Rushdie , Hussein, Taslima.. et.all

I see a common paradigm, a pattern in Rushdie, Hussein, Taslima et.all. They are all iconoclasts. They did not refrain from attacking the established beliefs and dogma of the society. Take the case of M F Hussein who painted Hindu Goddesses in a derogatory manner in the name of art. Take the case of Taslima Nasreen who gave unbridled references to her private life in her autobiography. Her descriptions of atrocities on women in a riot-ridden village in her debut novel ‘Lajja’, were provocative to say the least. What midnights children could not achieve for Salman Rushdie was amply accomplished by Satanic verses. That is, huge publicity & controversy. .


(In fact, I could not turn more than four pages when I started reading ‘The midnights children’. Of course I am no connoisseur of literary works.)

The pattern here is all of them seek and attempt for publicity.

Now I would like to take an absolutely queer reference here. That of Poonam Pandey. She is a nationally known figure today. Not for any merit but for reasons we all know about. So in a way, Rushdie and co. are Poonam Pandeys of a different field. Willing to strip if it serves their purpose of getting attention. I am reminded of one more literary figure in this connection. Mr. Rajendra Yadav, a noted figure of Hindi Sahitya, who has successfully kept himself controversial over all these years.

We may criticize these people but hardly can we deny that we are interested. Great Khushwant Singh attempted the same plank in eighties (of course earlier too) and circulation of the illustrated weekly soared to great heights. We all want to be titillated and better if it is in some form of controversy.

The point here is not that we all seek attention. It is already a fact however much we may deny. Attention, recognition, acceptance, even approval is the basic need of everyone. Even a plant or a pet can not grow healthy if it isn’t bestowed upon enough attention.

The point here is, not many people dare!

I personally feel that merit comes later. Prior to it is the issue of daring. The common pattern here is not that all of them sought publicity but that all of them dared too! They attempted to give expression to their innermost desire. They ventured at the cost of being ridiculed, opposed, denigrated or rejected. That makes the difference. Things do not come in shape by mere merit & talent. Life demands daring. Sometimes daring brings all other things in tow. 

Who is most communal in India?

Congress seems to be on the wrong side of fate in its second tenure. It is making such mistakes and that too in succession that for the first time in independent India’s history, it really seems to be confused. First it goofed up the issue related to the age of Gen V.K.Singh. And now a terminal mistake of stopping Mr. Rushdi from attending Jaipur Lit Festival. Mr. Rushdi has already come & gone a no. of times after ‘ The Satanic Verses’ was banned in India in 1988. Nothing happened. This time also he simply was an invitee of the festival & was coming around as a noted literary figure. People of India have already gotten over the satanic verses controversy.


But Congress, in the light of ensuing elections, miscalculated everything. They thought by stopping Rushdi, they will be able to score something with Muslims of India. Earlier these planks would work wonderfully because Muslims were having no other party to look up to. Hence any issue or non-issue related to Muslim faith, when given a communal shade, was a sure vote catcher. But now things have changed substantially. There are other parties who have played the same card and played it rather smartly. As a result the Muslim community of this country has realized the necessity to see through the claims & games of such political parties.

Congress, especially the kinds of Digvijay Singhs etc. are not willing to accept this reality. They are just not able to see beyond minority/majority.

Now that you have stopped Salman Rushdi from even video conferencing, people of this country are asking what was wrong with so called fundamentalist organizations when they opposed MF Hussein. After all it was also a case of hurting the religious sentiment of a community. You see, a government can not act in a partisan manner.

The Congress has exposed itself blatantly by showing a soft corner to the fundamentalist elements of one community. Now its cover of being a secular party will never have any sympathizers. Fools of course will have their own choices.

In my view Congress has been the most communal party of India. Others have only reacted to its vote bank politics.

Do we need so many political parties?

The Indian polity is at a crucial juncture today. There are so many political parties & so many different combinations that there is no clarity as to who stands where? Time & again it is proving counterproductive for the health of Indian Parliamentary System.


Ours is a multi party system. Given to the diverse culture of our country, probably, we have adapted the multi party system so that enough representation is made for the regional aspirations. However it is now creating a bottleneck for every progressive step.

There are regional parties in North, South, East, West, … who are at best traders & brokers. Their sole idea of politics is to score some seats here & there & then trade heavily for the support they will offer to the ruling party.

Then there are pocket parties like Shivsena, MNS, NCP, AIADMK, Lok Janshakti etc. whose agenda more or less is governed by one man’s agenda who happens to be the Supremo.

Does India need so many political parties at all? After all, a political party is supposed to be formed on the basis of an ideology. It is expected to have a clear stand on all the issues of national importance. It must have, at the minimum, an economic as well as a foreign policy model for the country.

US, UK, & some other good democracies have two party system. Both these parties have clearly defined ideologies & a clear political stand in all matters of national interest. Hence it is easy for the general public to chose. It’s either A or B. There are not any hung parliaments. There are not any individual agendas over the national one.

We can not have only two parties but we need to see how many more we need? The politics of coalition is no politics at all in my view. It’s the politics of convenience rather. It’s a politics of blackmail too. Did CPM support congress for any ideological alignment in the previous tenure? Or even today, Does Mamta has any ideological alliance with the Congress?

In my view, Indian polity should have 4 parties at the most because India has seen four types of thoughts after independence:

Left & Extreme left: Primarily represented by CPI & CPM who are driven by Marxist principles.

Right & Extreme Right : It is a mix of Hindu Nationalism + Religion + Opposition to Minority politics of Congress. The leading protagonist is BJP. Others are like Shivsena etc. There is also what is generally called as Sangh Parivar.

Centre : Represented by The Congress Party. Nobody knows exactly what it is but it is partly left & partly right, so to say. The best definition in my view would be “Anything that keeps me in the Centre of power is my ideology. Whatever gets me vote in the elections is my ideology.”

Socialist thought proposed by Dr. Lohia : It is different than socialism. It is possibly least talked about & much less understood. But this was an original thought. In the international parlance, the word Socialism is used more or less interchangeably with Marxism & Communism. But Dr. Lohia’s Socialist party was absolutely away from Marxism or Communism. This may not be known to many. At least I was mot knowing it myself before I went into depth of it. Dr. Lohiya was an original thinker & his was an ideology born out of ground realities of India. He, from the very beginning, believed that both capitalism as well as communism would prove counter productive in the long run for India. And he was dead against the Nehruvian kind of Socialism (or Congressism), in which the daily expense on PM in those days was Rs 25000/- per day when the average expense of a common man was “three anna’. (He had raised this issue vehemently & Nehru had to demure with some flimsy explanations in the parliament).

In my view all the parties will belong to one of the four above. Every party should see which ideology is nearest to them & they should align themselves to it.

But given to the kind political parties are & the fact that they have tasted blood after being coalition partners they will never let this happen. However, sooner or later this will be a necessity. It will be same necessity like Jan Lokpal & the way to get it also will be “Public Movement “ only.

Who is afraid of Lokpal

Who is afraid of Lokpal ?


In fact the whole political class is unwilling to bring the Lokpal. They are all afraid of a strong Lokpal. It may seem that Congress is soft & BJP is aggressive yet it is just a matter of political convenience that BJP is putting up such a facade. Had they been in power things would have been radically different.

The whole issue of Lokpal has three aspects:

1. Why politicians are so afraid of a strong anti corruption body on whom they may not have any control?

2. What Team Anna is up to ?

3. Whether a Lokpal as envisaged by Team Anna will really be able to curb corruption?

It’s anybody’s guess as to why politicians are so afraid of a strong investigative agency.

Elections are fought over borrowed money. There are pre pole alliances with a ulterior motive. Many a businessmen see elections as an investment opportunity. They lend money to political parties in order to reap rich returns afterwards. There is also a third angle – that of the bureaucrat. The bureaucrat comes into picture once a party’s government is established. The businessman asks favors from the politician, the bureaucrat facilitates the avenues & all three of them prosper at the cost of public money. This is the type of corruption which has basically taken root in the independent India. In defense deals, in blue chip licenses, in the award of Government contracts, in the allocation of industrial or civil lands, you name it. Everywhere you will find this vicious combine at the root.

Now if there is a strong & independent agency in place, this combine may not work. The syndicated &, almost organized way of usurping public money will be threatened. There may be early arrests. There may be timely filing of charge sheets. There may really be a logical conclusion and punishments in the scams like CWG, Adarsh , 2G, Bofors, Chara Ghotala, and so many of them which were simply investigated & are being investigated even today.

This is what makes them afraid of the idea of Lokpal.

The possibility of manipulating the course of enquiry is the major way out for the politician today. As of now, the chief investigative agency is under the government & the government is dependent on the support of allies. Hence anyone who has the right connections can easily manipulate, mislead or delay the course of investigation. In fact for a very long time no progress will be possible however big the scam may be. Today, no Politician worth his salt is afraid of law. That there is no respect for law is already known, but what is really annoying is they are not even afraid. You just see the body language of some of our politicians. Audacity is the word that is written all over. They have become such an artistic dodgers that they feel it would be almost impossible to nab them whatever they do. Hence, the very idea that someone can take action against them sueo-moto … or some authority is beyond their influence is just too frightening for them.

On the other hand team Anna has definitely given rise to a very important movement in the country, but they do not seem to have a vision. Their actions so far have put them in the category of “Reactionary” at best. Theirs is a strong Anti-Government Stand. They have proposed a Lokpal who will be above every constitutional body but there are not enough checks if this Lokpal acts pre judicially. God forbid, if such a Lokpal becomes a Frankenstein later. Therefore, instead of combating with the government, team Anna would do well to take more pains about the provisions of their bill, organize public debates all over the country and make the people of this country more aware of their overall vision.

The Lokpal bill can happen through public participation only. It can never happen through politics or politicians. For 43 years or so it could not take shape because it has a direct conflict of interests with the politician. If it wouldn’t be so, long back it would have come into force.

The way to get a Strong Lokpal is to give a clear vision, hope and conviction to the people of this country that yes, it is possible to achieve a corruption free society in India.

Now, the million dollar question: Whether any such bill will be able to achieve its goal? That is, whether creation of Lokpal will really be able to eradicate the menace of corruption from the Indian society. Team Anna has made it clear that they do not expect Lokpal to be able to root out the corruption, but they definitely envisage it to ‘act as a deterrent’.

Actually corruption as a phenomenon is ubiquitous throughout the world. However, certain societies like the Europian ones (not all of them), have it to such a low level that the general public, by & large, is unaffected. People generally are sure that no one will take away their lawful due from them. On the other hand nations like Egypt, Libiya, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India are high in corruption index . North Korea, Somalia Afganistan etc. are toppers. Do you see a pattern here ?

Basically corruption erupts from insecurity. Corruption evolves out of low self esteem. Corruption is a result of ‘gross inequality’ in the society. Worse if it has remained for centuries. That’s what has happened to India too. We remained under threat for a very long time. Hence, when we got the independence, we became rampant. It was freedom to choose our own course but we turned it into the ‘freedom to become as much corrupt as possible’.

Hence no amount of law can curb the corruption in India. Of course a bill & thereafter an authority like Lokpal is a welcome initiative, but the real difference will happen only if India has a visionary leader. A second Gandhi sort, who can move the millions through his shear courage of conviction. We, as a country, badly need to regain our lost glory. We produce Kalmadis & Rajas because in the heart of our hearts, we are a very insecure people. We are a rich country, mind you. We do not lack resources. But we do not have enough equality. The opportunity for living & growing is not well distributed so to say. Hence we are often tempted to choose the short cut. People choose short cuts when the faith in the straight but longer rout is lost.

We need to attack this root cause. The menace of inequality & lack of equal opportunity in the Indian society. Then the corruption will automatically be taken care. And for this purpose we need a visionary leader.

Riches

Often Riches are considered as wealth & money only. However, It is not money only that makes you rich. There are other forms of riches which may not be as tangible as money, yet, they really make a difference in your life. Having lots of money will not make you truly rich. Not having enough will not make you poor either. There are a no of facets of your life that make you either rich or poor:
1. Professional Comfort: If you are in a profession which goes well with your basic nature & suits your overall outlook, you will be peaceful & therefore you can consider yourself as rich. Being at peace with your profession brings you inner solace & contentment.
2. Money & belongings: They are considered as the symbols of riches by the world. Society in general looks up with respect & awe to the prople who have these things. Hence these are essential part of anyone's riches.
3. Healthy Physique: Health is the riches of utmost importance, as without a healthy body one is not able to enjoy money or life.
4. Sexual Energy & Drive: Not many people realise that if they have an increased sexual drive then they are rich. Instead of giving their sexuality a proper direction people succumb to its negative aspects & become poor. Your sexual drive has an important bearing on your overall psychology. All the great personalities like M K Gandhi, Osho, Winston Churchil, Abraham Lincoln, so many of them, had a strong sexual drive. Only thing they chanelised this energy to attain a higher purpose. Ambition originates from your sexual energy. Hence if you have ambition & an attitude to live for it, you are damn rich.
5. Spiritual Bent: Spirituality means having an inclination & desire to know the truth. If one has a spiritual disposition he is an alltime rich guy, as finally it is the truth that sets one free! Inclination to know the truth brings you closure to the truth.
6. Friends: If you have friends, you are rich beyond doubt. Friends make your life worth living. No other relationship brings as much joy or as much pain in your life as true friendship. Having true friends is having the riches unparalelled.
7. Positivity & enthusiasm: People with positivity & enthusiasm charge their envioronment. Things begin to take shape in the company of positive people. If you want to be rich, gather positivity from your surroundings as much as possible!
So it's not only money but so many other things that make you rich. Hence consider your riches or powerty in totality. Think of the above aspects of your life & make yourself rich in totality.

Deh-Buddhi

The deep settled notion of we being a body-mind organism is the root cause of many evils. Our self-image which we call as "I" needs an identification & what could be nearer than our own body-mind? We take it to be ourselves & live the whole life keeping this body-mind at the centre.Our world evolves surrounding this body-mind. Our thoughts originate from this fundamental premise that we are what we think -- A body governed by a mind! If someone suggests that the body-mind is within you & not the vice-versa , we find it difficult to fathom. Saints, however do not identify themselves with their body or mind. They operate from a different centre altogether. Their consciousness is expansive & wide. A true saint will have such a wide consciousness that it will encompass the whole world within it. The saint not only sees his own body-mind but all the other body-minds within his consciousness. It is said, that, your Guru knows more about you than yourselves. It's true because the Guru or the Saint identifies with you only & not himself. For a true saint, there is nothing left as "himself".

When we are free of our body-mind or so called 'ego' , two fundamental things happen. One, we are free of any guilt whatsoever. Because, There is left no one to be feeling guilty. The second, we experience true love. Because, everyone & everything else is so fundamentally 'us' that there are no boundaries left, whatsoever. we feel so much oneness in the existence, that, there is no "other". The hell is gone, only bliss is left.

How can we be free from the vagaries of our own body & mind? By growing in awareness! By expanding in consciousness! All spiritual & yogic practices lead to this basic goal only. The more we grow in awareness, the freeer we become of our body & mind. Ultimate awareness or what we call as "awakened state" is the end of body-consciousness or Deh-Buddhi. That is our Home.

Our purpose here is to attain this widened & expanded consciousness. We must find the whole world within us. That's the ultimate possibility of a human being. And it is achievable. All that one needs to do is to see the truth of it & pursue it sincerely. That's enough.

Right now, when I am writing these words, I can have two positions. One, I am a philosopher & wish to express my feelings, that is why I am writing. Second, there is a philosopher who wishes to give expression to his feelings, that is why he is writing. In the first case, the success of my pursuit is very important to me. However, in the second case, the whole question of success or failure becomes irrelevent because it isn't me. It's only a part of me. Hence, in order to keep my part happy, meaningful & fulfilled, all that I need to do is to give it a contentment of full effort & action. Do you see the Truth?

Thus, finding our true centre by freeing ourselves of our body-mind or deh-buddhi is the ultimate aim & conclusively ends all our sufferings. The true centre is nowhere , therefore, it is everywhere!

All the time one needs to keep this reality in mind. you will need to keep reminding yourselves that the so called "you" is only a part of yourself. A mighty larger reality exists & its the expanded form of your own tiny consciousness.

When we expand in consciousness, miracles happen. We find ourselves mingled in the existence and find oneness with every atom. We see light everywhere. We are blissful! We are home!

What is God?

In the history of mankind, two philosophers have been of exceptional repute & standing:

Benedict d'Spinoza (1632-1677) & Freidrich Nietzsche(1844-1900). Both were rebels & either excommunicated or declared as heretics for their revolutionary ideas. Fine expression sprung with sattire & irony here & there and a deep study of Human Morality led them to produce treatises like Ethics, Beyond the good & evil, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Improvement in Human Understanding etc.

Both remained unmarried throughout.

Nietzsche lived the life of a true rebel envisaging a Superman eutopia & emphasizing on "Power" & "Will" as the only worthwhile pursuits in human life. However, he not only lived very painfully he also died a tragic death. All through his life he broke up relationships one after the other, getting disillusioned with everybody... friends, companions, relations, fellow philosophers (Esp. Arthur Schopenhauer, who was a trusted friend & mentor) et all. Finally, in isolation, he went out of his mind & died tragically while trying to hug an enraged horse.

On the other hand, Spinoza lived a life of exceptional Serenity though he was threatened & charged for 'Heresy'. He worked as a 'Silent Lens Polisher' in his day job & contemplated & accomplished his writings in nights. Though constantly under the threat of attack from fanatics or his jewish countrymen under the influence of religious authoroties, never for a moment Spinoza lost his composure or compromised his beliefs.

He died young, yet, till the last breath he was working on his heitherto unfinished treatise on polytical understating.

What was the major difference between these two extraordinary personalities. WHY OR WHAT MADE THEIR LIVES TAKE SO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS ? THOUGH, BOTH WERE EXCEPTIONALLY TALENTED & INTENSELY 'WILLED' YET ONE PERISHED & THE OTHER THRIVED. WHY SO?

I propose the difference between them was: 'God' !

Whereas Nietzsche constantly denied one, even declared God as dead, Spinoza equated God with the Nature as a whole.

Nietzsche believed in the Supremacy of the "Individual" & Therefore his capability to cause anything through his 'free will'.

Spinoza saw Nature & its infinite attributes as a 'true cause' & individual's 'Will' being only a representation of the higher Truth.
N.'s vision narrowed, becoming the doctrine of separation & finally got him isolated.
S.' vision broadened, merging all the boundries & making him more & more peaceful & expansive.
N. got 'exclusive' & disintegrated whereas S. became 'inclusive' & 'accommodative' & hence Integrated.
The God is "Integration".

Whether or not there is one, we need one for our own sake. And that instantly reminds me of Mark Twain who quipped in such a succint manner: If there weren't any God, humans would have invented one!