Being a Hindu means realizing that there is no one single path leading to God and thus accepting that each and every individual has a right to practice and propagate their beliefs in his/her own way. That there are 330 million Gods & Deities (and counting) just go to underline the unparalleled acceptance of diversity in the traditional Hindu culture. Arguably, in pre-independent India, the divine figures exceeded the number of Hindus!
Being a Hindu does not, in any way, restrict any one to fold one's hands and pray at Ajmer Shariff with the same reverence as one would pray at Vaishno Devi. Believing in Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha & Krishna at the same time is not a scandal in this religion but a sign of maturity.
Being a Hindu means understanding that Agnostics & Atheists form an integral part of mankind and benefiting from them by reflecting upon their views of the world and its mechanics.
Being a Hindu means having the freedom to reject all established rituals & customs, yet respect the people who follow the same. There is no such apparent advantage in Hindu religion for priests following all the rituals vis-a-vis the 'grihasthya' (family person) busy in his/her daily chores with no time for God. Unlike some school teachers who give more marks to students excelling in buttering (chaplusi, makhanbazi), God is supposed to see right through such tantrums.
Being a Hindu means believing in the primacy of 'Karma', taking control of your destiny by action. Hinduism does not promise salvation by just believing and practising the religion. Salvation comes only through your actions. Apparently, nobody, not even Brahma (the creator God) has the power to change & rewrite your destiny. Its only you.
Being a Hindu does not necessitate having any intermediary between yourself and your God. As you can have your own God and you can be the first person believing in that God, you have to create your own path. Yet at the same time, you cannot judge other intermediaries nor the people following them. Commanding respect for one's own opinion starts with giving respect to others'.
Being a Hindu means appreciating that 'God exists in each one of us' and none of us can be designated as higher or lower by virtue of our births. It is for this reason that the caste system in its present form is totally antithetical to this religion and must be uprooted by all force by all people Hindu. The so-called Hindu organizations and Hindu mouthpieces would do a huge service to the religion and its followers if they were to work towards the obliteration of caste system.
Being a Hindu means having the freedom to question everything, from a written book to a priest's dictate. But it also implies responsibility to follow one's 'Dharma' as deemed right by oneself.
Hinduism is excruciatingly federal. There is no central authority, no designated custodian. It lives among the individuals and the families. It is this inherent federalism that enabled this ancient religion to stand the test of time through the thick and thin.
This religion has been put to test today by its lunatic fringe. This fringe kills people and rapes women. It does all this in the name of Hindus. Would the Hindus let this group have its say and make a mockery of whatever they believe in? I sincerely hope not.
A number of enlightened Hindus project themselves as secularists. This usually means turning a blind eye to the grievances of Hindus. This provides a ready made playing ground for the lunatic fringe. It is time the enlightened Hindus took the centre stage and asserted their Hindu identity, if only to save their own religion from the clutches of the lunatic fringe. It is time for Hinduism to produce the next Vivekananda.
Have a great and prosperous Dipawali!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
In defence of Singur - The Black, The White and The Grey
I am an ardent supporter of Capitalism even in these discrediting times. In fact, the litmus test of any faith is only when the going gets tough. And so I believe in capitalistic principles not only when it serves my purpose but also when it does not serve them.
Right to property is embedded to the concept of Capitalism. It forms the very basis of Capitalism. It is its most sacred cow, inalienable, inseparable, atomic. So why is it that the capitalist loving Indian middle class has nothing but derision for the 2000 odd farmers who said no to selling their lands for a project of 'national importance'. Shouldn't the farmers be the sole decision makers of whether they want to sell their land or not? Why is it that the ones who have the least sacrifice the most in the name of nation building?
Enough rhetoric! Lets confront the realities. Why do you think some farmers resisted selling their lands? We would like to believe that all of them were taken in by the rhetoric and vitriolic of Mamta Banerjee. Convenient to argue but untrue. What do you think happens in a farmer's families whose entire land has just been taken (bought) in lieu of a justified(?) price. The farmer, who for decades knew nothing but farming, is left with what seems like a lot of money. With no idea of what to do with that money, no skills to make use of that money to generate sustainable income, the farmer naively assumes that the money is going to last forever. For a few farmers, so much money in hand, suddenly make their occasional vices (like drinking, smoking etc) turn into regular habits with disastrous consequences. For others with more sense, even putting the money in bank does not generate enough interest for their families to feed themselves. Yes, a lucky few get jobs but we are out of our minds if we think that all displaced farmers (numbering more than 10000) are going to get jobs in the newly coming factory. And we are not even thinking about all the landless labourers who were, for ages, dependent on these farmers for their livelihood!
We all know how any industry creates lateral employment opportunities for the skilled & the unskilled. Every software engineer in Bangalore creating 6 support jobs has become sort of an urban legend now. So I have no doubt in my mind that the Nano plant in Singur would have uplifted the whole region from the clutches of abject poverty. Be that as it may, such futuristic stories do not hold water in the eyes of many West Bengal (and Maharashtra, Bihar...) farmers (and labourers) because their only concern is tomorrow (or the next harvest season). On the other hand, the same class in Gujrat (and Haryana) cheerfully offers their land to industries. Why is this so?
To answer the above why, lets take 'The White' CPI(M) in the Singur issue. Miffed by the loss of the project, CPM is all set to earn brownie points with the middle class of West Bengal by blaming 'The Black' Mamta and claiming moral high ground. However, had it not been for the momentous failure of State in the fields of education & social upliftment, these cursed farmers would have been just as willing to welcome industries as their counterparts elsewhere. For centuries, land has been the only security of livelihood for majority of farmers in India. The richer and better governed states have provided good education and opportunities to enable its citizens to look for alternative means of livelihood. But in BIMARU and a few other equally backward states, farmers and labourers live the same (or similar) life they used to live 60 years back. Land, then, is a highly emotive issue for them, valued differently than how it would get valued on a corporate balance sheet. Consequently, if a seller does not want to sell his land no matter how high the offered price is, nobody has any business forcing him to do so. If the buyer is still interested in the piece of land, the only way is offer something which is of equal or more value in the eyes of the seller. Thats what market driven economy is all about. Any deviation from this principle in the name of national interest, patriotism, development etc is opportunistic and dangerous. Today it is some farmers' land for an industry, tomorrow it could be your ancestral home for a road!
Now, it can very well be argued that farmers of Singur had already sold their land to the government. So they had no right after the sale. Right & wrong. The way the land was acquired in Singur (and Nandigram) is a classic example of how such things are handled in China. It seems, in their enthusiasm to copy their Chinese masters, the over zealous CPM motivated their cadres to acquire land by any and all means possible. Unfortunately for them, India still is a democracy and that includes West Bengal (much to their surprise as they have ruled for 3 decades there). The result was Singur as we see it today.
Ultimately, what happened in Singur. CPM just got a slap and a reminder that West Bengal is not their personal fiefdom. Mamta again showed that she is great in street fighting but poor in diplomacy. She turned a lost cause into a celebrated issue but failed to negotiate properly. Ultimately, she emerged as the pathetic winner of a battle whom everyone hates. But the biggest losers have been the farmers in Singur. Both, who gave and who did not give their lands.
None of this would have happened had land acquisition been left as a matter to be settled between the company (Tatas) and the sellers (farmers). Brilliant minds in the board room would have factored in the real price of the land acquisition and I am sure, they would have come up with innovative pricing techniques to value the land giving a more compelling offer (not necessarily higher price) to the farmers. There are enough ways to do that. A fair deal is one in which both the buyers and the sellers are happy. Capitalism is not to be espoused only while making money (by selling products & services). It is also to be remembered during land acquisitions. And as I said before, the ones who have the least must not be made the sacrificial goats for nation building.
Right to property is embedded to the concept of Capitalism. It forms the very basis of Capitalism. It is its most sacred cow, inalienable, inseparable, atomic. So why is it that the capitalist loving Indian middle class has nothing but derision for the 2000 odd farmers who said no to selling their lands for a project of 'national importance'. Shouldn't the farmers be the sole decision makers of whether they want to sell their land or not? Why is it that the ones who have the least sacrifice the most in the name of nation building?
Enough rhetoric! Lets confront the realities. Why do you think some farmers resisted selling their lands? We would like to believe that all of them were taken in by the rhetoric and vitriolic of Mamta Banerjee. Convenient to argue but untrue. What do you think happens in a farmer's families whose entire land has just been taken (bought) in lieu of a justified(?) price. The farmer, who for decades knew nothing but farming, is left with what seems like a lot of money. With no idea of what to do with that money, no skills to make use of that money to generate sustainable income, the farmer naively assumes that the money is going to last forever. For a few farmers, so much money in hand, suddenly make their occasional vices (like drinking, smoking etc) turn into regular habits with disastrous consequences. For others with more sense, even putting the money in bank does not generate enough interest for their families to feed themselves. Yes, a lucky few get jobs but we are out of our minds if we think that all displaced farmers (numbering more than 10000) are going to get jobs in the newly coming factory. And we are not even thinking about all the landless labourers who were, for ages, dependent on these farmers for their livelihood!
We all know how any industry creates lateral employment opportunities for the skilled & the unskilled. Every software engineer in Bangalore creating 6 support jobs has become sort of an urban legend now. So I have no doubt in my mind that the Nano plant in Singur would have uplifted the whole region from the clutches of abject poverty. Be that as it may, such futuristic stories do not hold water in the eyes of many West Bengal (and Maharashtra, Bihar...) farmers (and labourers) because their only concern is tomorrow (or the next harvest season). On the other hand, the same class in Gujrat (and Haryana) cheerfully offers their land to industries. Why is this so?
To answer the above why, lets take 'The White' CPI(M) in the Singur issue. Miffed by the loss of the project, CPM is all set to earn brownie points with the middle class of West Bengal by blaming 'The Black' Mamta and claiming moral high ground. However, had it not been for the momentous failure of State in the fields of education & social upliftment, these cursed farmers would have been just as willing to welcome industries as their counterparts elsewhere. For centuries, land has been the only security of livelihood for majority of farmers in India. The richer and better governed states have provided good education and opportunities to enable its citizens to look for alternative means of livelihood. But in BIMARU and a few other equally backward states, farmers and labourers live the same (or similar) life they used to live 60 years back. Land, then, is a highly emotive issue for them, valued differently than how it would get valued on a corporate balance sheet. Consequently, if a seller does not want to sell his land no matter how high the offered price is, nobody has any business forcing him to do so. If the buyer is still interested in the piece of land, the only way is offer something which is of equal or more value in the eyes of the seller. Thats what market driven economy is all about. Any deviation from this principle in the name of national interest, patriotism, development etc is opportunistic and dangerous. Today it is some farmers' land for an industry, tomorrow it could be your ancestral home for a road!
Now, it can very well be argued that farmers of Singur had already sold their land to the government. So they had no right after the sale. Right & wrong. The way the land was acquired in Singur (and Nandigram) is a classic example of how such things are handled in China. It seems, in their enthusiasm to copy their Chinese masters, the over zealous CPM motivated their cadres to acquire land by any and all means possible. Unfortunately for them, India still is a democracy and that includes West Bengal (much to their surprise as they have ruled for 3 decades there). The result was Singur as we see it today.
Ultimately, what happened in Singur. CPM just got a slap and a reminder that West Bengal is not their personal fiefdom. Mamta again showed that she is great in street fighting but poor in diplomacy. She turned a lost cause into a celebrated issue but failed to negotiate properly. Ultimately, she emerged as the pathetic winner of a battle whom everyone hates. But the biggest losers have been the farmers in Singur. Both, who gave and who did not give their lands.
None of this would have happened had land acquisition been left as a matter to be settled between the company (Tatas) and the sellers (farmers). Brilliant minds in the board room would have factored in the real price of the land acquisition and I am sure, they would have come up with innovative pricing techniques to value the land giving a more compelling offer (not necessarily higher price) to the farmers. There are enough ways to do that. A fair deal is one in which both the buyers and the sellers are happy. Capitalism is not to be espoused only while making money (by selling products & services). It is also to be remembered during land acquisitions. And as I said before, the ones who have the least must not be made the sacrificial goats for nation building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
