bonds and ensure that all be happy and healthy ( “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah”), they would not have executed the policy of divide and rule. It was the design of the British rulers not to divide British India on the basis of the religion but also on the basis of the classes. Unfortunately, the British rulers succeeded in their design inasmuch as some leaders of India fell prey to it. It was only Gandhi ji because of whom we Indians are saved though in tattered form. Why in tattered form because today’s India is badly fragmented on the basis of the caste and creed and continue to be fragmented because caste politics and the politics based on religion has taken giant shape. 
Let’s see what kind of history about post- independence India has been taught to us. I am not going to dwell upon the condition of the people. After independence, the pioneers of the country were Gandhi ji, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Pandit Jwara Lal Nehru, Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Acharya J.B. Kriplani, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and many others. All of them contributed to the cause of freedom struggle. What is irony, however, is that, whatever was the condition of the people, none of the aforesaid leaders except Gandhi ji, made sincere effort to take a holistic view of India. The understanding of all the aforesaid leaders about the people of India was not the same. Gandhi ji had seen India from all the angles and formed the view that India lived in villages. He was a real guide. In essence, however, his understanding of India was not taken in account with the result that the villages of this country are still languishing. It was Gandhi ji who had really read India. His thinking was not based on any other model. He was not so-called economist. By economist, I mean the person who had studied the economic models that were prevalent in the west or in the communist countries. Gandhi ji, as I see, was not influenced by the social, political, educational and economic models which had been in the west or in communist countries. His thoughts were shaped keeping in view the real Indian condition. Though he too was a barrister and got education from England, he was not influenced by the system and culture which the British had adopted. On the other hand, barring few one, most of leaders were greatly influenced by the social, political, educational and economic models of the west and the communist countries. Therefore, without due deliberation as to whether such western models would suit to Indians or not, most of such models were adopted and thrust upon India. The post-independence history which had been taught to us in the schools was greatly influenced by the historians who had the left leaning. What we had been taught in the schools about India, the Indian leaders did not depict the real picture so much so that Gandhi ji, the father of the nation has not found due place in the post- independence generation. Had Gandhi ji been truly taught in post- independence India, we would not have faced such social, political, educational and economic problems which we, and in particular, the people of rural India are facing now. Therefore, history of India in the present form is not worth learning and it needs overall without caring for hue and cry that could be raised by the vested interest.

TENSION EASILY AVOIDABLE

TENSION EASILY AVOIDABLE
Who has no tension? Perhaps everyone has. We all know, tension takes place in mind. Mind controls all actions which we perform. It can, thus, be said that the moment we cease to perform action, tension would vanish. But, so long as we alive, we continue to perform actions and tension would continue to remain as part and parcel of our existence. In other words, so long as we alive, tension in us would do. Therefore, it can be said that tension is a permanent feature and it cannot be altogether avoided. At the same time, it can be said that it can well be managed if we manage our sentiments and emotions positively. It is not so difficult.

There is saying that too much of anything is bad. There is also an idiom, ‘Last Straw Breaks The Camel Back’ ( अति सर्वत्र वर्जयेत ). It can thus be said that excessive tension is like poison. Sustainability of body depends upon the gravity of tension which is generated in the body. The more it is grave, the more degeneration in the body takes place. Therefore, in order to increase sustainability of the body, generation of tension needs be checked. Not only that we need to develop such a mechanism that, if tension is generated, it should not remain in the mind for longer period.

On what basis can it be said that tension is permanent feature. In fact, tension is the result of the actions and reactions which are continuously milling in our life. It can be said that the world is made of actions and reactions.
Actions and reactions are nothing but the forces which we are applying on one other. The natural law is that every action is followed by a reaction. The heat generated in this process is the tension. No one can change this law. To some extent, however, the direction of the action can be changed. Accordingly, the direction of the reaction is also changed. This is what we are doing as the members of the society.
We observe that to at every stage there is strain in relations and because of this fatal tension generates in our mind. In my personal view, the sure cure or prevention of tension can be achieved by practicing spiritualism. This is, however, very difficult. For us, the common men, it is very difficult to practice spiritualism. So far my understanding of spiritualism goes, spiritualism is nothing but knowing nature of the nature. Spiritualism is nothing but the ultimate merging ourselves with the nature and merging ourselves with the nature means following natural law in the society. In my view, it is impossible to follow natural law in the society because the society has been formed against the will of the nature. Therefore, I am not talking of spiritualism or the nature. I am talking of the society and us, its constituents. I am talking of the process other the process of spiritualism to minimize the gravity of tension and thereby increase the sustainability of mind and body.
We know that nature has not made relations. Relations have been made by the society and expectation is the product of relations. Each one of us has expectation from others. We interact with others with certain expectations. We expect from others reciprocity of what we think of or do about others. For anyone, however, it is impossible to match expectations of other. This is so because we cannot weigh the expectations of the others. The moment one finds or feels that the other has not acted according to the former’s expectation, tension takes place in the former’s mind and chain reaction starts.
Why expectation can never be fulfilled? In fact, what one wants to convey through gesture or words or action, the other doesn’t comprehend. The result is that one sometimes or more often misunderstands the other on the basis of his words, actions, gesture etc. and invites tension.
I have posted an article on 16th July, 2015 with title as “Judge by Deeds, Not by Words”. In the said article, I have narrated a real incident which had taken place in my presence. Whereas the said incident caused tension in the mind of my elder cousin, it failed to do so in my mind. Whereas, because of the incident, elder cousin had become very tense, I was smiling at the incident. It is needless to mention that, after the incident, my elder cousin had become captive of thought which the said incident had created in his mind about my mother. What my mother had spoken at that time was taken by him seriously. On the other hand, I had taken very lightly what his mother had spoken at that time. Had my elder been detached a bit from the said incident, he would have saved himself from aftereffects of the said incident. He could not manage the situation whereas I did. This was the difference between how he understood the incident and how I did.
Let’s see how does chain reaction to an action or words starts and has its toll ultimately.
I am proceeding to present four situations. Let’s suppose, in a small family, there are three members- a working husband-‘A’, a house wife-‘B’ and a school going child-‘C’. Let’s assume that, during the day, husband ‘A’ is in office, wife ‘B’ at home and the child ‘C’ in school. Suppose, normally, husband ‘A’ comes home before the child ‘C’ does. Normally, all wait each other to meet in the evening and when they meet, each one of them feels relaxed and happy. The wife ‘B’ greets husband ‘A’ with smile in the evening. The husband ‘A’ reciprocates her. Thereafter, both of them wait for the child ‘C’. When the child ‘C’ comes, ‘A’ and ‘B’ together greet ‘C’ with love and affection. The child ‘C’ too reciprocates his parents with innocuous and loving face. All the three are happy and there is no tension in the family. This is the first situation.
Let’s see what happens in the second situation. While in the office, ‘A’ is not aware that the mood of his boss is off. As usual, ‘A’ enters the chamber of his boss to discuss a matter. During the discussion, his boss shouts at ‘A’ and, at this, ‘A” is taken aback. He feels that he is absolutely right and there is no reason for such harsh treatment on the part of his boss. ‘A’ also loses his temper. He loses control over his reaction. He becomes very offensive. The incident is followed by hot exchanges between the two leading to an ugly situation in which ‘A’ is charged for unbecoming of a government servant. By what is it followed? It is followed by tension in the life of ‘A’. Though, subsequently, both of them realized that what had happened on their part was not proper, it was too late. When ‘A’ reaches home, his wife finds him sad. She becomes sympathetic to him. She too, however, becomes sad. Child comes home. Like his parents, he too becomes sad. Tension took toll on all of them.
In the third situation, ‘A’ does not outwardly react to his boss on account of fear of action against him. Internally, however, he becomes very much furious. He comes out of the chamber of his boss. Thereafter, his mood remained off till the office is closed. After the office is closed, he comes home where his wife is eagerly waiting for him. As usual, she opens the door and greets his husband with smile. She hugs him. The husband, however, becomes furious at his wife’s gesture and shouts at her asking what this sort of stupidity is. The manner of the husband is sufficient to make the wife fall from the sky. She does not know what was happened to her husband in the office. She, however, does not pause to try to understand the reason behind such abnormal behavior on the part of her husband. She too becomes furious. Both of them stop talking to each other and keep themselves aloof.
At last, the child comes. In the school, the child was eagerly waiting for the last bell to ring so that he might rush home and join his parents whom he loves too much. He reaches home and rang the doorbell. Outside the door, he is waiting for her parents with beaming smile to open the door. As soon as the door opens, he hugs her mother fervently. What happens? He was not aware that the mood of his mother was bitterly off. The mother forcefully frees herself from the clutches and grip of her child and rushed hurriedly inside her room.
Let’s assume the condition of the mind of the child when he was at the door of his house. What was his expectation from his parents at that time? He was feeling as if he was in the sky at the threshold the heaven. The moment the door is opened, however, he falls from the sky to the ground. As against what he was feeling, he finds just opposite thing. The result is that he too becomes fiercely angry at his mother but what he can do.
The husband had passed ire onto his wife and the wife had passed ire onto the child. Onto whom the child would pass on the ire? He would pass on the ire onto his bags and the articles which were available in the drawing room irrespective of the fact that the articles are very valuable. Crying loudly, therefore, he flings away his school bag and throws on the ground whichever article he found in the drawing room and thereby gave vent to his anger.
Let’s assume the fourth situation. ‘A’ has a good understanding about his boss and the good understanding has been formed on the basis of the temperament of his boss which ‘A’ has been noticing in normal course of interaction with his boss. Therefore, on being shouted upon by his boss, he does not change his opinion about his boss and thinks that there might be some reason because of which the mood of the boss was off.
After a while, ‘A’ again enters the chamber of his boss. He is fully alert this time. First of all, he gauges the mood of his boss and when he finds that the boss has come in normal mode, he begs pardon to start discussion. The boss becomes impressed with the politeness of ‘A’. He realizes that he had unnecessarily shouted upon ‘A’. On his behavior, the boss says sorry to ‘A’. ‘A’ becomes very pleased on being heard sorry from his boss. Happily, he comes home and responds to his wife with same intensity of love which he usually receives from her. Happily, he mentions the incident of the office to his wife. Thereafter, both eagerly wait for their child. The child, when comes, finds that his mummy and papa are more happy than before and as soon as he enters the house he feels as if he has landed in the heaven.
What do we observe? We observe that in all the four situations, actions of the boss had been followed by the reaction of ‘A’. In the second and third situations, ‘A’ misjudged his boss on the basis of the words used by his boss and his temperament.

In the second situation, ‘A’ reacted at the moment. What he had felt he expressed violently at the moment itself. The moment he reacted to his boss violently, his tension was subsidized to a large extent. The gravity of the tension had become very less but what followed. It was followed by action started against ‘A’. The tension having less intensity spread during the period following the incident. The incident creates worry in the mind of ‘A’ with respect to his service.

In third situation, ‘A’ did not react at the moment on account of fear of action against him. Reaction, however, took place in his mind. It was stored in the mind of ‘A’. He could have expressed his reaction as soon as he came out of the chamber of his officer by knocking at the wall or shouting it his juniors. He, however, fearing reaction from the wall or juniors did not react. He remained upset. He was boiling from inside. He had become a volcano. The volcano erupted when he entered his house. We have seen what happened and what havoc his reaction caused.
On the other hand, in the fourth situation, ‘A’ did not go by the words used and his temperament shown by his boss. He rather looked back and judged his boss on the basis of their action normally performed daily by him and not on the basis of the words used by his boss on that fateful day.
It is not that he did not react. He reacted wisely. He used his force to divert the verbal onslaught of his boss. The words of his boss could reach the mind of ‘A’ though his boss felt that his words had penetrated the mind of ‘A’. 
Naturally, therefore, if we judge anyone on the basis of the instant temperament or bitter words uttered by him on some day or in a particular situation, our judgement would be fallacious. The judgement of ‘A’ about his boss, ‘B’ about ‘A’ and ‘C’ about ‘B’ which was formed on that fateful day did great harm to the family of ‘A’ , ‘B’ and ‘C’. 
I would give another example. Once upon a time, I had been aware that my stand was right and I had done no wrong. But when I was questioned by a very senior officer, I could not have replied. I had kept mum. I could not have said that it was the wrong action on the part of my immediate boss and not on my part and the wrong action had taken place on account of a wrong practice adopted in the Department 
When I came out from the chamber of the said senior officer and came across with my immediate boss, I sharply reacted to him. I was very new in the Department, perhaps at probation. I hated speaking lie. It was impossible for me to hide anything. When I reacted to my immediate boss, he smiled. He asked me to follow him to his chamber. I obeyed accordingly. There, in his chamber, he told me that I was not aware of what subordination is and this was the reason why I had taken the matter so seriously. He told me that, by and by, I would learn the art of subordination. He jokingly told me about a conversation which had taken place between an Administrative Officer (AO) and his junior (DOS). As per the narration of my boss, once upon a time, the AO was telling the DOS that once in the life of the AO both Dussera and Diwali fell on the same day. To this, the DOS responded saying that ‘yes sir’ sometimes it happened like this. When, however, the conversation ended and the DOS came out of the chamber of the AO, he laughed at his boss, the AO and narrated it among his colleagues. By narrating this, what my boss conveyed to me was that bosses are not the great people. They are like all of us. We should not expect greatness from our bosses. Accordingly, even we know that we are right, we should not try to correct the boss at the moment itself. We should convey the correct facts later on when the situation becomes conducive.
Here comes the role of the media, the politicians, the law enforcing authorities and the bodies who shape our education policies. They are the leaders of the society. They should not glorify reaction of any sort. Alas! What do we observe? We observe that the media and the politicians tend to create mountain out of a mole and thereby instantaneous reaction takes causing so much unrest in the society. They love those people who are expert in creating mountain out of the mole. Such people are most sought after in the world of media and the politicians. Such people form a class which includes lawyers, critiques, TV anchors, all politicians, almost all participants in TV debates, human right activists, NGOs, the bodies which claim to fight for the women, minorities SC/ST and the like. These people are expert in hair splitting job and it would not be exaggeration to say that we have mortgaged our thinking ability to these people inasmuch as we tend to blindly follow them. We are not led to know the context in or intent with which few words have been used by someone. It is projected the image of such person who has used some words in lighter mood, or in particular context as if he is burden on the earth. If he is public figure, we raise cudgel against him and come out on the street demanding his stepping down from the public post. Our behavior is such that we are 100% pure and the person who has uttered the words in the lighter mood or in anger or in a particular context. What I stress here is that we should remain alert so that unscrupulous organs of the society may not use us as tools to further their narrow ends. Otherwise, all the times we would remain tense in the negative atmosphere created by the media and the politicians. The law enforcing authorities and the bodies who shape our education policies should come forward and save the common people from the negative forces created by the media and the politicians.

Advocacy unfair and one sided. 

From the newspaper article at page No. 17 of TOI dt. 21.8.2015( Delhi/ Noida/ Ghaziabad Edition ), I found that the PCI Chief, Justice CK Prasad has quoted Nehru Ji' following statement: " irresponsible media was better than controlled one".

With due respect to the PCI I beg to differ from him. In my view, the comparison can be made only after the role of media is assessed on the overall impact it has caused on the public. Media is not the custodian of the public interest . Protection of public interest is the job of the elected government and not of the media. If the government forms opinion that the behaviour of the media is detrimental to the interest of the nation and the public, the government, as the representative of and answerable to the public, has right to impose restriction on the media. 

What Nehru ji had said was relevant when we were subjects of the foreign power. If cannot be said that the foreign power was the custodian of the interest of the Indian people. In a country like ours which has a society badly fragmented, no one even the media should not be allowed to play with the sentiments of any section of the public if such sentiments are divisive in nature . In our country the role of the media is not constructive. The role of the media should ideally be to guide the government and government machinery . The role of the media is to point out mistake in the decision of the government, analyse the same to assess what good or wrong impact it may cause to public and to give government opportunity to correct it. Unfortunately, media is creating distrust against the government and its organs. Therefore, reasonable restriction on media is desirable in our country.

Electronic Media - Should be more reponsible.

My dear friends! Churning process is going on in the society. What do we observe. Blame game is in full swing. Every one is raising finger on another. The prime target is governments and bureaucracy. Anatomy of each word and incident is being done. Who are doing this? Most inept and selfish sections of the social organs. These sections are not only ruining the country but the society as a whole. Which are these sections? In my personal opinion, it is the electronic media which is playing pivotal role in weakening our country. We are the raw materials for the electronic media to produce venom and spread this product in the society. 

No one is so responsible for inculcating fear in the mind of minority or weaker sections of the society as is electronic media. It is the electronic media which is creating and promoting negative thoughts. Why are we playing in the hands of electronic media? My dear friends, I sincerely request you to please do anatomy of the nature, character and trend of electronic media. I am sure, if my friends would honestly analyse the news stuff and what is going on in the name of discussion, they will find that the electronic media is, instead of strengthening the country, weakening it. Let us beware and use social media against the mighty electronic media.

Intolerance - 2

Intolerance. This is hot topic of the day. Thanks to the TV discussion, the people who don't know the meaning of this word must have become aware of the context in which this word has become ubiquitous. 

All we know, history is dominated by the ruler and not by the subjects. Needless to mention that the history which was written during the era of Mugal rulers or the British rulers was definitely dominated by rulers of those era. It cannot be said that the Mugals and the British rulers were dead honest in their approach and they had not tampered with past Indian cultures and ethos. My personal opinion is that they must have tried to replace the old Indian culture by their own culture. What I mean to say is that during the 400 years of foreign rule in India , the past Indian values and culture were trampled and in place thereof the culture of the rulers put. If the past Indian culture has survived, it is because of shear its strength and deep roots. 

After independence, we inherited three kind of cultures: the past Indian culture, the culture of the Mugals and English cultures. After independence, no efforts were made to fathom, find and revive our old cultures. No efforts were made to test the efficacy the our old rich cultures. Instead, we continue to promote the English culture. After independence, we adopted such a system which did not conform to mind of the large section of the society. The large section of the society are believers in a particular religion. After independence, this section of people are mocked, their gods and goddesses are freely mocked and caricatured by a class of intellectuals, artists, writers. Such selfish intellectuals, artists, and writers who have not in any made any contribution to strengthening the Indian people have been suppressing the feelings of the largest segment of this country in the name of freedom of expression. No freedom of expression can be justified if any expression hurts the feelings of large number of people. These pseudo intellectuals, writers and artists have been promoted since independence. They have occupied the pivotal position since independence. I think, these pseudo intellectuals, writers and artists having showing intolerance right before the last general election. 

By now, when Diwali is declared as holiday in USA, Diwali is celebrated in Kanada, mantrochar is taking place in US, Yoga is acquiring the prominent place in the world, such people are trying to tarnish the image of our country in tandem with some foreign based anti-nationals. These people exhibiting intolerance towards the large section of our country who try to attain our past glory and become torch bearers for the world. In my view, the people such as those who have returned awards using the stray instances in the country and those who support such people are really showing intolerance towards the largest section of our country who have been feeling alienated so far.

Intolerance

Kind of people who raise the issue of intolerance.

Look at the people who raise the issue. These are the kind of people who hurt someone, not by Lathi but by their utterances, by their writing and so on and the person who is hurt cries in pain, such people try their best by shear might of intellect, writing, gift of gab to drown the painful cries of the hurt. Such people claim themselves the intellectuals, intelligentsia, journalists and so on. These people don't heal the wounds but rather by their actions aggravate the same. Yes, they are genius, they have mind intellect but they don't use their mental faculties for improvement of the health of the society. In my personal view, they are polluting the Indian society from their thoughts which borrowed from the west. That is why their thoughts and their work are simply creating chasm in this society. If someone raises finger at such people whose work has no weight in society in general, he or she is christened as intolerance. We may observe that pseudo intellectuals and artists act in a partisan way, mock the faiths and beliefs of some are other section of our country and thereby come in limelight and garner undue advantage. 

Such pseudo torch bearers use platform of businessmen controlled selfish media to mock one or other section of the society and thereby hurt the people of one section of the society. For instance, can film actors, painters, cricket be treated as torch bearers of the society? Such people have sold their art for their individual gains and not for the gain of the society in general. Can it be said that they have understood the diverse faiths, beliefs and culture of the people of our country? Are they more aware of faiths, beliefs and culture of India than you, he or me? Have the so-called intellectuals, film-makers, writers have spent lives in villages? If not how can they understand what we are? Why the utterances and views of such people are given so much importance by the media? 

So far as my understanding goes, Indian people is like colourless ocean and the so-called intellectuals are like tiny colourful drops who are visible in the vast ocean of Indian people thanks to the media. In collusion inter se both the so-called intellectuals and the media play havoc with our destiny. Let's open our eyes and see the real colour of the so-called intellectuals and media and save the coming general from being trapped by them.

Patriot and traitor.

Patriot and traitor. 

Listen to the discussion on the the question as to who is patriot and who is traitor. Most of us know what these words mean. However, on listening the discussion among the so-called personalities who are empanelled by the TV Channels we often become confused. Why does confusion about the meaning and scope of the said words take place? The reason, as I understand, is that we often compare ourselves with those personalities and and feel that we are inferior to them. I call upon my friends not to succumb to the intellectual might of the so-called personalities and have our own understanding of matters which have social and national amplification. 

We, the people of India, are struggling very hard. We have no time to enjoy mental luxury as the writers and the artists have. We have no time to think over what harm or good is caused to the people of India as a whole in the name of creativity, freedom of speech and expression of thoughts. Such people throng the TV studios and crying hoarse if someone of us comes forward and try to convey the point that the unbridled expression and thoughts are tearing the social fabric of the country. Such people are hand in glove with TV Channels and they as well as the TV Channels successfully play with the emotion of us, the gullible, Indian people. The question is what do we call the people who tarnish the image of the country, whose art, writings, expression etc. are pre- judicial to the interest of the country, who acts weaken the country by creating unrest in the society? Does the word traitors refer to only those people who work in the interest of the enemy country? If someone makes the country weak for his narrow and selfish goals by way of writings, depiction of arts, articulation of thoughts in public, can't be said that he strengthens our enemies? May such individual or individuals not be termed as anti national? 

Here I would like to stress this point by giving an example. Suppose, someone makes a child fearful by narrating story of a Ghost at particular. The child that has not experienced the existence of Ghost becomes so fearful that he doesn't care to visit such place. Later on, if someone tells the child that there is no Ghost at that place and at that place there is treasure, the child fails to decide who is correct. 

The foreign based companies are just like the child. They have not experienced India. Some of the TV Channels , pseudo intellectuals, writers, film makers, artists etc. are making the foreign nationals fearful of India with the result that they don't dare to come to India and make us the Indians technologically and economically strong. We are the nation of 125 crore people. Why don't these people calculate the percentage of crimes which take place in our country, compare the crimes which take place in other countries and then pass verdict on India? It can then only be said that our country is safe or not for living and doing business. The TV Channels and the people who are creating brouhaha about us the peace loving Indian should judge themselves as how their actions further the interest of the country. If they seriously ponder over it they would realize that they are knowingly or unknowingly harming the country by of unleashing malicious propaganda.

Defence seems to be offence these days.

Defence seems to be offence these days. 

It is said offence is best defence. In the present day India, however, it has become fashion to trample mercilessly the feelings of large section of society. It has become fashion to mock the age old traditions, values and culture which are essence of feelings of the people of our country. The manner in which the common people are mocked is so humiliating that they feel hurt. If someone who is sympathetic to such common and innocuous people come forward and raise objection to humiliating practice such person is also mocked. The approach of such person is termed as retrograde. A term moral policing is also used for an act of such person. 

I was a student of science. I don't jump to any conclusion abruptly. My approach to understand any tradition, practice, rituals which have survived till now is altogether scientific. For instance, in our country, almost all which exist in nature is worshipped. Trees, rivers, mountain, herbs, water, clouds, sun, moon, rat, snake, cow, bulls and so many things are worshipped. Those who worship these manifestations of the nature can't when asked attribute any scientific reason to practice of worshipping. They treat these things as gods and deities. Because they treat these things gods and deities, they should me mocked by terming their beliefs as blind. Rather than derisively pass judgement on such beliefs all of use should explore scientific reasons behind such practices. In the process we would observe that there are a number of practices which have lost relevance. 

These practices can be rooted out gradually by way of imparting proper education and not by way of mocking such people. Please check the film makers, artists, TV Channels, Advertising Agencies to shun from projecting obscenities rather than calling sensitive people as moral police. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to check crime merely by implementing laws.

Why? Why basic structure of the Constitution should remain intact?

Why basic structure of the Constitution should remain intact?

Once again, I would like to make it clear that I try my best to adopt scientific approach as far as I may traverse to understand any anything of this world. So this question is just like a hypothesis. 

The students of science are aware that everything in this universe is relative to some other thing and nothing is static. Everything of the universe is changing its position at all times. Thus, it can be said that change is inevitable. Change is the rule of the nature. If it is so then why have we stuck to the view that the basic nature of the Constitution should not be charged? 

We know that when the Constitution was in the process of making, the world was the same as it is now. The law makers were not so much aware of the world as they are aware to day. They were not so much aware of the demographic structure, socio- economic conditions, regional disparities of India as they are aware today. Our Constitution was then mainly designed on the basis of the study of the Constitutions of the many countries. At that time, we had no opinions except to derive matters from the Constitutions which were extant at time in the world. There was no time with us to explore India, obtain views of the Indian people who were at gross root level. At that time there was almost no means of communication. Today, however, the world has become a village because of social media. It can be discussed at length about the efficacy of our Constitution. Input can be obtained not from residents in India but even from the NRIs who have spread all over the world.
By the way, with passage of time, anything that was strong initially, loses it strength. It applies to our Constitution too. It cannot be said it is as strong and efficacious now as it was initially. 

If we don't change water, it would stagnate and stink. Therefore, it is my personal opinion that this matter should be debated freely . Why do I so feel. I observe that in fifties, the center was strong. There was almost one party rule at centre as well as in the states. Regionalism did not pose any problem to the unitary nature of our country. It is however not to day. States are becoming stronger so much so that they try to even dictate the center in foreign policy. One state passes derogatory remarks against the people of another state. There are so many things. Therefore, my personal opinion that each provision the Constitution needs to be debated freely not on TV Channels but in social media. Come on. Let's discuss it for the sake of our country.

Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyo Aata Hai ?

Question: Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyo Aata Hai?

Perhaps most of us would have watched this movie. My personal advice is that if someone has not so for watched this movie, he should watch it to understand as to why common people are expressing their anger in present day India. 

Albert Pinto, when saw a leader on TV speaking lie, his anger burst. Albert Pinto forgot that the leader was not on the spot to feel anger of Albert Pinto. In today's India, an Albert Pinto is demonized as rustic, irrational, and intolerant by small band of people who are Darling of TV Channels.

When in present day India, emotions of common people are freely hurt. Faiths which have survived for long are called blind beliefs. Not some section of the society, but imposters who claim themselves as architect of the society call names to innocent people or so-called representative of a section freely hurling false allegations on the common people of other sections, the approach of major section of the society is termed as retrograde and irrational, altogether abominable words are used at public forum against the representative of the country treating him as representative of a political party, good gestures in Parliament are mocked outside, is Albert Pinto not forced to express anger? 

A miniscule section of society in collusion with electronic media is forcefully thrusting fingers in millions of Albert Pintos of the day and if Albert Pintos cry in pain, this miniscule section label them as intolerant. This miniscule section has little knowledge about the fact that tolerance runs in the blood of Indian people. These people have compassion not only for human beings but for all living beings. How can these people become intolerant ? For the sake of God, let's not this section of society to spread venom in the society and thereby place one section of the society against the other section. All political parties and the so-called rationalists should be pressed to respect the sentiments of Albert Pintos who are simple, innocent, kind hearted, large hearted. We, the Indians, express anger as well as shade tears. We are emotional by nature. So please let the so-called rationalists understand us and not mocked.

War within

The country is facing onslaught not so much from outside as from inside. I believe the army of our country is so strong that no country of the world can dare to part with any part of our country. The enemy knows this fact very well. Therefore, instead of engaging us in battlefield they are trying to weaken our great country from inside. For narrow gains, some people and organizations are playing directly or indirectly, not only covertly but also overtly in the hands of the enemy country. Therefore, dear friends let us wake up and put our intellectual might to thwart the people around us from being trapped in the siege of the enemy. 

To start with let's forget our personal differences and prejudices for the sake our larger interest.

Jai Hind.

Media should behave more responsibly.

How real issues are camouflaged is best exemplified by the events and turns which have unfolded post JNU incident. I am not going to delve the same in details as the media ( both print and electronic) is replete with all these things. The real issues which are drowned in cacophony of media are that not only the social fabric of our country is torn but even the disintegration processes are going on in some parts of the country against its integrity. 

If a small fire breaks out in a locality of the country, such fire is spread not only in all parts of the country but all over the world. And who is the agent to spread the fire ? Public ? No. Politicians? No. It is in my view, the media and specially electronic one. It the uncanny and unscrupulous media which for the narrow gains plays havoc with our emotions. We the gullible people easily become pawns in the hands of media. It is media which creates lawless in the country by tarnishing the image of public authorities. Thanks to the media, conflicts among various religions, castes, regions, states, people practising different faiths, cultures, speaking different languages and so on take place. 

Thanks to the media, the gullible people become aware that terrorists, criminals, Naxalite too have sympathizers in our country. I believe that if the media stops to spread fire which creates local problem, such problem can be solved by the local authority. Thanks to media, a local problem of very small magnitude is highlighted to so much extent that the ordinary people begin to lose faith in the system. What happened in JNU was right or wrong cannot be decided by media. It can be decided by the authorities which are entrusted with the task of taking cognizance of such incidents, carrying out investigation and taking steps to nip in the buds. Instead of helping the public authorities, media is making strenuous efforts to put the public authorities in dock. 

Thanks to the media, the country is projected all over the world as if our country is not worth living. So, my friends, instead of calling names to the politicians, the fringe elements etc. , let's guard ourselves from becoming docile to the contents of media. Our country is spiritual by nature and so the people of our country loves coexistence right from the beginning of civilization. 

Jai Hind!

An empty vessel makes much noise.

"Jara-sa katra kahin aaj ubharta hai, 
Samandaron hee ke lahje mein baat karta hai.".

This has been composed by Prof. Vaseem Bareilavi.

We know what does it mean? 

I had heard Chanda Shekhar passing remarks during a speech on a leader of Janta Party: " Sooraj ki garmi se tapa hua baloo kabhi kabhi Sooraj se bhi apne ko badaa samajhne lagta hai. Magar baloo kabhi Sooraj nahi ban sakta jo din mein garm aur raat ko thandaa ho jata hai".

Today I observe some of the leaders who are in power in some states have become so much arrogant that they have no sense of mental discipline. They boast like a rat boasts of its strength before a giant elephant. The rats are thumping their chests challenging the elephant to come to the arena. The elephant does not react. It stands silently. The silence of the elephant emboldens the rats to claim that the elephant does not dare to face them. Ironically, the myopic Media too projects such rats as hero's. Such things can perhaps happen only in India where majority of people are not good and sincerely electors. Therefore, in order to send such rats to their original let's vow to become a good elector in this year.