Secular lies

                                            Secularism in the West, stands for distancing of state from church while secularism in India is about annihilation of that distance . Constitution of India holds all religions at equal pedestal . Religion here also includes agnosticism and atheism too . Since the boundaries are finely demarcated, then have you ever wondered why is there so much of perceived acrimony among different religious groups in society? Are we being played at and by whom ? The answer lies in the twisted interpretation and appeasement politics disseminated since long. The history of appeasement politics started in the later half of nineteenth century to garner support for British rule while mischievous display of 'Divide and Rule' policy vitiated the environment thus leading to partition.

                                  The sullied game of 'Divide & Rule' has continued after partition too. Hobnobbing with section of media,left leaning self obsessed intellectuals and politicians continued there ill conceived campaigns denigrating Hindus while trying to garner empathy for Muslims and votes for themselves. There is mass hysteria created on frivolous issues by this incestuous club of Pseudo-Seculars (P-S). In there zeal to protect their interests and furthering their politics , they firstly and very shrewdly clubbed their brand of secularism to modernity. Trapping people by exerting influence through media, concocted stories and twisting history, they are brain washing young minds and gullible people in the garb of modernity, the malicious policy of denigration and sowing the seeds of disharmony is at times receive support from foreign funded NGO's with ulterior objectives . One qualifies as 'Secular'  if he /she has scoffed at Hindu festivals, pooh poohed Hindu deities,the more venomous outbursts against Hindus and Hindu festivities the better, while, being politically aware Hindu, is often derided and attains a stamp of  being communal , the moment one put forth his opinion, unacceptable to the self proclaimed flag bearers of Secularism, epithets like Sanghi, Bhakt are thrown without delay. He/she should be prepared to face smirking faces who treat them with contempt and curse his religion, all in the name of basking glory of secularism and exploiting the Constitutional article on FOE. There had been umpteen instances where politicians and political parties became 'Secular' or 'Communal' in an overnight. This is one of the biggest farce of democratic India being pulled off by P-S club fleecing people.

                                   Ruling the country for over seven decades, the network of these Pseudo-Seculars (P-S)  is vast , well entrenched and undiminished till last few years. They had virtual monopoly over media both print and electronic and had set agendas without facing any heat to their authority. With the advent of  social media, the sand castles of libtards are crumbling like never before. They are caught numerous times lying through their teeth and their credibility is at its nadir today . But as they say, old habits don't change,  they continuously try to return to relevance by initiating vicious campaigns on dubious issues. The recent few cases have exposed their duplicity once again where they are caught lying naked and exposed on social media.

                                           In the first case, a passenger was killed in a scuffle over a seat in local train, not an aberration considering our safety regulations, heavy passenger traffic and civic sense, the unfortunate victim happened to be a Muslim, the moment religious identity of the victim named Junaid was revealed, the cabal went in over drive and now, the scuffle was given communal overtone with dreaded story about Hindus hacking an innocent young Muslim boy to death over suspicion of beef eating. For days, this narrative was peddled without checking the veracity of the story. The harbingers of secularism like Asaduddin Owaisi to Brinda karat visited the house of the victim while their media friends continued their campaign on electronic and social media. The target of both was incumbent state and central govt. The usual conclusions about cow vigilantes, intolerance were juxtaposed. In there haste to admonish BJP , they even didn't wait for the investigations to complete and culprit to be arrested. Their acrimonious campaign bite the dust afterwards when the truth was revealed but by then, the damage was done and they were successful in campaign to blemish. These pseudo seculars(PS) didn't apologize for their venomous  campaigns when true facts are revealed, they rather divert attention to other issues.

                                       This group of PS becomes champion of human rights on Rohingya issue completely ignoring the warnings given by security agencies and even Bangladesh, but won't utter a word when Bengal HC lambaste Mamata govt for lopsided secularism. Not one PS came in defense of Hindus rights of immersion of Durga idol as right to freedom of religion. No campaigns are carried out in social media by the cohorts of PS club to question brazen policy of appeasement by Bengal govt. Neither do advocates of Rohingya heard the plight of Kashmiri Pandits or refugees from East Pakistan languishing since partition. The hypocrisy of PS club doesn't end here, a rape accused is exonerated by court as in its wisdom "No doesn't always means No", the famous verdict is mutely welcomed by this cabal, although the judgement is difficult to understand unless viewed through the secular glass as the accused belongs to minority community and important member of PS club. I infer the heinous crime of rape becomes consensual sex as another accused Tejpal is hogging limelight with PS club members celebrating his book release function. Another case is the murder of a journalist in Karnataka, before the investigations could commence P-S group lynched a particular group but not a word of condolence for another young journalist killed in Tripura.

                                                  As is evident there are many incentives attached to being a member of PS club and outspoken critic of Hinduism. The recent comments by former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi gives hope ( http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-is-secular-because-most-hindus-are-secular-former-cec-sy-quraishi/articleshow/60899458.cms?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ETTWMain&from=mdr ) . 

Mahatma

                                     I was always intrigued by the policy of non violence preached by Mahatma Gandhi. As a short tempered man, i loathed the non violent means adopted by Gandhi ji to attain freedom, but with time, as i read more about Gandhi ji and tried to understand his approach towards life, i find myself humbled and couldn't stop to admire the virtues of non violence and truth propagated by Gandhi ji and its impact on life.

                                       It is thus sad to see such hate for Gandhi propagated by vested interests that engulfs the gullible people. While the man might have some flaws in his personal life (which no individual has right to judge), his achievements cannot be denied .To accuse him of delaying India's independence is as stupid as crediting him completely for it.Fall of British Empire had to do much with it.While it is great to respect our violent revolutionaries who laid their lives for the country, it shouldn't be done by disrespecting Gandhi.You will realize the importance of Non-Violence movement when you notice the violent struggles for freedom fail all around you.Accusing him as cause of Partition is even more unfounded as he had no control over spread of venomous propaganda of the time. I would suggest reading of more comprehensive texts about the partition.When riots happened after partition, whole army couldn't control them in Punjab but one man in Bengal was able to get things under control .A few wrong decisions and thus hatred cannot describe a person on whom several books have been written, both critical and adulatory, my advice is Try and read them

Sharing an interesting episode between Gandhi ji and Tagore ji  :--

The debate between Gandhi and Tagore, men of hugely different temperaments and world views, on nationalism still makes for absorbing reading.

                                  In the issue of his journal Young India dated April 27, 1921, Mahatma Gandhi published an article titled “Evil Wrought by the English Medium”. This argued that “Ram Mohun Roy would have been a greater reformer, and Lokmanya Tilak would have been a greater scholar, if they had not to start with the handicap of having to think in English and transmit their thoughts chiefly in English”. Gandhi claimed that “of all the superstitions that affect India, none is so great as that a knowledge of the English language is necessary for imbibing ideas of liberty, and developing accuracy of thought”.

                               When this article appeared, Rabindranath Tagore was travelling in the West. Posted a copy, he was dismayed by its general tenor, and by the chastisement of Ram Mohan Roy in particular. On May 10, 1921, he wrote to C.F. Andrews from Zurich saying, “I strongly protest against Mahatma Gandhi’s trying to cut down such great personalities of Modern India as Rammohan Roy in his blind zeal for crying down our modern education”. These criticisms, added Tagore tellingly, showed that Gandhi “is growing enamored of his own doctrines — a dangerous form of egotism, that even great people suffer from at times”.

                              The Mahatma believed Ram Mohan Roy was limited by his excessive familiarity with English. To the contrary, Tagore argued that through his engagement with other languages, the reformer “had the comprehensiveness of mind to be able to realize the fundamental unity of spirit in the Hindu, Muhammadan and Christian cultures. Therefore he represented India in the fullness of truth, and this truth is based, not upon rejection, but on perfect comprehension. Ram Mohan Roy could be perfectly natural in his acceptance of the West, not only because his education had been perfectly Eastern — he had the full inheritance of the Indian wisdom. He was never a school boy of the West, and therefore he had the dignity to be the friend of the West”.

Oft-quoted response

                               C.F. Andrews shared the letter with the press. The criticisms stung Gandhi, who immediately published a clarification in Young India. He pointed to his own friendship with white men (Andrews among them), and the hospitality granted to Englishmen by many non-co-operators. Neither he nor his flock were guilty of chauvinism or xenophobia. His defense was then summed up in these words: “I hope I am as great a believer in free air as the great Poet. I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any”.

No modern man provided posterity as many quotable lines or phrases as Gandhi. Even so, the sentences cited above must be among the most regularly quoted of the millions of words the Mahatma wrote or spoke. They are to be found in classrooms, in museums, in auditoria, and on banners, as the most succinct statement of Gandhi’s rooted cosmopolitanism, his openness to other cultures while remaining loyal to his own. However, while I have quoted four sentences, these other invocations choose only to use the last three. Omitted always is the crucial opening caveat: “I hope I am as great a believer in free air as the great Poet”. In July 1921, Tagore returned home from Europe. He was alarmed to find that many members of the staff at Santiniketan had enthusiastically embraced the non-co-operation movement, thus giving themselves up to “narrow nationalist ideas that were already out of date”. In the first week of September, Gandhi met Tagore at his family home in Calcutta. They had a long and argumentative conversation about non-co-operation. C.F. Andrews, who was present, recalled that they had “a difference of temperament so wide that it was extremely difficult to arrive at a common intellectual standing, though the moral ties of friendship remained entirely unbroken…”

A different take

                                    Shortly afterwards, Tagore chose to write about these differences in the influential Calcutta journal, Modern Review. In his recent travels in the West, said the poet, he had met many people who sought “to achieve the unity of man, by destroying the bondage of nationalism”. He had “watched the faces of European students all aglow with the hope of a united mankind…” Then he returned home, to be confronted with a political movement suffused with negativity. Are “we alone to be content with telling the beads of negation”, asked Tagore, “harping on other’s faults and proceeding with the erection of Swaraj on a foundation of quarrelsomeness?”

Gandhi responded immediately, defending the non-co-operation movement as “a refusal to co-operate with the English administrators on their own terms. We say to them, ‘Come and co-operate with us on our terms, and it will be well for us, for you and the world’. … A drowning man cannot save others. In order to be fit to save others, we must try to save ourselves. Indian nationalism is not exclusive, nor aggressive, nor destructive. It is health-giving, religious and therefore humanitarian. India must learn to live before she can aspire to die for humanity. The mice which helplessly find themselves between the cat’s teeth acquire no merit from their enforced sacrifice”.

                               Eighty years on, the Tagore-Gandhi debate still makes for compelling reading. The Mahatma insisted that a colonised nation had first to discover itself before discovering the world. The poet answered that there was a thin line between nationalism and xenophobia —besides, hatred of the foreigner could later turn into a hatred of Indians different from oneself (he was particularly sceptical of the claim that non-co-operation had or would dissolve Hindu-Muslim differences). Both men come out well; Tagore slightly better perhaps. He stood his ground, whereas Gandhi shifted his, somewhat. Pressed and challenged by Tagore, he broadened his nationalism to allow in winds from all parts of the world.

The Mummy

                                        One of the worst movie that i have come across lately. 'The Mummy' is a complete waste of time and resources besides wasting the stupendous acting talent of Tom Cruise. The movie  merges action, mythology, horror and comedy resulting in confusion . No characters are fully explained, silly comic scenes and a plot which sucks big time makes it a nightmarish experience. Some of the action scenes are breathtaking ,alas they by themselves can't lift the story and can't compensate for unnecessary rats and faceless zombie scenes. One doesn't understand the logic behind certain scenes , though action sequences are brilliantly filmed.

                                        The movie starts by accidentally excavating a cursed tomb of an Egyptian princess by two rogue treasure hunting soldiers in the middle of Iraq,how and why were they associated with US Army,please satisfy yourself with feeble explanation. The erstwhile princess thus rises from the death and starts seducing Tom Cruise for inconclusive idiotic reason. The whole story revolves around this plot while traversing between different locations and time. Some other characters are also around like the British archaeologist Jennifer Halsey ( Annabelle Wallis ) who played the love interest of Tom although everything looks plastic, devoid of any chemistry between the two. Russell Crowe as a leader of a shadow organization is irrational and illogical. The only saving grace is ( Sophia Boutella ) Ahmanet a.k.a. The Mummy, her transitions from a creepy, violent monster to a seductive goddess with ease is mesmerizing .

                                     The verdict is out, this movie is a combination of action sequences of many movies, complete inadequacy of story telling. A vague attempt to create a series based on myths which falls short of expectation and hence should be avoided.

                                       

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

                                       A Brief History of Time has the reputation of being the most bought yet least read book. Firstly, why is it being branded the best selling science book ? I won't accept the usual reason, that book is well written and  over simplifies complex science and astronomical theories in intuitive and entertaining way which are easily explained  for the benefit of masses. The real reason behind the success of this book is Stephen Hawking himself.  He is a phenomenon, a rockstar, of his generation wrapped in gigantic achievements . In his twenties, he contracted ALS  thus lost the movement of his legs and arms and was confined to a wheel chair. Eventually, his voice faded with time as the disease progressed . Today, unable to speak, his physical condition has stabilized but he can only move his eyes and a finger. Deteriorating physical situation couldn't impede Hawking from his research and he remained productive as a scientist . His grit and determination helped him in overcoming all odds and scaling new heights .With the help of computers, he is able to communicate and give lectures. The physical condition couldn’t deter him from writing books, acting in a movie ,giving lectures etc. and is ranked among the best scientists of his generation.

                                   Now, coming back to the book, the book is very interesting and despite the complexity of the subject Hawking has tried of making it about as understandable as possible and in the words of Einstein “make everything as simple as possible but not more so.” The complex theories and explanations are definitely mind taxing and I had to read a few sections a few times also had to google at times to fully understand what i was reading. This book covers wide areas from Big bangs,time travel to black holes and from origin of Earth to intelligent life forms and question the orthodoxy religious beliefs. From Greek philosophers contribution towards science and rational thinking to modern times. Hawking beautifully summed up by telling that earlier everything was believed as God's creation, with time, science started explaining things.By 20th century God gets credit for whatever can't be understood or unexplained but now most of the erstwhile enigma has been successfully deciphered by science.

                                        This book is a treasure trove for young minds and ordinary people alike. This book is fascinating for science students however people with no interest in astronomy might find it boring . Even though some hypothesis explained in this book were beyond me, still i highly recommend this book for everyone .