Je suis CHARLIE

Over the last few days, it has been encouraging to watch the mainstream international/western media debate. It appears as though the liberals are finally realizing that ignoring or dancing around an issue doesn't make it automatically go away. In fact, it can come to bite them (and all of us) as it did in France. The sad part is that it took out the bravest amongst the media.

There have been attempts to paint Charlie Hebdo as a racist, right wing organization. It was/is exactly 180-degree opposite - this group is so far to the left, it is actually one of the most trenchant critic of Marine La Pen and her right wing French party. The fact is that Charlie Hebdo is one of the few LIBERAL media organizations in the truest sense of the word - they regularly lampoon the powerful, and regularly challenge the authority of the most powerful opium the human race ever had - religion.

It hasn't even been a few days and there are already apologists popping up for the cowardly massacre. And this group is an eclectic one - from Financial Times to OutlookIndia columnists to the so-called (a few) religious spokespersons. Excuses vary but here are the major ones I have come across in media so far:

Excuse 1: Charlie Hebdo had it coming when it chose to publish beyond the boundaries allowed by religions. It is such a medieval argument, it almost seems like we still live in a theocratic society, not secular one.

Excuse 2: Charlie Hebdo murders are a result of Western invasion of the Middle-east, or segregation of minorities or something else, anything but what the murderers expressly said during the attack - they were avenging printing of cartoons (not fighting for Palestine, not fighting for better social conditions, nothing). We have to start challenging the victim-mindset put forth by the apologists. One can only blame the world so much.

Excuse 3: Charlie Hebdo is racist. No, it is not. Charlie Hebdo lampoons religions, not races (two entirely different things). It's cartoons are filled with caricatures of multiple religious figures. And while it is perfectly alright not to agree with them, to ignore them or to lampoon Charlie Hedbo in return, physically harming in any for, least of all by murdering their staff has to be criticized unreservedly.

The event is so appalling, it has been condemned by major religious leaders of all denominations, as it should. But my clearest ray of hope actually came from the President of Egypt, when he talked to the religious leaders about the need for a religious revolution, no less. He gave that speech before the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Alas! His message didn't reach the French brothers soon enough. Here are some excerpts from his speech

Freedom of Expression is not and cannot be a grey area. Putting it in a grey area harms not the powerful but the very weak. Answer to a satire is another satire, answer to a book is another book - not guns, machetes or bombs. Charlie Hebdo is a grim reminder - we must all defend our freedom of expression actively and not leave it to just the few among us to carry the weight for all of us lest we want them to keep getting buried under that weight.

Are Atheists smarter than people believing in God

Innumerable debates have been organized between champions of atheists and people believing in God. Watching them, one almost feels sorry for the people representing God because invariably the organizers bring some religious leader to represent people believing in God.

Is religion the only way to represent God?

Atheists have a field day making fun of religion and some of the ideas/stories that form their foundations. Rightfully so. The foundations are so shaky and ridiculous - virgin birth, denial of evolution, sexist and violent books - that they are simply indefensible in any debate.

The real debate, which I am yet to come across, should be between Atheists and Agnostics. It may also be a difficult one since they would agree on so many things except on one question - is their a higher power guiding this universe?

The scientific quest for the origin of universe continues. It is simply awe inspiring to hear people like Lawrence Krauss talk about what we know about the origins of universe, could universe have started from NOTHING, what happened during the Big Bang etc. The question that no one has answered yet is what was their before the Big Bang, or what was beyond the boundary of the object that exploded (Big Bang), where is universe expanding to. There is so much that is unknown today. Atheists like Richard Dawkins have admitted repeatedly that they dont have the answers and that they are working on them. It is here where Agnostics can state that while even they don't have the answers, a belief in a higher power devoid of any religious baggage is perfectly rational. God in this case would be a hypothesis which cannot be proved or disproved. Your final position/inference will be exactly the same as your initial hypothesis.

Now a belief in Agnosticism, one can argue, can lead down a slippery slope. If you believe in a higher power, what does it do, how does that power affect your lives, why was this universe "created", what's the purpose etc. There are obviously no answers yet but perhaps more importantly, there is no good reason to believe that the higher power is even bothered with our Milky Way, much less about our solar system, or about Earth or about humans as a species (of the millions that exist). It is simply conceited to think ourselves as the center of anyone's attention, higher power or not.

I am very open to hearing arguments that disprove the existence of a higher power beyond a reasonable doubt. Until them, I must say it is a coin toss.

Religious Conversions - From One Mirage to the Next

2014, IMHO, has been a watershed year as far as debate on religions go. One only needs to search in youtube to get some very fascinating debates - one religion vs. another, religion vs. atheism et al. If you haven't, look for Bill Maher, Douglas Murray, Majid Nawaaj, Richard Dawkins, Anjem Chaudhary, Athaar Khan etc. The discussions are thoughtful and highly entertaining to say the least.

The ongoing debate in India around conversions (and re-conversions) towards the end of 2014 has been an icing on the cake, so to say.

Now conversions are not new. Some of the major religions in the world openly propagate it and thrive on it. It has been going on for centuries. And while I firmly believe and openly profess the right of a person to believe in anything, and follow whatever path he/she thinks is the right one, I cannot but wonder what kind of a person (the preacher or the converter) would ask someone to forego his/her current religion and join a new one. That person, the converter, has to be a BIGOT or an IDIOT.

There is no way to sugarcoat this. You see, at the heart of the conversion inducement lies a fundamental assumption - that my religion is better than yours! Really, in this day and age, if someone says "my religion is better than yours", either he/she is a complete nincompoop or a vile scheming bigot. There are no other categories I can think of.

If a person decides to leave his/her religion of his/her own volition and go to the next one, there may be some understandable reasons. I will give a few but the list could be really long:

- Caste - If you belong to one of the so-called lower castes, there may be good reasons to embrace a different religion. All Hindus who love their religion need to wake up and realize that calling/treating some Hindus as "lower caste" is self-annihilating. Self respecting people will simply walk away as they should.

- Gender - Need I even say anything. All religions give women the short end of the stick. Some societies have moved away from the barbarism, some follow it today and some would like to get back to it! For females, the best alternative seems to be to show their middle fingers to this entire religion thing and let the males squirm. Pity is that it is the females who seem to be conditioned the most to follow their religions (and accept their second class citizenship status) from early childhood. They hold their religions on their shoulders oblivious of the fact that it is religion that has been burying them down for centuries.

- The Books - Living by the diktats of books that were meant for life in ancient/medieval times might insult some people's intelligence. Most people simply ignore those books, as they should. However if your society judges you by your degree of adherence to medieval books and ideas, it might be time to say goodbye to your religion altogether.

- The Followers - If your co-religionists make you uncomfortable, you can either fight them and make them irrelevant, or ignore them (but for how long), or leave your religion. Would you want to continue to be part of a group whose ideas you no longer identify yourself with.

There could be obviously many other reasons. In fact, I would aver that most people simply don't leave/change their religions out of inertia. They are too busy with their lives to care about it. However we all have to decide what kind of society we want to leave for our children. If we believe in something, we should raise our voice for it. If we don't agree with something, we should fight against it. Silence in this day and age is a privilege we don't have.

Being a Hindu

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!