Awakening

The Right to LEAVE -- John Howard

2007-09-24T06:21:00.000+05:30

I am very tolerant towards all religions and their practices. I never really bothered to think if people of different religions should be treated the way they WANT the others to treat them or if they should be treated like every other citizen of the nation. But this particular email from a friend prompted me to think if we should also be pulling up our socks and saying "This is our country. If you do not want a DEMOCRATIC rule then you better leave!"

My statement above is not applicable to one particular religion or one particular caste. It should be applicable to all Indians who do not want to follow a democratic law. We claim to be a secular and democratic nation but have different laws for different religions. WHY???

Our laws are clearly tailored for one particular religion and "the rest of the religions". A follower of one religion is legally allowed to marry four times claiming that the holy book allows them to marry so. Most of the Hindu Gods are depicted to have two wives. So should the Hindus now argue that since their Gods have two wives, they should be allowed to marry twice? People of one religion are allowed to give and take "MEHER" while followers of other religions are put behind bars for accepting or giving dowry.

I am not arguing in favor of polygamy or dowry. Both are social evils. What I am trying to highlight here is the fact that we should NOT have laws that are different for different citizens. If our preamble says all Indians are equal, why should the law treat us different? Here is the mail that I received from a friend.

Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. 'If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you', he said on National Television

'I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option', Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should 'clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off', he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

'However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia ' 'However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.' 'This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.'

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like 'A Fair Go', then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Read http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp for full details

I am sure most of us will agree that it was indeed a bold announcement from the prime minister. I am not totally in agreement to what he had to say, but what I admired the most in his speech was the fact that Australians have woken up from a deep sleep to say "This is my country. You live by our rules OR pack your bags and leave to a land that can be partial to you!"

If Australia could do it, so can the other nations. Do not impose your religion on them but make them understand that they cannot be treated differently. They can only enjoy the previliges that the other citizens of the nation enjoy and nothing more than that!

This is my India -- APJ Abdul Kalaam's speech

2007-08-17T08:55:00.000+05:30

Mr. APJ Abdul Kalaam's speech in Hyderabad.

In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime.

Why are we so NEGATIVE?

Another question: Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreign things?

We want foreign TVs, we want foreign shirts. We want foreign technology.
Why this obsession with everything imported?
Do we not realize that self-respect comes with self-reliance?

I was in Hyderabad giving this lecture, when a 14 year old girl asked me for my autograph. I asked her what her goal in life is: She replied: I want to live in a developed India. For her, you and I will have to build this developed India. You must proclaim. India is not an under -developed nation; it is a highly developed nation in an advanced state of decay!!!!!

Allow me to come back with vengeance. Got 10 minutes for your country?

YOU say that our government is inefficient.

YOU say that our laws are too old.

YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage.

YOU say that the phones don't work; the railways are a joke, The airline is the worst in the world, mails never reach their destination.

YOU say that our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolute pits.

YOU say, say and say. What do YOU do about it? Take a person on his way to Singapore. Give him a name...YOURS. Give him a face...YOURS.

YOU walk out of the airport and you are at your International best. - In Singapore you don't throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores.

YOU are as proud of their Underground Links as they are.

You pay $5(approx. Rs.250) to drive through Orchard Road(equivalent of Mahim Causeway or Pedder Road) between 5 PM and 8 PM.

YOU comeback to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over-stayed, identity. In Singapore you don't say anything, DO YOU?

YOU wouldn't dare to eat in public during Ramadan,in Dubai.

YOU would not dare to go out without your head covered in Jeddah.

YOU would not dare to buy an employee of the telephone exchange in London at 10 pounds(approx. Rs.800) a month to, "see to it that my STD and ISD calls are billed to someone else."

YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 km/h) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, "Jaanta hai main kaun hoon (Do you know who I am?). I am so and so's son.

YOU wouldn't chuck an empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand. Why don't YOU spit Paan on the streets of Tokyo? Why don't YOU use examination jockeys or buy fake certificates in Boston????? We are still talking of the same YOU.

YOU can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch the Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country, why cannot you be the same here in India?

Once in an interview, the famous Ex-municipal Commissioner of Bombay, Mr.Tinaikar, had a point to make. "Rich people's dogs are walked on the streets to leave their affluent droppings all over the place," he said. "And then the same people turn around to criticize and blame the authorities for inefficiency and dirty pavements. What do they expect the officers to do? Go down with a broom every time their dog feels the pressure in his bowels?

In America every dog owner has to clean up after his pet has done the job. Same in Japan. Will the Indian citizen do that here?" He's right. We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility. We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the government to clean up but we are not going to stop chucking garbage all over the place nor are we going to stop to pickup a stray piece of paper and throw it in the bin. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms.

We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity. This applies even to the staff that is known not to pass on the service to the public. When it comes to burning social issues like those related to women, dowry,girl child and others, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? "It's the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my son's rights to a dowry.

" So who's going to change the system? What does a system consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbours, other households, other cities, other communities and The government. But definitely not me and YOU.When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we lock ourselves along with our families into a safe cocoon and look into the distance at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand or we leave the country and run away.

Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their glory and praise their system. - When New York becomes insecure we run to England.
When England experiences unemployment, we take the next flight out to the Gulf. - When the Gulf is war struck, we demand to be rescued and brought home by the Indian government. Everybody is out to abuse and rape the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.

Dear Indians, the article is highly thought inductive, calls for a great deal of introspection and pricks one's conscience too?..
I am echoing J.F. Kennedy's words to his fellow American to relate to Indians?. "ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR INDIA AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE INDIA WHAT AMERICA AND OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE TODAY" Let's do what India needs from us.

Thank You, Dr. Abdul Kalaam

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part XIV -- Shivaji leaves Auranzeb's court in anger

2007-07-19T06:56:00.000+05:30

Shivaji reached Agra on 12th May 1666 by noon and had to be rushed to the court to attend the special darbar on Aurangzeb's 50th lunar birthday. Shivaji was presented to the emperor by Asad Khan in the Diwan-i-Khas and was then directed to stand in the line of 5 hazari mansabdars. The emperor neither talked nor addressed any word to him The work of the court proceeded and Shivaji seemed to have been forgotten.

Shivaji was not expecting this kind of reception. He was very much upset when Kumar Ram Singh (son of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber) in response to his query informed him that the noble standing in front of him was Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur. He flared up. 'Jaswant whose back my soldiers have seen! I to stand behind him? What it all means?'

He was made to feel neglected in other ways also. At this he bagan to fret and his eyes became wet with anger. The emperor noticed the commotion and told Ram Singh 'Ask Shivaji what ails him.' When Kumar came, Shivaji burst forth 'You have seen your father has seen and your Padishah has seen what sort of man I am and you have wilfully made me stand up so long. I cast off your mansab...'

After saying this he then and there turned his back to the throne and rudely walked away. Kumar Ram Singh caught hold of his hand but Shivaji wrenched it away...

In the painting the above scene based on a contemporary letter has been depiced. Shivaji is shown coming out of the court in great anger, his back towards Aurangzeb, his sword half drawn and Kumar Ram Singh of Amber trying in vain to pacify him, wrote Parkaldas of Amber to the state's Diwan in his letter of 29th May 1666.

The people had been praising Shivaji's high spirit and courage before. Now that after coming to the emperor's presence he has shown such audacity and returned harsh and strong replies, the public extols him for his bravery all the more...

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part XIII-- Restrictions on the Hindus

2007-07-18T22:48:00.000+05:30

Forbidden to travel in palkis or ride on elephants and Arab Iraqi horses

In March 1695, all the Hindus, with the exception of the Rajputs, were forbidden to travel in palkis or ride on elephants or thorough bred horses or to carry arms.(Muntakhap-ul-Lubab, ii, 395; Maasir-i-Alamgiri, 370 and News letter, 11 December 1694)

In the sketch, well to do Hindus are being made to alight from palki (sedan chair), elephant and good horse by Mughal officers. The need to issue this derogatory order was the requirement, also recorded in fatwa-i-Alamgiri, that Hindus should not be allowed to look like Muslims, that is carry themselves with the same dignity. The folly and futility or even danger of applying or observing the guiding principles, practices and law prescribed, interpreted or recommended in the seventh and eighth centuries in Arabia, after a lapse of ten centuries in a country like India, was never realised by the Muslim clerics or their emperor.

Muslims to replace Hindu Officials as cure for ineffectiveness of prayers
Siyah Waqai Darbar Julus (R. Yr.) 10, Muharram 18 / 1st July 1667

The emperor said to Shaikh Nizam that his prayers are not having any effect. What could be the reason for this? The Shaikh said the reason is that a large number of Hindus are serving as ahli-khidmat (officials and officers) and as musahibs (courtiers) and they are ever (seen) in the Royal presence and as a result, the prayers do not have any effect. The emperor ordered that it is necessary that the Musalmans be appointed to serve in place of the Hindus.

Note: The object of the prayers or the nature of the desired result is not mentioned, but it appears that it was the elevation and dominance of Islam, progress of its mission through means, such as Jihad, which are very differently regarded by people of other faiths and the welfare of the Musalmans in particular. The instant impact of the Shaikh's analysis of the problem and implied advice to Aurangzeb is also indicative of the high degree of influence wielded by this religious class during the reign of emperor Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part XII-- Qanungoship on becoming Musalman

2007-07-18T06:54:00.000+05:30

Rs. 4 to a Hindu male and Rs. 2 to a Hindu female on conversion Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mualla Julus (R. Yr.) 28 Jamadi T. 12 / 7th April 1685

The emperor ordered Jumadat-ul-Mulk to write to all the faujdars and Diwans of the kingdom that each Hindu male who becomes a Musalman is to be given Rs 4 and each Hindu woman Rs. 2 as fixed by us from the treasury of the place by way of inam.

Those who become Musalman out of devotion for Din (Islam) in their case the award of money in future is to be stopped.

Note: The amount offered as an inducement for conversion was substantial and amounted to almost one month's wages of a worker in case of a Hindu male.

The document forms one of the most unabashed statement and the severest indictment on the methods adopted in spreading Islam in India, and this was being done even more than 400 years after the establishment of Muslim rule in India (1200 A.D.).

Qanungoship on becoming Musalman
Of the two Akhbarat, the first dated Zilqada 3. R. Yr. 24 (15th November 1680) says that Murlidhar, Qanungo. Alipur became a Musalman and received a khil'at by way of inam and the second dated 27th Jamadi T (5th June 1681) describes the conversion of Devidas Khatri, Qanungo of Kalanur.

Qanungoship on becoming Musalman
Of the three Akhbarat (46-i-ii-iii) of April 21, April 22 and May 4 1667, the first mentions that four Qanungos of parganah Bhure became Musalman and were awarded dresses of honour, the second says that the office of Qanungo was restored to four persons Makrand etc.) on becoming Musalmans, the third records that Parmanand, Qanungo of Meerut became a Musalman 'as promised by him'.

There are a large number of Akhbarat (Aurangzeb's court bulletins) which mention that either Qanungoi was restored on becoming Musalman, or that a person or persons were appointed Qanungos on accepting Islam or that they agreed to become Musalman obviously under pressure or as inducement.

A typical entry in the Akhbarat, such as of R. Yr. 10. Zilqada / April 22 1667 reads Makrand etc. in all four persons became Musalman. The Qanungoi of Parganah Khohri was restored to them four Khilats were conferred upon them. Sir Jadunath Sarkar is right in saying that Qanungoship on becoming a Muslim had become a proverb.

As Qanungo had intimate knowledge of the customs and tenures of the land, he could serve as the best agent for protecting the interests of the Musalmans and in extending influence of Islam in the rural areas. The following sketch shows four Qanungos being restored their Qanungoi on becoming Musalman

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part XI-- Demolition of Jagannatha temple Orissa and Bindu Madhav Banaras

2007-07-15T14:46:00.000+05:30

Orders for the demolition of Jagannath Temple, Orissa
Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mualla
Julus 24, Jamadi T. 23 / 1st June 1681

The emperor ordered Asad Khan that in accordance with the (existing) orders to write to Amir-Ul-Umara, the Subedar of Bengal, to demolish the temple (butkhana) of Jagannath in Orissa.

Note: The sacred Jagannath temple at Puri in Orissa is situated in Shankha Kshetra. Puri is a well known centre of pilgrimage in Eastern India on the sea shore of Bay of Bengal. It is said that there was a Buddhist shrine here in ancient times. After the great revival of Hinduism, it became an important Vaishhnavite centre and images of Krishna, Balram and Subhadra were installed in the temple.

It is difficult to say who built this magnificient temple, but we certainly know that it was restored in the 9th C by Yayati Kesari and it was renovated by King Chand Gangadeva in the 12th C, and a few decades later Anang Bhim Deva of the same dynasty (Ganga Vamsha) restored the shrine completely. The structure which stands today is the same, though it suffered damage from time ti time at the hands of Musalman invaders, such as by Sultan Firuz Tughlaq in 1360 A.D. The temple was partly demolished but the local people continued to visit the temple for worship soon after the original temple was restored.

The temple records information that one of the queens of Raja Man Singh of Amber when he was the governor of Bengal and Orissa during Akbar's time added a mandap in this temple in the 16th C. A Maratha sardar of the Bhonsle family restored the Bhog mandap later. The temple was visited by eminent Vaishnava saints -- Ramanuja in 1122 and 1137 and Chaitanya in the 15th C.

Demolition of Bindu Madhav temple at Banaras
Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mualla
Julus 26,
Ramzan 20 / 13 September 1682

Complying with the orders, Rafi-ul-Amin, the Diwan of Banaras has sent the report that the temple of Nand Madho (Bindu Madhav) has been demolished and after this affair, awaits whatever orders are given regarding constructing a mosque there. The emperor ordered that a mosque be built there.

Note: Temple of Bindu- Madhava -- "The most important Vishnu temple in Varanasi since the 5th C A.D. finds mention, along with Adi Keshava, in the Matsya Purana, as one of the five most important tirthas in Varanasi. It was demolished during every inconoclastic storm and was every time rebuilt". The deity was reconsecrated in a grand temple built by Raja Man Singh of Amber in the 16th C. The temple was demolished and a mosque was constructed here, as the Akhbar of R. Yr. 26, Ramzan 20 / 13 September 1682, displayed here records.

The present temple was built by the Raja of Aundh (Satara, Maharashtra) in the 19th C. The temple is highly respected among the South Indians; Bindu-Madhava is respected as Vishnu-Kanchi of South India. A large number of devotees visit the temple, especially in the month of March.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part X -- Defence of Jagannath Rai Temple

2007-07-15T13:29:00.000+05:30

The sketch portrays a famous incident in the history of Mewar which had come out in open support of the Rathors of Marwar, then fighting for the very survival of their state (Jodhpur) which Aurangzeb had resumed with darkes of intentions. Was was on and when the Maharan and his people evacuated Udaipur and withdrew to the mountains and valleys of Mewar.

In front of the Maharana's palace was the grand temple of Jagannath Rai, which was one of the rarest of buildings of the age. It was built by Maharana Jagat Singh at a cost of several lakhs of Rupees. The prastishtha ceremony of the temple was held on the 13th May 1652. It was a Vishnu Panchyatan temple in which the temples of Siva., Ganapath, Surya and Devi were in the four directions in the parikrama and the main temple of Vishnu in the centre. Ruhill Khan and Vakka Taz Khan were sent to demolish it. Saqi Mustaad Khan writes in Maasir-i-Alamgiri. Twenty marchator Rajputs were sitting in the temple vowed to give up their lives, first one them came out to fight killed some and was then himself slain. Then came out another and so on until every one of the twenty perished after killing a large number of the imperialists. After the last brave Rajput had fallen the Muslim troops entered the temple and the hewers broke the image

Aurangzeb orders cart loads of idos brought from Jodhpur to be cast under the steps of Jama Masjid (May 1679)

On Sunday the 24 Rabi TT / 25th May 1679, Khan Jahan Bahadur came from Jodhpur after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart loads of idols, and had audience of the emperor who highly praised him and ordered that the idols which were mostly jewelled, golden, silvery, bronze, copper or stone should be cast in the yard (jilaukhanah) of the court and under the steps of Jama Masjid to be trodden on. They remained so for sometime and at last their very names were lost.

Note: There was no limit to the uncivilized conduct of the Muslim troops in Marwar during the war which started in 1679 following the resumption of Marwar. Aurangzeb's handling of the situation after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh in the Kabul Subah in 1679, rekindled in his heart the dormant fire of vengeance towards the Maharaja, and his whole plan was to eliminate the Rathors as a major power in Rajputana. The treatment of the idols brought from the temples of Marwar showed the level of degradation to which people can descend under the influence of religious rigour, but for an emperor whose majority of the subjects respected and worshipped these idols, it was an unpardonable act and reflected poorly on his religious beliefs.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part IX -- Hindus forced to pay Jizyah

2007-07-15T12:04:00.000+05:30

On 2nd April 1679, Aurangzeb reimposed Jizyah upon the Hindus which had been abolished by emperor Akbar in 1564. The author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri writes:
"As all the aims of the religious emperor (Aurangzeb) were directed to the spreading of the law of Islam and the overthrow of the practices of the infidelity he issued orders... that from Wednesday the 2nd April 1679 in obedience of the Quranic injunction till they pay Jizyah with the hand of humility and in agreement with the canonical traditions Jizyah should be collected from the infidels of the capital and the provinces."

The economic burden of Jizyah was felt most by the poor who formed the vast majority of the Hindus. For the middle classes and the rich, it was not so much the economic burden which mattered but the humiliation involved in the prescribed mode of payment which the Jizyah collector could always insist upon as of right i.e. by insisting that he would accept it only when paid personally. The Quranic injunction that war must be made upon all those who do not profess Islam till they pay Jizyah out of their hand and they are humiliated was interpreted to mean that the Hindus must be made conscious of their inferior position when paying this tax.

In the painting a number of Hindus both rich and poor are lining up to pay Jizyah while the arrogant Jizyah collector is picking up the coins from the palm of a Hindu Jizyah payer. Some people have come from the neighboruing areas in their bullock carts. The bullocks are resting under the shade of the trees.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part VIII -- Imposition of Jizyah

2007-07-15T11:29:00.000+05:30

Supression of peaceful demonstration against re imposition of Jizyah (April 1679)

In 1564 AD emperor Akbar ignoring the Quranic injunction abolished levying of Jizyah from the non Muslims in pursuance of his view that distinction on the basis of religion was neither rational nor fair. Its reimposition by Aurangzeb after more than 100 years on 2nd April 1679 in all parts of the empire to spread the law of Islam and to put down infidelity created great resentment among the Hindus. For the poor Hindus its burden was very heavy, for the middle and the richer class the humiliation involved in paying it was particulary galling and it provided ample scope to the clerics to harass the people. To a peasant or a common Hindu Jizyah seemed to be a penalty for being a Hindu. To every Hindu right to collect Jizyah from him in his own country appeared a preposterous claim based as it was on the 7th C concepts originating in Arabia about the rights and position of the non Muslims. In brief this vexatious tax was highly unpopular among the Hindus.

The imposition of Jizyah led to perhaps one of the largest non violent demonstration of the Hindus in the capital. On friday, Aurangzeb was to proceed to the Jama Masjid to attend the public prayer. That day the whole road from the gate of the Red Fort to the mosque was swollen by all the shop keepers and craftsmen of the Delhi city and the cantonment bazar out for a demonstraion. Despite warning the Hindus did not disperse. After waiting for some moments the emperor ordered elephants be driven through the mass of men trampling them down and clearing a way for him. (Khafi Khan Mntakhab ul Rubab 255)

The painting captures the above moment of non violent appeal to Aurangzeb for justice and good sense bing violently crushed.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part VII -- Burial of Music

2007-07-14T16:51:00.000+05:30

Sometime after February 1668, Aurangzeb issued orders that distinguished and well known musicians and gawwals who were in the service of the court should "desist from music" though to enable them to meet their wants, their mansabs, which determined their salaries were increased. General orders were also given for the prohibition of music and dancing. Khafi Khan (muntakhab-al Lubab p212-13)speaks about the above prohition of music of while describing Aurangzeb's measures for establishing the rules of the shariat and the orders and prohibitions of God.

It is true that in the first few years of his reign (1659 - 1707) Aurangzeb occasionally listened to the music of which he had a good understanding as the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri writes but out of extreme abstinence, he (later on) totally gave up listening to music and granted daily stipends and land as "aid to living" to those chanters, singers and musicians who repented for their sinful art.

When asked by Mirza Mukarram Khan Safavi, who was an expert in music, about his views on music, Aurangzeb answered (in Arabic) "It is mubah, neither good nor bad.". The emperor said that he could not listen to music without flutes, especially pakhavaj "but that is unanimously prohibited (haram) so I have left off hearing of singing"

The above testimony of Maasir-i-Alamgiri lends credence to the account of the burial of music given by Kahfi Khan (p213). It is said that one day musicians collected together in a large crowd with great noise and tumult, prepared a bier with great dignity and carried it to the foot of the Jharokha Darshan wailing in front and behind the bier. When the matter was reported to Aurangazeb, he inquired about the funeral, the musicians said "Music (rag) is dead. We are going to bury it." "Bury it so deep under the earth" Aurangzeb remarked, "that no sound echo of it may rise again."

The artist has portrayed the above interesting scene, a telling satire of the musicians on the prohibition of their art by emperor Aurangzeb and which brings into focus the problem of following the seventh Century laws, regulations and opinions formulated in far off Arabia, in letter and spirit, irrespective of changes in times circumstances and cultural traditions which vary from country to country.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part VI -- Receiving idol of Srinathji

2007-07-14T16:04:00.000+05:30

Aurangzeb's temple breaking spree was in full swing after his general order of 9th April 1669. The idols were being broken and temples desecrated in a show of mad religious frenzy and in remorseless pursuit to fulfill the demolition of the shariat. These were the circumstances which formed the backdrop of Shri Nathji's journey from Govardhan near Mathura to a small village in Mewar (Rajasthan) which in course of time became one of the most important centres of the Vallabha Sampradaya.

The idol which adorned the temple at Govardhana near Mathura before it could be touched by Aurangzeb's hatchet-men, was taken by Damodar Gosain to Bundi, Kotah, Kishangarh and even Jodhpur but none of the Rajput states felt strong enough to face the wrath of Aurangzeb. At last when Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar was approached, he assured the worried Gosain (the priest) that Aurangzeb would not be able to even touch the idol of Shri Nathji without treading over the bodies of one lakh of his brave Rajputs.

Shrinathji's idol was then brought to Mewar, the Maharana himself receiving the Lord on the border of his state on 5th December 1671 at Sihad village which after the deity came to be called Nathdwara.

The tradition goes that when Gosain and his party reached Sihada village in Mewar, the wheels of Shri Nathji's chariot got stuck up in the sand and despite all efforts, the chariot would not move a finger's length. Happily, this was taken as a sign that the God did not wish to proceed any further and has chosen the place as his abode.

In the above painting the wheels of Shri Nathji's chariot are shown having stuck up in the sand, the Maharana Raj Singh is receiving the idol of Shri Nathji with utmost reverence, the Gosain is standing nearby. Shri Nathji is in the curtained chariot, only his face being visible.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part V -- Demolition of Somanath temple

2007-07-14T02:02:00.000+05:30

About the time the general order for destruction of Hindu temples was issued (9th April 1669) the highly venerated temple of Somanath built on the sea shore in Kathaiwad was also destroyed. The famous temple was dedicated to Lord Shiva. In the 11th , the temple was looted and destroyed by Mahmud Ghaznavi. It was rebuilt by King Bhim Deva Solanki of Gujarat and again renovated by Kumarapal in 1143-44 AD. The temple was again destroyed by Alauddin Khilji's troops in 1299. In a rarre description of the scene of a temple destruction, like of which continued to occur time and again during the long and disastrous rule of the Musalman rulers in Inida we have the following account. The Mlechcha (asura) stone idols on all three sides by their hammers, the stone pieces falling all around. They loosened every joint of the temple building and then began to break the different layers (thara) and the sculptured elephants and horses carved on them by incessant blows of their hammers. Then, amidst loud and vulgar clamour they began to apply force from both the sides to uproot the massive idol by means of wooden beams and iron crowbars (Kaanhadade Prabandha Panto 94-96)

After the destruction of Somanath temple during Alauddin's time it was rebuilt again. When Aurangzeb gave orders for its destruction the scene must have been little different from the one described by Padmanabha. The artist in his painting has tried to recreate the scene.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part IV -- Demolition of Viswanath & Keshav Rai temples

2007-07-12T22:18:00.000+05:30

August 1669 AD
It was reported that 'according to the emperor's command, his officers had demolished the temple of Viswanath at Kashi'(Maasir-i-Alamgiri, 88)

Kashi is one of the most sacred towns in India and reference to the worship of Shiva as Vishveshwara goes back to very early times. Kashi itself enjoys highest status since times immemorial. According to the puranas, every foot-step taken in Kashi kshetra has the sanctity of making a pilgrimate to a tirtha. Lord Vishvanatha is regarded as the protector of Kashi and the belief is that one earns great religious merit by having darshana (view) of the deity after having bathed in the Ganges. After destruction of the temple on Aurangzeb's orders, a mosque was built which still stands there as a testimony of the great tolerance and spirit of forgiveness of the Hindus even towards those who had for centuries desecrated and destroyed their temples and other places of worship and learning, and also as a lesson that "mutually uncongenial cultures", when forced by circumstances to intermingle in the same geographical area, result in such calamities. A protion of the sculpture of the demolished temple, probably built in the late 16th C, still survies to tell the tale of Aurangzeb's vandalism and barbarity. The present temple of Vishveshvara was built by Ahilya Bai Holkar of Indore.

Demolition of Keshava Rai temple at Mathura (13th January - 11th February 1670)
The great temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura was built by Bir Singh Deo Bundela during Jahangir's time at a cost of 33 lakhs of rupees. The Dehra of Keshava Rai was one of the most magnificent temples ever built in India and enjoyed veneration of the Hindus throughout the land. Prince Dara Shukoh who was looked upon by the masses as the future emperor had presented a carved stone railing to the temple which was installed in front of the deity at some distance, the devotees stood outside the railing to have darshan of Keshava Rai. The railing was removed on Aurangzeb's orders in October 1666.

The dehra of Keshava Rai was demolished in the month of Ramzan, 1080 AH (13th January - 11th February 1670) by Aurangzeb's order. In a short time, by the great exertion of the officers, the destruciton of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditue of a large sum. To the author of Maasir-i-Alamigiri, the accomplishment of this seemingly impossible work was an instance of the strength of the emperor's faith. Even more disgraceful was transporting the idols to Agra and burying them under the steps of the mosque of the Begum Sahib in order to continually trodden upon.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part III -- Demolition of Hindu temples

2007-07-12T21:25:00.000+05:30

Keshava Rai Temple

'Even to look at a temple is a sin for a Musalman' Aurangzeb
Umurat-i-Hazur Kishwar Kashai Julus (R.Yr.) 9 Rabi 24/13 October 1666

It was reported to the emperor (Aurangzeb) that in the temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Bishukoh (one without dignity i.e. Prince Dara Aurangzeb's elder brother). On hearing of it, the emperor observed, 'In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple and this Bishukoh has installed this kathra (barrier railing). Such an act is totally unbecoming of a Musalman. This railing should be removed (forthwith)'. His majesty ordered Abdun Nabi Khan to go and remove the Kathra which was in the middle of the temple. Khan removed it and informed the emperor that the idol of Keshava Rai was in the inner chamber. The railing presented by Dara was in front of the chamber and that formerly it was of wood. Inside the Kathra used to stand the sevaks of the shrine (pujaris etc) and outside it stood the people (khatq).

Note: Aurangzeb's solemn observation recorded in his own court's bulletin that "in the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple" and therefore, presentation of a stone railing to Keshava Rai temple by Dara was "totally unbecoming of a Musalman" casta serious doubts about a few instances of religious toleration and temple grants attributed to him. Only two years before his long awaited death, he had ordered (1st Jan 1705) to "demolish the temple of Pandharpur and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple... It was done". Akhbarat, 49-7, cited in J.N. Sarkar, Aurangzeb, Vol. III, 189).

Demolition of Kalka's temple

The asylum of Shariat Shariat Panah Qazi Abdul Muqaram has sent this arzi to the sublime court: a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large numbers at Kalka's temple near Barahapule (near Delhi) a large crowd of the Hindus is seen there. Likewise, large crowds are seen at the mazars of Khwaja Muinuddin Shah Madar and Satar Masud Ghazi. This amounts to bidat (heresy) and deserves consideration whatever orders are required should be issued.

Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered by the emperor to send 100 beldars to demolish the Kalka temple and other temples in its neighborhood which were in the faujdar of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste and finish the work without a halt.

Note: Kalkaji's temple which stands today was rebuilt soon after Aurangzeb's death (1707 A.D) on the remains of the old temple dedicated to Godess Kali. The two Akhbarat dated R. Yr. 10 Rabi 1, 23 and Rabi II, 3 (Sept. 3 and Sept. 12, 1667) provide details regarding the demolition of the temple on Aurangzeb's orders. Since 1764, the temple has been renovated and altered several times but the main 18th C structure more or less remains the same. The site is very old dating back to emperor Asoka's time (3rd C B.C.) There is mention of Kalkaji in the Maratha records of 1738 -- "People flock to the teple in large numbers especially during Navratri."

General order for the destruction of Temples

The lord cherisher of the faith learnt that in the provinces of chatta multan and especially at Benaras the Brahmin misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools and their admirers and students, both Hindu and Muslim used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire their vile learning. His majesty, eager to establish Islam issued orders to governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these unbelievers.

Note: This is not the only instance when Aurangzeb prevented the Muslims from acquiring knowledge and wisdom of the Hindu philosophical works and other Sanskrit and Bhasha classics or sharing spiritual and intellectual experience and this stifled the process of fusion, or at least bridging of the gulf between the two creeds with very different approaches, principles, values, levels of intellectual attainments and period of evolution of ideas. A general order of this type to put down the teaching and public practice of religion by the Hindus was used as a ground to demolish some of the most venerable shrines of India during the next few years, but despite the severe and comprehensive nature of the order, is failed to wrest from Banaras its unique prestige and position as the chief centre of learning of the Vedas, Dharmashastras, the six systems of philosophy, Sanskrit language and literature and Astronomy.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part II

2007-07-08T19:30:00.000+05:30

The painting is based on a contemporary letter sent by the Amber state official Parkaldas to the Diwan of Amber, Kalyandas, dated 23rd February 1666.

It is a night scene in the fort of Agra where emperor Shah Jahan had been kept in strict confinement by his son Aurangzeb for several years. The two wives of the emperor: Akbarabadi Begum and Fatehpuri Begum who were with him at the time of his death are being stopped at the door by the gurards. The painting depicts the two women sadly seeing the body of their husband Shah Jahan the emperor of India being taken out by four kahars or paliquin bearers as if he was some common prisoner. No son, grandson or nobles were around to bear the paliquin. Shah Jahan's daughter Jahanara is looking at the sad spectacle from the window of the palace, her entreaties with Khoja Phul (the eunuch) not to take the body for burial in the night without waiting for the daybreak having failed. "I have orders from the emperor (Aurangzeb) to carry the coffin this very night" he had replied. The Khoja is walking a few steps ahead of the tabut. The body was taken out by the Mori gate and hurriedly consigned to the grave in the Taj mahal mousoleum.

There might be very few examples indeed of such an uncermonious and hurried burial, marked by stealthiness and tainted by guilt as that of Shah Jahan, who had been the emperor of India for about 30 years and who was leaving behind a son, now the emperor (Aurangzeb) and a number of grand children and relatives and countless nobles.

Execution of Sarmad

Sarmad was a well known saint who came to Delhi towards the end of Shah Jahan's reign. Prince Dara Shukho, the eldest son of Shah Jahan and translator of the Upanishads in Persian sought his company and gave him much respect due to a saint and philosopher.

Sarmad was disliked by the mullahs for his unorthodox views and free thinking. He used to say that whosoever had realised the God, annihilates the distance between him and the supreme reality, i.e. he remains constantly in communion with the Divine. The mullahas said that the prophet ascended to the heaven, but Sarmad declared that the heaven came down to Prophet, he meant that the hightest state of bliss is attinable in this very life. He generally remained nude and had acquired knowledge of the highest non-dualism. When he was summoned to the court and asked to repeat the Kalima, he only went so far as to declare that there was no God. He saw the non difference between the individual soul of every one and the supreme soul. The mullahs decreed that he must be put to death for apostasy. When the executioner came with his axe to cut off his head, Sarmad welcomed him with the words "I know you in whatever form you come" and embraced death for the sake of his views.

Aurangzeb -- As he was according to Mughal Records -- Part I

2007-05-06T11:52:00.000+05:30

Name - Aurangzeb (VI son of Shah Jahan)

Date of Birth – 24th October 1618

Place of birth – Dohad in Madhya Pradesh

Succession to throne

15th April 1658 -- defeated his brother Prince Dara Shukoh’s armies at Dharmat near Ujjain

29th May 1658 -- defeated Dara Shukoh’s armies led by Dara himself at Samugarh

8th June 1658 -- imprisoned his old father Shah Jahan in Agra fort

25th June 1658 -- The war of succession to the richest throne in the world was practically over with the victory on 29th May 1658, and Aurangazeb secured his position by making Murad, his brother and accomplice in his impetuous pursuit for power, his prisoner by treachery on 25th June.

Aurangzeb’s advent to the throne in his father’s lifetime was not welcome by the people of India because of the treacherous manner it was achieved in. Public opinion became all the more hostile towards him when Prince Dara Shukoh the favorite son of Shah Jahan, translator of Upanishads and a truly liberal and enlightened Musalman was taken prisoner on the Indian border as he was going to Persia.

Dara was paraded in a most undignified manner on the streets of Delhi on 29th August 1659. The French doctor Bernier was an eye witness to the scene and was deeply moved by the popular sympathy for Dara which so much alarmed Aurangzeb that he contrived to have a decree from his clerics announcing death sentence for the elder brother on the charge of apostasy.

Throughout the war of succession, Aurangzeb maintained that he was not interested in acquiring the throne and that his only objective was to ward off the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh was in power. Many including his brother Murad were deceived by his posture. After his formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1689) he posed as a defender of Islam who would rule according to the directions of the Shariat and with the advice of the clerics or Ulma for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and directives as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th C Arabia, Persia and Iraq were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all countries and for all times to come.

Prince Dara Shukoh the eldest son of Emperor Shah Jahan was like his great ancestor Akbar. He was a very liberal and enlightned Musalman and a true seeker of truth. Akbar respected all religions – Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism etc and gave their rotaries complete religious freedom. He was ever keen to discuss and understand their religious beliefs, practices and philosophy and in order to make the Musalmans familiar with the culture, philosophy and traditions of India. He had the great epics of India – Ramayana and Mahabharata translated to Persian. He also arranged for the translation of the Upanishads.

Continuing the unfinished work of Emperor Akbar, Prince Dara Shukoh too assisted by the Indian scholars translated Bhagwad Gita and Yog Vashisht. This show that Dara Shukoh had made an expansive study of the Epic poem, Mahabharata, claimed to be the fifth Veda by the Hindus, since Gita forms the last and eighteenth chapter of the epic. The translation of the Upanishads by him entitled Sirr-I-Akbar (The Grand Secret) was completed on the 28th June 1657 shortly before the commencement of the war of succession which he lost to his crafty and unscrupulous brother Aurangzeb who ruled India from 1659 – 1707.

Dara’s immense popularity and sympathy for him among the masses was evident when he along with his young son was taken out on the streets of Delhi on the 29th August 1659 in a degrading manner. The outburst of popular sympathy for Dara Shukoh and the contemptuous and sullen response which Aurangzeb had received from the people for his outrageous behaviour with his elder brother filled his dark heart with misgivings if Dara remained alive even as prisoner in the Gwalior fort or elsewhere. It was felt among his inner circle of confidants that Dara must be put to death without delay on the ground of apostasy.

Following a farcical trail in absentia the Ulma in pay of Aurangzeb decreed death for Dara for his infidelity and deviation from Islamic orthodoxy and because the pillars of the canonical law and faith apprehended many kinds of disturbances from his life. This was in reality a fraud on truth.

Prince Dara Shukoh was killed and his severed head was sent to Aurangzeb to satisfy him that his rival is really dead. By his orders, the headless corpse of his brother was placed on an elephant and paraded through the streets of Delhi a second time and then buried without the customary washing and dressing of the body.

What is Racism?

2007-03-07T06:20:00.000+05:30

A Bollywood actress participates in a game show and her housemates try to evict her by making it difficult for her to continue staying in the house and the whole nation (India) reacts http://www.indiaenews.com/europe/20070116/35889.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6273677.stm.
But no one really seems to realise the everyday racist attitude that they exhibit to their countrymen.

If calling the actress a 'Paki' is racist comment then would calling a Kannadiga a 'Madarasi' or a 'Tamilian' also qualify as a racist comment?

I was in Delhi in the month of August 2003 and my friend's landlady asked me "Are you a Madarasi?" to which I replied "No. I belong to Bengalooru(known as Bangalore earlier)." She continued "Oh really? I thought you were a Tamilian. You look like one."

I worked in London for a while and a little boy who probably was just six or seven asked me "Are you a Paki?"
I replied "No. I am an Indian."
His mother was quick to apologise for her son's behaviour.

If not being able to say a person's name the right way is Racism then would saying 'Kannad' for 'KannadA' too qualify as a racist behaviour?

My colleagues and a few acquaintances from the Northern part of India say 'Kannad' instead of 'Kannada'. They do not want to say it the right way despite repeatedly telling them the right way to pronounce it. They snub us by telling "you understood what we meant, so why should we bother to learn it the right way".

Some of my British colleagues find it difficult to say my name however had they try to. They invariably end up saying it the wrong way. But they at least try.

The Bollywood actress cooks chicken curry and the housemates make fun of it by saying it was half baked. Is that Racism?!

My colleague who is a native of Andhra Pradesh commented "Bloody you Kannadigas add too much of sweet in all your dishes. It is so difficult for me to eat my lunch". (Oops! Did I forget to mention that he was talking about the North Indian restaurant that caters in my office?)

While I was in Delhi and having a conversation with the landlady of my friend who I was visiting, she asked me what we prepare for breakfast everyday. She was surprised to know that we have a wide range of food for breakfast as she thought that the south Indians (who according to her are all 'Madarasis') eat only idly, dosa or rice and sambar for breakfast, lunch and dinner. She added that she felt eating rice everyday was strange as it tastes the same. Really? Then rotis taste different every day? That is something that I didn't know.

Asking Shilpa whether she lived in a "Shack" is Racism. But when you call Bengalooru a pub city with no culture and a city that has only virtual roads with just pot holes, is that Racism too?http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/18/stories/2007011808640100.htm

My colleague told me a few weeks ago that her friend moved to Poona (Pune -- the city where 280 young boys were arrested in drug abuse case y'day in a Rave party http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/03_2007/punes-party-kids-soft-target-for-the-police-35374.html) only because Bengalooru has pub culture and nothing else.

I was born in Bengalooru and I have lived in this city for 24 years. 20 years ago Quiz contests had the question "Which city is known as Garden City?" Now the question is rephrased as "Which Indian city is known as Pub City?" This definitely hurts the feelings of any true Bengaloorean. But we should also accept the fact that the city has only been trying to adjust to the "new culture" that the IT industry brought with it. We should also not forget the fact that the majority of the people working in the IT industry are not Kannadigas but outsiders like my colleague who said that the city has no culture.

We Indians do not face racism from foreigners to an extent that we face from our own countrymen. It is an issue that exists between the Aryans and Dravidians or may be between the 'Aryans and Aryans' and the 'Dravidians and Dravidians'.

Seven point oath -- A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

2006-12-20T21:04:00.000+05:30

I realize, I have to set a goal in my life. To achieve the goal, I will acquire the knowledge, I will work hard, and when the problem occurs, I have to defeat the problem and succeed.
As a youth of my nation, I will work hard with courage to achieve success in all my tasks and enjoy the success of others.
I shall always keep myself, my home, my surroundings, neighbourhood and environment clean and tidy.
I realize that righteousness in the heart leads to beauty in the character, beauty in the character brings harmony in the home, harmony in the home leads to order in the nation and order in the nation leads to peace in the world.
I will lead an honest life, free from all corruption and will set an example for others to adopt a righteous way of life.
I will light the lamp of knowledge in the nation and ensure that it remains lit for ever.
I realize, whatever work I do if I do the best, I am contributing towards realizing the vision of developed India 2020.

"The Awakening" by Sonny Carroll

2006-12-17T11:59:00.000+05:30

I received this by email a couple of years ago from an ex-colleague. I hope you find this as interesting as I do...

A time comes in your life when you finally get it . ..
When in the midst of all your fears and insanity you
stop dead in your tracks and somewhere the voice
inside your head cries out - ENOUGH! Enough fighting
and crying or struggling to hold on. And, like a child
quieting down after a blind tantrum, your sobs begin
to subside, you shudder once or twice, you blink back
your tears and through a mantle of wet lashes you begin
to look at the world through new eyes...
This is your awakening.

You realize that it's time to stop hoping and waiting
for something to change or for happiness, safety and
security to come galloping over the next horizon. You
come to terms with the fact that you are not Prince
Charming and she is not Cinderella and that in the
real world there aren't always fairy tale endings (or
beginnings for that matter) and that any guarantee of
"happily ever after" must begin with you and in the
process a sense of serenity is born of acceptance.

You awaken to the fact that you are not perfect and
that not everyone will always love, appreciate or
approve of who or what you are . . . and that's OK.
(They are entitled to their own views and opinions.)
And you learn the importance of loving and championing
yourself and in the process a sense of new found
confidence is born of self-approval.

You stop complaining and blaming other people for the
things they did to you (or didn't do for you) and you
learn that the only thing you can really count on is
the unexpected. You learn that people don't always say
what they mean or mean what they say and that not
everyone will always be there for you and that it's
not always about you.

So, you learn to stand on your own and to take care of
yourself and in the process a sense of safety &
security is born of self-reliance. You stop judging
and pointing fingers and you begin to accept people as
they are and to overlook their shortcomings and human
frailties and in the process a sense of peace &
contentment is born of forgiveness. You realize that
much of the way you view yourself, and the world
around you, is as a result of all the messages and
opinions that have been ingrained into your psyche.

And you begin to sift through all the crap you've been
fed about how you should behave, how you should look,
what you should wear, where you should shop, what you
should drive, how and where you should live, what you
should do for a living, who you should sleep with, who you
should marry and what you should expect of a marriage,
the importance of having and raising children or what
you owe your parents.

You learn to open up to new worlds and different
points of view. And you begin reassessing and
redefining who you are and what you really stand for.
You learn the difference between wanting and needing
and you begin to discard the doctrines and values
you've outgrown, or should never have bought into to
begin with and in the process you learn to go with
your instincts. You learn that it is truly in giving
that we receive.

And that there is power and glory in creating and
contributing and you stop maneuvering through life
merely as a "consumer" looking for your next fix.

Your learn that principles such as honesty and
integrity are not the outdated ideals of a by gone era
but the mortar that holds together the foundation upon
which you must build a life.

You learn that you don't know everything; it's not
your job to save the world and that you can't teach a
pig to sing. You learn to distinguish between guilt
and responsibility and the importance of setting
boundaries and learning to say NO. You learn that the
only cross to bear is the one you choose to carry and
that martyrs get burned at the stake.

Then you learn about love. Romantic love and familial
love. How to love, how much to give in love, when to
stop giving and when to walk away. You learn not to
project your needs or your feelings onto a
relationship. You learn that you will not be more
attractive, more intelligent, more lovable or important
because of the person on your arm or the child that bears
your name. You learn to look at relationships as they
really are and not as you would have them be. You
stop trying to control people, situations and
outcomes.

You learn that just as people grow and change so it is
with love ... and you learn that you don't have
the right to demand love on your terms . . . just to
make you happy.

And, you learn that alone does not mean lonely . . .
And you look in the mirror and come to terms with the
fact that you will never be a perfect 10
and you stop trying to compete with the image inside
your head and agonizing over how you "stack up."

You also stop working so hard at putting your feelings
aside, smoothing things over and ignoring your needs.
You learn that feelings of entitlement are perfectly
OK ... and that it is your right to want things
and to ask for the things that you want . . . and that
sometimes it is necessary to make demands.

You come to the realization that you deserve to be
treated with love, kindness, sensitivity and respect
and you won't settle for less. And, you allow only
the hands of a lover who cherishes you to glorify you
with their touch . . . and in the process you
internalize the meaning of self-respect.

And you learn that your body really is your temple.
And you begin to care for it and treat it with
respect. You begin eating a balanced diet, drinking
more water and taking more time to exercise. You learn
that fatigue diminishes the spirit and can create
doubt and fear. So you take more time to rest.

And, just as food fuels the body, laughter fuels our
soul. So you take more time to laugh and to play.

You learn, that for the most part, in life you get
what you believe you deserve . . . and that much of
life truly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You learn
that anything worth achieving is worth working for and
that wishing for something to happen is different from
working toward making it happen.

More importantly, you learn that in order to achieve
success you need direction, discipline and
perseverance. You also learn that no one can do it all
alone and that it's OK to risk asking for help.

You learn that the only thing you must truly fear is
the great robber baron of all time. FEAR itself. You
learn to step right into and through your fears
because you know that whatever happens you can handle
it and to give in to fear is to give away the right to
live life on your terms.

And you learn to fight for your life and not to
squander it living under a cloud of impending doom.
You learn that life isn't always fair, you don't
always get what you think you deserve and that
sometimes bad things happen to unsuspecting, good
people. On these occasions you learn not to personalize
things. You learn that God isn't punishing you or
failing to answer your prayers. It's just life happening.

And you learn to deal with evil in its most primal
state -- the ego. You learn that negative feelings
such as anger, envy and resentment must be understood
and redirected or they will suffocate the life out of
you and poison the universe that surrounds you. You
learn to admit when you are wrong and to build bridges
instead of walls.

You learn to be thankful and to take comfort in many
of the simple things we take for granted, things that
millions of people upon the earth can only dream
about; a full refrigerator, clean running water, a
soft warm bed, a long hot shower.

Slowly, you begin to take responsibility for yourself
by yourself and you make yourself a promise to never
betray yourself and to never ever settle for less than
your heart's desire. And you hang a wind chime
outside your window so you can listen to the wind.
And you make it a point to keep smiling, to keep
trusting and to stay open to every wonderful
possibility.

Finally, with courage in your heart and with God by
your side you take a stand, you take a deep breath and
you begin to design the life you want to live as best
as you can.

Freedom of Expression

2006-12-16T20:57:00.000+05:30

I was born in a Hindu family and educated in a Christian convent. I attended Bible classes in school and also prayed in temple every evening. I have also offered prayers at Durgahs. As I grew older I stopped believing in Idol worship and stopped going to the temples except perhaps on festivals (I have been chastised by my parents for that :)). I subscribe to the idea that God resides within our heart.

"The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart. 0 Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities."
Bhagavad-gita 18.61

I have friends who are followers of Islam and I’ve celebrated Id with them. I have always believed in “God is one and all religions are means of uniting with the supreme Lord”

However when the television channels showed the nude painting of Goddess Sita clinging to Hanuman’s tail painted by Maqbool Fida Hussain the eminent painter of India, I was infuriated. This had hurt religious sentiments of Hindus. I am not a fundamental Hindu, but I also don’t like to see the Hindu Gods and Goddesses painted nude like I was not happy to learn that the Muslims were hurt when cartoons of Prophet Mohammed were published in a newspaper.

MF Husain is no stranger to controversy. He has painted nude pictures of Goddess Saraswathi in the past (probably in the year 1997?). Hindus across the globe were furious and had sought an apology from the painter. The painter was also quick to apologize. Any responsible citizen with even a below average IQ would have realized that such acts hurt the religious sentiments of the people. But Mr. MF Hussain went on to portray nude Draupadi, Bharath matha (though this has nothing to do with Hindu goddesses) and also Sita. If Mr. Hussain had really intended to apologize in 1997 he wouldn’t have committed the sin; for repeated mistakes are sins.

I quote the following from http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015606&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

It is also narrated by Ahmad that Abu Bakr said that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

‘No Muslim commits a sin and then performs ablution, prays two rak’ahs and begs Allah for forgiveness for that sin, but He forgives him.’

If a believer makes mistakes, and we all do, we have to offer sincere repentance to be entitled to forgiveness. In Islam, sincere repentance is known as taubah. This requires us to;

• Recognize and admit we have made a mistake
• Ask forgiveness from Allah and if the sin was against a person, we have to ask forgiveness from that person also
• We try to atone for the sin we have done if possible, by for example, returning money if we had stolen it
• We make the intention never to do the sin again

Some people went on to label the Hindus who opposed this act of Mr. Hussain as “religious intolerant”. So what do we label the people who protested against the publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in certain European newspapers?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/cartoon.protests.1000/
A crowd of up to 6,000 Muslim worshippers in New Delhi, India demonstrated
against the cartoons, burning, trampling and spitting on Danish flags while chanting "God is Great" and "Down with Denmark."

http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/12/stories/2006021205010300.htm
Bidar: Members of Tippu Sultan Youth Club took out a protest rally at Chitaguppa in Humnabad taluk on Friday against the publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in certain European newspapers.

If Haji Yaqoob Qureishi the Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj can announce a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad and still gets away by saying it was a “concerted decision” and the killing of a person who blasphemed Islam was “justified.” (http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/full_story.php?content_id=88158)
then perhaps people shouldn’t react to self-appointed chief of the Hindu Personal Law Board offering exactly the same prize money for ‘eliminating’ MF Husain

Religion has always been a sensitive issue not just in India but across the globe. Religion to some people is their identity. People in today’s world are less tolerant than they used to be fifty years ago and they will react to any provocation. Perhaps Gandhiji wouldn’t have been preaching “show your second cheek if you are slapped on one” if he were alive today.

Stop Justifying

But Hindus have always depicted naked Goddesses in their temples...
I read an article where one person has tried to justify Mr. Hussain’s paintings by quoting that Hindus have depicted their Gods and Goddesses naked in ancient temples. (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010610/spectrum/time.htm)Yes. It was probably acceptable in ancient India and what was acceptable in the past may not necessarily be acceptable in present world. Adam and Eve once wandered naked on this planet. But walking nude on streets is not considered civilized in today’s world.

Oh! But Hindus wouldn't have been furious if Mr. Hussain wasn't a Muslim...
Another writer (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HB11Df06.html) also commented that the Hindus reacted only because a Muslim had painted these paintings. Well, no Hindu has done it till date and so we can’t really say how the people will react if ever a Hindu paints the Hindu Gods and Goddesses naked. But we can certainly say that such statements do not promote communal harmony.

I am neither trying to justify the act of Mr. Hussain nor am I saying that the Muslims’ protest against the Danish cartoonist was barbaric and loony. I only want to point out that people of any religion will be intolerant to such acts and they should never be provoked.

Thus spoke the media...

Barkha Dutt wrote:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1862992,00120001.htm
Yes, we are all entitled to our religious sensitivities, but equally, a strong, democratic society must allow space for satire, irony and personal interpretation of religious beliefs.
So, if Husain really offends you that deeply, don’t buy his art, boycott the galleries that display his work and stop dining at the homes of the important people who can’t stop preening about his work on their walls. But, he has just as much a right to paint Hindu deities in the nude, if that’s his artistic vision, as the Danish cartoonist has to poke fun at Islam in his comic strip. Surely, we don’t believe either religion to be so fragile that it can’t take a joke or two about itself?

Is this artistic freedom?
Some people argue that the artists should be given sufficient freedom in a democratic nation to display their interpretations. But if their interpretations are hurting the sentiments of the people, should we let them continue doing so?

If such freedom leads to religious disharmony should we encourage it? If yes, then to what extent? How much of freedom is too much of freedom or how little freedom is too little freedom?

If we do not have the freedom to express ourselves, then can we say that we are a democratic nation having freedom of expression?

The Constitution Of India

2006-12-15T20:24:00.000+05:30

Preamble

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a _1[SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the _2[unity and integrity of the Nation];

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.