I have often taken the path of indirect symbolism and projection of contradictions as a means to deliver messages. These methods, I believe are a better tool to send the message in a moderated manner, devoid of possible perception of abuse; a tool that can attract attention to the subject through the uniqueness of the mode of presentation, one that can make the human brain work differently and think differently, a method that does not always draws conclusions, but almost always aims to get the brain working on topics, letting individuals arrive at their own conclusions, but not based on propoganda, but based on true independent mode of thinking. Getting a man to think is the best way to liberate him from religious, ethnic, or political bias.
But some topics that are urgent in nature, and that normally do not come to the human brain, because they are largely hidden behind veils of deceit, need some straight talking. Straight talking risks getting thrown into the garbage bin as propoganda, or risks to be treated as or with abuse. The indirect path often has to take the tedious path of slow reform, which might be more effective on the long run, but may not work fast enough on urgent issues. Also some issues that are not explicitly visible as social challenges may not be noticed or thought upon by all stimulated brains. Hence mere stimulation to think may not make humans to identify some topics that need deep thinking. In these situations, I am forced to take the route of some straight talking.
What takes me out of the normal route are a set of events that are both urgent in nature and at the same time requires certain hidden underlying causes to be analysed or thought upon. I would start with the cause and why I think it is urgent.
I am driven to this article out of alarm at watching how fast my country, India, is getting polarized on the basis of religion and ethnicity by the events in Burma, and Assam. Modern social media allows us to communicate with people faster. It also opens the windows into the thought process (or belief process, because I find that most opinions are not derived out of free thought, but rather forced upon by religious propoganda) of different communities.
First of my concern is that the notion of nation is being replaced by the notion of religious identity. Recently we saw the nature of support inspired by violence in Assam. In a two sided violence between an Indian regional tribal community and those mainly supported by illegal immigrants, our country was divided on the basis of religion, rather than national identity, despite the fact that one side of the violence was inspired by illegal immigrants detrimental to our national security. In a fight of nation vs religion, people seem to take the side of religion. Second, in the events in Burma, which should not be a top priority for a nation like India, the religious communities in India are reacting in exaggerated tones. When thousands are getting massacred in Syria, the same set of citizens are bothered only about the roughly 50 people killed in Burma in ethnic clashes (forgetting the fact that an almost equal number of people perished among the other side of the same violence), just because in this particular clash, one side belongs to another religion while in the real massacre is Syria, both sides are from their own community. Why should the citizens in India protest agaisnt Indian governments inaction for a clash happening in Burma? Strange levels of rabid religious madness seems to be engulfing our religious communities.
But has not India had its fair bit of religious clashes? What makes this one particularly urgent? Because, this one saw our own citizens take the side of the foreigners in the name of religion, putting our nation and its unity to risk. Most of the violence were getting spread by exaggerated rumours and lies on the violence in Assam and Burma. Both were ethnic clashes in which both sides were equally guilty in their involvement in violence. Both sides were affected. But somehow the religious community leaders, both political as well as religious leaders, protested only the loss of lives from their own religion, and started interpreting these clashes as one sided oppressions on a community. Social media was getting misused by foreign and Indian religious elements to spread lies and create animosity. The MPs of the community were protesting the loss of a particular religious groups lives in Assam, showing no concern to the lives of the other Indians who were killed, making them representatives of a religion rather than of a nation. But this is not which makes this situation so very urgent. Its the fact that, in such a scenario, a certain section of Hindus too tried to jump into the propoganda bandwagon. A small part of the propoganda material found in internet sites were getting spread by radical right wing religious groups, showing attrocities on Hindus in Assam. Now I can see that the Hindus, who are less likely to be drawn into religious movements, were also getting organised under extremist elements, driven as a response to the extremism shown by the other communities. This will create a cycle, which will allow the minority community to increase their propoganda and then the Hindus to react more, and finally the so called tolerant Hinduism will become another propogandist religion, a group that will endorse violence rather than tolerance. Hindus have almost been stimulated religious activists, rather than an organized religious activists. But if they too start getting organized, then this inevitably leads to polarization.
A lot of my ideas on religions and the violence associated with them, and the need for religious tolerance and the need to curb religious extremism were inspired by couple of books by Karen Armstrong, 1. The Holy War and 2. The history of Religions.
The author mentions about the dangers of polarization, wherein the population will divide under extremists religious groups to fight each other. It is important to curb religious extremism, whether Muslim or Hindu. I can see signs of the Hindus themselves getting polarized.. Once both sides come under extremist idealogies, there is no way back. We will move to the never ending cycle of religious violence and hatred. Hence when I see signs of a thousands of year old tolerant religion like Hinduism getting polarized in the name of countering competitive extremism, I feel the time has come to deliver a quick message to stop religious extremism. This brings me to the second part of delivering a straight message, the hidden part which normal people are not likey to think about when viewing these incidents. Such a hidden part, a not easily concluded cause, is never likely to be thought about by the simple thinking mind that it needs explicit mentioning. This hidden part is the cause for both religious intolerance and extremism.
I call this cause, Organized Religion: The Real Evil. Hinduism, (even though people of other religions might aggresively contest) have been comparitively a tolerant religion. Other religions where quite capable of surviving on near equal terms with a Hindu majority, unlike in other parts of the world, where minority religions quickly dissapeared under a dominant and aggressive majority religion. A part of this tolerance is the nature of Hindu religion. It is a free religion which does not give rules, but rather gives philosophical directions (In fact it will be wrong to call it a religion, it has more the characteristics of a cultural heritage with philosophical wings rather than a religion). It does not communicate a specific message from God, but rather seeks to sent indirect messages and concepts. It does not bind people to a particularly strict religious mode of living, or mode of worship, in short a Hindu grows up with minimum direct religious teachings, most are indirect non binding teaching through stories and epics. A hindu is also not obliged to read and follow all the religious texts as is written. He can think over them, accept them if required, or ignore them otherwise. A hindu is never asked to pray at a particular time, he can go to a temple if required, at a time he might think is necessary. He does not have to undergo religious classes or sermons. In short, his religious life is dictated by his own beliefs and requirements rather than defined by his religion. It is a free form, an unorganized religion, that gives freedom of thought, and acceptance of change, in pace with the change of norms and beliefs in soceity. This nature of religion, makes it difficult for the religious propogandists to communicate their poisonous messages across to the masses. This makes it almost impossible for the religious leaders to dictate to the Hindus what needs to be done. In short religion does not drive a Hindu. But this setup will break down, the moment this religion gets organized.
Other organized religions, often teach their followers from childhood on religion and their texts. From childhood people go to religious classes, giving the religious leaders ample opportunity to mould or restrict their thought process. Often the followers are taught with such vigor that for the rest of their life they will refuse to believe anything else. They are thought that whatever is written in their Holy books are final and true and cannot be questioned, even if modern science prove otherwise. This leads to a minor brainwashed, ultra loyal religous follower, who will refuse to think out of the box, who will refuse to change with time, who will refuse to go against the religious leaders and their preachings. This, sadly kills free thought, and development of religion based on individual experiences. This will also prevent the bad side of religions from getting reformed since all that is written in the holy books cannot be challenged at any time.
The organized religions also try to create an opportunity to have all the followers gather at a common place for prayers and sermons. This gives them ample opportunity to spread both good and bad messages, and often nowadays, the messages are likely to be propoganda that creates religious distrust and a feeling of being oppressed. This organized approach makes the followers near slaves to their leaders. The leaders can easily spread poison among the community, through continued mis preaching and propoganda. And likely, we could see that during the recent prayer meetings in most areas of the country, the topic that was getting spread was that of stories of violence against their own communities in Assam and Burma, and like the stories that came in internet, most of them were exagerated religious propoganda. This led to violence and protests inspired by lies througnout the country.
Is it not time for us to curb such religious activism? Do we need to encourage such organized religion. Do we not need to provide the followers of a religion the opportunity to think and act independently rather than be forced through religious propogandas? Religious freedom and reform will be possible only when there is a curb on organized religion. True religious freedom is possible only when we curb organized religion. Religious freedom is the freedom to subscribe to your own view of beliefs either fully or partially compatible to an existing religious system, and not the freedom to impose your views on others, either through soceital or community based pressure.
But some topics that are urgent in nature, and that normally do not come to the human brain, because they are largely hidden behind veils of deceit, need some straight talking. Straight talking risks getting thrown into the garbage bin as propoganda, or risks to be treated as or with abuse. The indirect path often has to take the tedious path of slow reform, which might be more effective on the long run, but may not work fast enough on urgent issues. Also some issues that are not explicitly visible as social challenges may not be noticed or thought upon by all stimulated brains. Hence mere stimulation to think may not make humans to identify some topics that need deep thinking. In these situations, I am forced to take the route of some straight talking.
What takes me out of the normal route are a set of events that are both urgent in nature and at the same time requires certain hidden underlying causes to be analysed or thought upon. I would start with the cause and why I think it is urgent.
I am driven to this article out of alarm at watching how fast my country, India, is getting polarized on the basis of religion and ethnicity by the events in Burma, and Assam. Modern social media allows us to communicate with people faster. It also opens the windows into the thought process (or belief process, because I find that most opinions are not derived out of free thought, but rather forced upon by religious propoganda) of different communities.
First of my concern is that the notion of nation is being replaced by the notion of religious identity. Recently we saw the nature of support inspired by violence in Assam. In a two sided violence between an Indian regional tribal community and those mainly supported by illegal immigrants, our country was divided on the basis of religion, rather than national identity, despite the fact that one side of the violence was inspired by illegal immigrants detrimental to our national security. In a fight of nation vs religion, people seem to take the side of religion. Second, in the events in Burma, which should not be a top priority for a nation like India, the religious communities in India are reacting in exaggerated tones. When thousands are getting massacred in Syria, the same set of citizens are bothered only about the roughly 50 people killed in Burma in ethnic clashes (forgetting the fact that an almost equal number of people perished among the other side of the same violence), just because in this particular clash, one side belongs to another religion while in the real massacre is Syria, both sides are from their own community. Why should the citizens in India protest agaisnt Indian governments inaction for a clash happening in Burma? Strange levels of rabid religious madness seems to be engulfing our religious communities.
But has not India had its fair bit of religious clashes? What makes this one particularly urgent? Because, this one saw our own citizens take the side of the foreigners in the name of religion, putting our nation and its unity to risk. Most of the violence were getting spread by exaggerated rumours and lies on the violence in Assam and Burma. Both were ethnic clashes in which both sides were equally guilty in their involvement in violence. Both sides were affected. But somehow the religious community leaders, both political as well as religious leaders, protested only the loss of lives from their own religion, and started interpreting these clashes as one sided oppressions on a community. Social media was getting misused by foreign and Indian religious elements to spread lies and create animosity. The MPs of the community were protesting the loss of a particular religious groups lives in Assam, showing no concern to the lives of the other Indians who were killed, making them representatives of a religion rather than of a nation. But this is not which makes this situation so very urgent. Its the fact that, in such a scenario, a certain section of Hindus too tried to jump into the propoganda bandwagon. A small part of the propoganda material found in internet sites were getting spread by radical right wing religious groups, showing attrocities on Hindus in Assam. Now I can see that the Hindus, who are less likely to be drawn into religious movements, were also getting organised under extremist elements, driven as a response to the extremism shown by the other communities. This will create a cycle, which will allow the minority community to increase their propoganda and then the Hindus to react more, and finally the so called tolerant Hinduism will become another propogandist religion, a group that will endorse violence rather than tolerance. Hindus have almost been stimulated religious activists, rather than an organized religious activists. But if they too start getting organized, then this inevitably leads to polarization.
A lot of my ideas on religions and the violence associated with them, and the need for religious tolerance and the need to curb religious extremism were inspired by couple of books by Karen Armstrong, 1. The Holy War and 2. The history of Religions.
The author mentions about the dangers of polarization, wherein the population will divide under extremists religious groups to fight each other. It is important to curb religious extremism, whether Muslim or Hindu. I can see signs of the Hindus themselves getting polarized.. Once both sides come under extremist idealogies, there is no way back. We will move to the never ending cycle of religious violence and hatred. Hence when I see signs of a thousands of year old tolerant religion like Hinduism getting polarized in the name of countering competitive extremism, I feel the time has come to deliver a quick message to stop religious extremism. This brings me to the second part of delivering a straight message, the hidden part which normal people are not likey to think about when viewing these incidents. Such a hidden part, a not easily concluded cause, is never likely to be thought about by the simple thinking mind that it needs explicit mentioning. This hidden part is the cause for both religious intolerance and extremism.
I call this cause, Organized Religion: The Real Evil. Hinduism, (even though people of other religions might aggresively contest) have been comparitively a tolerant religion. Other religions where quite capable of surviving on near equal terms with a Hindu majority, unlike in other parts of the world, where minority religions quickly dissapeared under a dominant and aggressive majority religion. A part of this tolerance is the nature of Hindu religion. It is a free religion which does not give rules, but rather gives philosophical directions (In fact it will be wrong to call it a religion, it has more the characteristics of a cultural heritage with philosophical wings rather than a religion). It does not communicate a specific message from God, but rather seeks to sent indirect messages and concepts. It does not bind people to a particularly strict religious mode of living, or mode of worship, in short a Hindu grows up with minimum direct religious teachings, most are indirect non binding teaching through stories and epics. A hindu is also not obliged to read and follow all the religious texts as is written. He can think over them, accept them if required, or ignore them otherwise. A hindu is never asked to pray at a particular time, he can go to a temple if required, at a time he might think is necessary. He does not have to undergo religious classes or sermons. In short, his religious life is dictated by his own beliefs and requirements rather than defined by his religion. It is a free form, an unorganized religion, that gives freedom of thought, and acceptance of change, in pace with the change of norms and beliefs in soceity. This nature of religion, makes it difficult for the religious propogandists to communicate their poisonous messages across to the masses. This makes it almost impossible for the religious leaders to dictate to the Hindus what needs to be done. In short religion does not drive a Hindu. But this setup will break down, the moment this religion gets organized.
Other organized religions, often teach their followers from childhood on religion and their texts. From childhood people go to religious classes, giving the religious leaders ample opportunity to mould or restrict their thought process. Often the followers are taught with such vigor that for the rest of their life they will refuse to believe anything else. They are thought that whatever is written in their Holy books are final and true and cannot be questioned, even if modern science prove otherwise. This leads to a minor brainwashed, ultra loyal religous follower, who will refuse to think out of the box, who will refuse to change with time, who will refuse to go against the religious leaders and their preachings. This, sadly kills free thought, and development of religion based on individual experiences. This will also prevent the bad side of religions from getting reformed since all that is written in the holy books cannot be challenged at any time.
The organized religions also try to create an opportunity to have all the followers gather at a common place for prayers and sermons. This gives them ample opportunity to spread both good and bad messages, and often nowadays, the messages are likely to be propoganda that creates religious distrust and a feeling of being oppressed. This organized approach makes the followers near slaves to their leaders. The leaders can easily spread poison among the community, through continued mis preaching and propoganda. And likely, we could see that during the recent prayer meetings in most areas of the country, the topic that was getting spread was that of stories of violence against their own communities in Assam and Burma, and like the stories that came in internet, most of them were exagerated religious propoganda. This led to violence and protests inspired by lies througnout the country.
Is it not time for us to curb such religious activism? Do we need to encourage such organized religion. Do we not need to provide the followers of a religion the opportunity to think and act independently rather than be forced through religious propogandas? Religious freedom and reform will be possible only when there is a curb on organized religion. True religious freedom is possible only when we curb organized religion. Religious freedom is the freedom to subscribe to your own view of beliefs either fully or partially compatible to an existing religious system, and not the freedom to impose your views on others, either through soceital or community based pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment