Head–scarves ban in France
Muslim girls coming to class in burkha may be legitimately questioned when it goes against the norms of a particular school’s uniform policy. But the question is, whey don’t uniform policies be framed in such a way as to reflect the multifaceted-ness of society? Inclusiveness, instead of exclusiveness, should be the principle.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Comment on the film 'Girlfriend'.
Girlfriend
The ruckus over the film Girlfriend is unjustified. Freedom of expression is inevitable if society is to be healthy and free. But this picture is being opposed on the charge of corrupting public tastes or worse still, corrupting the youth. Rather than controlling the external to preserve innocence, we ought to train the impressionable to control themselves to preserve their innocence. The whole gambit of spirituality exists as the greatest inheritance of the Indians. So why not make a concerted and wholesale go at spirituality. Then, we shall not succumb.
Is lesbianism a fact of society?
The ruckus over the film Girlfriend is unjustified. Freedom of expression is inevitable if society is to be healthy and free. But this picture is being opposed on the charge of corrupting public tastes or worse still, corrupting the youth. Rather than controlling the external to preserve innocence, we ought to train the impressionable to control themselves to preserve their innocence. The whole gambit of spirituality exists as the greatest inheritance of the Indians. So why not make a concerted and wholesale go at spirituality. Then, we shall not succumb.
Is lesbianism a fact of society?
Sangha Politics
16.06.04
Sangha Politics
Sangha has encapsulated and pinpointed its ideology in a single word - “Hindutva”, which word denotes broad-mindedness. Hindutva is opposed to all narrow mindedness, whether couched in religions, traditions or social practises.
It cannot be denied that one of the most influential “narrow-mindedness” going around is the Semitic religions’ assertion that theirs is the only true religion. Thus the “anti-minority” (read anti-Muslim and anti-Christian) image Sangha has is largely due to its consistent stand against this narrow-minded assertion of the two major Semitic religions.
Sangha Politics
Sangha has encapsulated and pinpointed its ideology in a single word - “Hindutva”, which word denotes broad-mindedness. Hindutva is opposed to all narrow mindedness, whether couched in religions, traditions or social practises.
It cannot be denied that one of the most influential “narrow-mindedness” going around is the Semitic religions’ assertion that theirs is the only true religion. Thus the “anti-minority” (read anti-Muslim and anti-Christian) image Sangha has is largely due to its consistent stand against this narrow-minded assertion of the two major Semitic religions.
Why do anything at all?
Doing
“Why do anything at all?” might not be just a spiritual sigh, because science is progressing towards making even a novice be as creative as a Beethoven by simply programming a nerve to activate in a particular way. I suppose it will all end with man realising that the only thing that matters is achieving the bliss that surpasseth understanding. And this bliss would best be obtained by one’s own effort (or effortlessness) and not through any technological miracle, for that would be dependence - the very antithesis of spirituality.
“Why do anything at all?” might not be just a spiritual sigh, because science is progressing towards making even a novice be as creative as a Beethoven by simply programming a nerve to activate in a particular way. I suppose it will all end with man realising that the only thing that matters is achieving the bliss that surpasseth understanding. And this bliss would best be obtained by one’s own effort (or effortlessness) and not through any technological miracle, for that would be dependence - the very antithesis of spirituality.
Love
Love
Shouldn’t we, if we love, love totally? That is, love everyone? It might be argued that loving just one individual is better than not loving anyone at all. But I say that any love less than total love would end up in being detrimental to the lover.
Shouldn’t we, if we love, love totally? That is, love everyone? It might be argued that loving just one individual is better than not loving anyone at all. But I say that any love less than total love would end up in being detrimental to the lover.
Controversial Writing
Controversial Writing
While it would be ideal if everyone is absolutely tolerant to the viewpoints of everyone else and all divergence of opinions are resolved, reconciled or accepted in a most civilised and cultured manner, a reality check makes it obvious that only within small, closeted, like-minded groups of friends would a free play of expressions be tolerated and there too anything external to a group’s traditions would be taboo. For absolute and unrestricted freedom of expression, we have only the sanctuary of our own minds.
When an artiste, whether a painter or a writer, seeks to express himself in public, he should factor-in the possibility of his work provoking someone or the other. While there may be people who get provoked for almost no reason or with ulterior motive, the vast majority would get provoked only if they feel there is something intrinsically erroneous about a certain work.
Ah, if the expressions of our mind are to become a reality in the external world! But the wise gods who created us, or however we came into being, thought it fit to make the external world a place that calls into play our discipline if we are to negotiate it successfully.
We live in a world where tolerance levels broaden only if an ideal is sought to be achieved by the most sagacious of men through painstakingly cautious paths. Utopias do not exist anywhere and probably never has where we have a ready-made world of totally tolerent folks. We have to create such folks, more and more with all the patience at our command.
While freedom of expression is a fundamental right in democratic communities, it should be borne in mind that there does not yet exist a perfect democratic community where nobody would have objections to whatever anyone says on anything or about anybody. While it might be an ideal to work towards building such a community of super liberal or tolerant folks, till such time, we have to hold our pens or brushes. A writer publishing his work should be sensitive to the sensibilities of the public. He can no doubt hold a view contrary to the view held by the public at large or a section of it. But he should express himself in such a way that his writings don’t provoke the intolerance of those with opposing points of view.
Being intent to publish his work, he should bear in mind public sensibility. Of course, the question does not arise if he is writing to a personal or private audience. However, by the very virtue of his decision to publish or publicise his work, he has entered into a pact with the public and hence he has to play by the law of the public domain.
To adjudicate ‘controversial’ writings, we have to draw a line between the realm of privacy and the domain of the public.
We can conclude that the only totally private province available to an individual is within his head. Anything beyond that is subject to the reactions of the others.
Now, about reactions of the public. All communities have their unique notions of right and wrong. Largely, all communities hold views that are coterminous with views universally held. But beware of individual community idiosyncrasies.
Truth is, there is nothing like universally held truths. All truths are valid only at certain levels. Whatever, truth is that which is constructive and untruth, that which is destructive. For the patient, a certain drug, in so far as it can kill a certain virus, is a truth. For in the killing of that virus, the patient is saved. However, for the virus, that particular drug is hardly an icon of truth, its aim being to destroy it.
While it would be ideal if everyone is absolutely tolerant to the viewpoints of everyone else and all divergence of opinions are resolved, reconciled or accepted in a most civilised and cultured manner, a reality check makes it obvious that only within small, closeted, like-minded groups of friends would a free play of expressions be tolerated and there too anything external to a group’s traditions would be taboo. For absolute and unrestricted freedom of expression, we have only the sanctuary of our own minds.
When an artiste, whether a painter or a writer, seeks to express himself in public, he should factor-in the possibility of his work provoking someone or the other. While there may be people who get provoked for almost no reason or with ulterior motive, the vast majority would get provoked only if they feel there is something intrinsically erroneous about a certain work.
Ah, if the expressions of our mind are to become a reality in the external world! But the wise gods who created us, or however we came into being, thought it fit to make the external world a place that calls into play our discipline if we are to negotiate it successfully.
We live in a world where tolerance levels broaden only if an ideal is sought to be achieved by the most sagacious of men through painstakingly cautious paths. Utopias do not exist anywhere and probably never has where we have a ready-made world of totally tolerent folks. We have to create such folks, more and more with all the patience at our command.
While freedom of expression is a fundamental right in democratic communities, it should be borne in mind that there does not yet exist a perfect democratic community where nobody would have objections to whatever anyone says on anything or about anybody. While it might be an ideal to work towards building such a community of super liberal or tolerant folks, till such time, we have to hold our pens or brushes. A writer publishing his work should be sensitive to the sensibilities of the public. He can no doubt hold a view contrary to the view held by the public at large or a section of it. But he should express himself in such a way that his writings don’t provoke the intolerance of those with opposing points of view.
Being intent to publish his work, he should bear in mind public sensibility. Of course, the question does not arise if he is writing to a personal or private audience. However, by the very virtue of his decision to publish or publicise his work, he has entered into a pact with the public and hence he has to play by the law of the public domain.
To adjudicate ‘controversial’ writings, we have to draw a line between the realm of privacy and the domain of the public.
We can conclude that the only totally private province available to an individual is within his head. Anything beyond that is subject to the reactions of the others.
Now, about reactions of the public. All communities have their unique notions of right and wrong. Largely, all communities hold views that are coterminous with views universally held. But beware of individual community idiosyncrasies.
Truth is, there is nothing like universally held truths. All truths are valid only at certain levels. Whatever, truth is that which is constructive and untruth, that which is destructive. For the patient, a certain drug, in so far as it can kill a certain virus, is a truth. For in the killing of that virus, the patient is saved. However, for the virus, that particular drug is hardly an icon of truth, its aim being to destroy it.
Restless mind
Restless mind
We act to fulfil our desires. However, whatever be the desire sought to be fulfilled through whichever motivated action, unbeknownst to us, we are actully only seeking to fulfil our underlying desire of calming of our restless mind. Unfortunately, our restlessness is not calmed by any action. If action cannot calm our restless mind, what can?
To get the answer, we have to know what makes our mind restless. Is restlessness the true nature of the mind? No. What causes a restless mind is our sense of incompleteness. We ever feel something is lacking. The natural question is, what is lacking? It appears this is the question we are born to answer, in more ways than one.
We imagine by doing this or getting that we would end our lack because we see only into the immediate vicinity and imagine that our lack is material. Actually, our lack is caused by ignorance, which supposes we have a lack, remedial this way or that. But the truth is we have no lack. We are complete. We feel negatively only because we are not in communion with our soul, wherein we shall experience the fullness of our being.
We act to fulfil our desires. However, whatever be the desire sought to be fulfilled through whichever motivated action, unbeknownst to us, we are actully only seeking to fulfil our underlying desire of calming of our restless mind. Unfortunately, our restlessness is not calmed by any action. If action cannot calm our restless mind, what can?
To get the answer, we have to know what makes our mind restless. Is restlessness the true nature of the mind? No. What causes a restless mind is our sense of incompleteness. We ever feel something is lacking. The natural question is, what is lacking? It appears this is the question we are born to answer, in more ways than one.
We imagine by doing this or getting that we would end our lack because we see only into the immediate vicinity and imagine that our lack is material. Actually, our lack is caused by ignorance, which supposes we have a lack, remedial this way or that. But the truth is we have no lack. We are complete. We feel negatively only because we are not in communion with our soul, wherein we shall experience the fullness of our being.
Use 'unentangled' instead of 'detached'.
‘Detached’ or ‘unentangled’?
Is it possible to be in a state of bliss at all times? Yes, the secret is to be detached. Are detached persons void of sentiments? No. But they do not get drowned in sentiments, however fleeting. Confusion arises in the use of the word ‘detached’ because it evokes a sense of heartlessness. Maybe we ought to say ‘unentangled’ instead.
Is it possible to be in a state of bliss at all times? Yes, the secret is to be detached. Are detached persons void of sentiments? No. But they do not get drowned in sentiments, however fleeting. Confusion arises in the use of the word ‘detached’ because it evokes a sense of heartlessness. Maybe we ought to say ‘unentangled’ instead.
Uniform Civil Code
Uniform Civil Code of the Indian constitution ought to be seen as a code of civil rights uniform for all citizens of India and not a code seeking the uniformity of religious beliefs, as some seek to suggest.
‘Uniform Civil Code’ attempts to consider the civil laws of the various communities in India and codify them into a single civil code (not religious code) applicable and affordable to all citizens. A State would require a cardinal reference point if it is to successfully carry out its functions of governance. This cardinal reference point in the context of India has undoubtedly be its Constitution, not the religious laws of any particular community.
The attempt to achieve a Uniform Civil Code should not lead to a trammelling of rights of its citizens and communities. To create uniformity one need not wipe out individuality. It would be truer of its intentions if the expression ‘Uniform Civil Code’ is amended to read ‘Code of Uniform Justice'.
Uniform Civil Code should reflect the spirit of the constitution, which guarantees equal rights to all citizens. Such a Code would iter-alia ensure that no personal law of any community infringes upon the constitutional rights of any citizen. Wherever such infringement occurs, the concerned contradictory clauses in the personal law would have no legal validity as far as the Indian state is concerned. Thus, such personal laws would have to be either suitably amended to be in tune with the constitutional law or be non-binding on anyone in the name of religion or community. It should be made clear that the uniformity sought is vis-à-vis constitutional justice and not with a view to trammel upon differences among communities in matters pertaining to religion to produce an undifferentiated lump of laws akin to having a single capsule for all diseases.
‘Uniform Civil Code’ attempts to consider the civil laws of the various communities in India and codify them into a single civil code (not religious code) applicable and affordable to all citizens. A State would require a cardinal reference point if it is to successfully carry out its functions of governance. This cardinal reference point in the context of India has undoubtedly be its Constitution, not the religious laws of any particular community.
The attempt to achieve a Uniform Civil Code should not lead to a trammelling of rights of its citizens and communities. To create uniformity one need not wipe out individuality. It would be truer of its intentions if the expression ‘Uniform Civil Code’ is amended to read ‘Code of Uniform Justice'.
Uniform Civil Code should reflect the spirit of the constitution, which guarantees equal rights to all citizens. Such a Code would iter-alia ensure that no personal law of any community infringes upon the constitutional rights of any citizen. Wherever such infringement occurs, the concerned contradictory clauses in the personal law would have no legal validity as far as the Indian state is concerned. Thus, such personal laws would have to be either suitably amended to be in tune with the constitutional law or be non-binding on anyone in the name of religion or community. It should be made clear that the uniformity sought is vis-à-vis constitutional justice and not with a view to trammel upon differences among communities in matters pertaining to religion to produce an undifferentiated lump of laws akin to having a single capsule for all diseases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
