Right to free speech?
Yesterday’s attack on controversial Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen speaks volumes about the increasing intolerance in Indian society. We, as Indians, pat ourselves on the back about democratic tradition in our beloved homeland and pride ourselves on the inherent tolerance of the Indian people. But, where has that tolerance gone now? Ms. Nasreen was in Hyderabad to release the Telugu version of her new book Shodh, when activists of the All-India Majilis-E-Itihadul Muslimeen attacked the gathering. Not only is the attack worth condemning but the words of a local AIMIM MLA on CNN-IBN are simply outrageous. He claimed, in full view of television cameras, that the “punishment” meted out to Ms. Nasreen was insufficient and she should have been killed to teach a lesson to all other presumptuous Muslim women who dare to speak out against oppression. The new book Shodh explores the life of a woman wanting to break free and live life on her own terms.
The AIMIM claims that the book is anti-Islamic and that Taslima Nasreen is a kafir for daring to express herself. The attack against Ms. Nasreen is just one example of the growing intolerance in Indian society. In fact, the incident reminded me of the annual anti-Valentine’s Day vandalism carried out by the Shiv Sena. It is not just religious fundamentalist groups who indulge in such acts. A few years ago, about 20 young couples were arrested by the Chennai City Police at a park in Anna Nagar, one of the posher areas of the city. When the parents of the arrested arrived, the police claimed to have arrested them for indecent exposure in public. Apparently, holding your boyfriend’s hand in broad daylight is considered indecent exposure. As usual, the local Hindu Munnani activists and other fundamentalist outfits, both Hindu and Muslim, condemned the behaviour of the poor couples and blamed the decadence on the West.
All this brings us to one fundamental question. Since when is speaking your mind taboo in this country? Why should Ms. Nasreen be attacked simply because she chose to say out aloud what many of us think privately anyway? A more pertinent question would be why nobody does anything when such incidents occur? Everyone from the AP Chief Minister to the Prime Minister to the press condemns the attack on Ms. Nasreen, but the attackers were let off on bail almost as soon as they were arrested. Chances are the case will be forgotten over the next week. Why does nobody think it fit to arrest the man who practically called for Ms. Nasreen’s assassination and slap a charge of inflammatory speech on him? All this makes me wonder whether the right to free speech is not merely a politically correct thing to accord in this country. Do we really have the right to free speech without fearing reprisal? I don’t know.
Sex-selective abortion and demographics
I came across an article in NDTV (link expired, I can’t find the article) a short while ago detailing the horrors of sex-selective abortion and its impact on demographics in India. This, coupled with a conversation with my neighbour’s mother a few days ago, set me thinking about why exactly a girl child is such a burden. Forget the traditional religious belief that people without a boy child will go to hell. The modern parents’ reason for killing off a girl child are more practical. As the article mentions, a boy is considered an investment. But, not for the reasons Ms. Sharma details. Judging from my conversation with Mrs. Next-door-neighbour, it seems as though all the money spent on the upbringing and education of a boy will come back with interest when he gets married. How else am I supposed to interpret her statement that the going rate for a well-educated and employed bridegroom is about Rs. 1, 000, 000 in cash along with 500 sovereigns of gold (4 kilogrammes) and 20 kilogrammes of silver? All this is the dowry. Apart from this, the girl’s parents bear the entire cost of the 5-day wedding that may add up to another million. To put it bluntly, the parents of the groom sell their son off to the highest bidder. If I had to pay so much to get my daughter married off, I would probably end up encouraging to her to elope! Or, educate her enough to help her live life in her own terms. But, doing this requires more courage than one can possibly imagine. It is not easy for the parents to go against convention and society to refuse dowry.
Given this situation, how can one raise a girl child and get her married off in a way the rest of the world wants the parents to? Little wonder then, that parents prefer to kill off the girl before she is even born. I am not trying to justify their behaviour, or even explain it rationally. I am simply pointing at a more fundamental problem that lies at the root of this kind of behaviour. Just why should I pay someone to marry me when I am going to be cooking and cleaning for him all my life? All this even when I am as qualified as him and earning as much. In short, such men get an unpaid maid who will take care of them for the rest of their lives, bring loads of money for them to burn, and be available for sex on demand. My case is not against marriage or men. It is against this insane system of dowry-giving that results in millions of baby girls being denied the basic human right to be born.
And, what does all this do to demographics? A lot of harm, to cut a long story short. In many parts of Haryana and Punjab, men are unable to find girls to get married to. There is a real shortage of women in these states. I would like to see men survive without women around. It is the basic law of nature. Men and women need each other. They are two parts of a whole. The basic biological fact is that without women, the human race will eventually become extinct. I only hope we, as human beings, understand this basic truth and stop looking at women as a burden. After all, we form one half of humanity.
Revisiting Hinduism
I realised a few months ago that most Hindu temples do not allow non-Hindus to enter the temple premises. A few years ago, I would not have stopped to think about this issue. Today, it takes on an entirely different dimension. Maybe because it appeals to my sense of justice, or maybe because I have scores of non-Hindu friends who would like to learn about Hinduism. During my conversations with Ana on Hindu mythology and culture sometime in mid-May, I emphasised over and over again, the absence of an organised church in Hinduism. I told her that Hinduism was an all-accepting, all-inclusive religion. I told her that there was no conversion ceremony, no proof required that you were, indeed, a Hindu. But today, I find myself unable to defend that thesis any longer. Thanks to the behaviour of temple authorities in India. Why is a white American denied entry into the temple even if she is the wife of a Hindu? How does one prove that one believes in all that Hinduism has to offer? A more pertinent question would be this. Why does anyone not ask me whether I am a devout Hindu? Does my having brown skin guarantee my belief in the religion? For the first time in 24 years, I find myself wondering if Hinduism is indeed as inclusive as it claims to be.
I may be ranting, but let me give you an example to make my point clearer. I believe in God, but not in the insane and illogical separation of the castes that some of my co-religionists like to label as shaastra (religious edict). I believe in the power of the almighty to give me the strength to overcome problems but not in going to a temple on a specified day of the week to prove my faith in Him. I frankly think that rituals and rites make religion more difficult to practise for the common man and that we would all be better off without them. Does that make me a heretic? If it does, then why am I never asked to prove my faith in the religion before I enter the temple premises? Does my brown skin and typical “Brahmin looks” (Don’t ask me what that is; I have no idea) guarantee my religion? Why do temple authorities insist on getting a certificate from random official if I want to take a white foreigner into the temple? What if the said foreigner is not related to me but still is a Hindu? How exactly does one prove one is a Hindu? Are we going to hold a exam to determine his/her religion? If so, I can guarantee most brown-skinned “Hindus” would fail the test. I find this attitude appalling. Just who is a temple official, appointed to ensure maintenance of the temple premises, to determine my religion? What gives him/her the authority to pronounce a judgement on my religious beliefs? To be brutally honest, it is none of his business. He doesn’t have the right to say whether person X or Y is a Hindu or not.
To go back to the basics, no Hindu religious text worth its salt prescribes the rituals that must be carried out to become a “good Hindu”. In other words, there is no such thing as a good Hindu. I spent 14 years of my life in a Hindu religious school and I retained only this. In verse 66 of the 18th Chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord says,
“Sarva Dharmaan Parityajya maamekam sharanam vraja,
aham tvaa sarvaa paapebhyaha mokshayishyaami maa shuchaha.”Translated, this means,
“Relinquishing all ideas of righteousness, surrender unto Me,
I will deliver you from all sinful reactions, do not despair.”
(Taken from http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-62.html)If a person decides to surrender unto that God almighty and decides to visit a temple for whatever reason, who is a random officer to deny him/her that right? Why do we assume we know what God wants and needs? If he is really omnipotent and omniscient, is he not capable of deciding who is a true believer and who is a mere tourist? We are not the custodians of Hinduism. Nor are the temple authorities. It is time they stopped throwing their weight around and harassing people who really want to learn something from visiting a temple. It is true that I find myself unable to defend my thesis that Hinduism is all-embracing when faced with such behaviour. But, I stand by my thesis. After all, we only believe what we choose to believe.