Rahul Writes

Last year around the same time, I had written an article presenting my analysis of whether Ahilya’s case in the Ramayana fits for a case of gender discrimination. After sharing my piece with friends I realised that this story had deeper meanings rather than as seen from the modern eye. Here is my article: 

http://blogs.rediff.com/rahulwrites/2009/02/02/ahilya-uddhar-and-gender-discrimination/  

Now I read a very learned explanation of the same episode, piling off layers of symbolisms behind this mythological story. As we know, Hinduism is one of the world’s oldest religions and it has seen many cycles. With time, much of knowledge was lost, especially at the times of dominance over Bharat Varsha by foreign invaders and foreign faiths. Today many Hindus feel we are on the path of Hindu renaissance. I feel all our religious concepts along with mythological stories need a review. We have only to gain and nothing to lose by being critics and analysing concepts deeper, even at times challenging them.  

Here is the explanation of Ahilya’s story in the light of symbolism behind it.  

This is part of Uday Trivedi’s blog post titled ‘Ramayana - Yoga Vashishtha and Ahalya Udhdhar’, taken from http://udtrivedi.blogspot.com/.   

Ahalya Udhdhar 

After Ram-Lakshman killed all the demons and successfully protected the Yagna, they got the news about Sita-Swayamvar. Vishwamitra tells Ram that there is a very age old holy Shiv Dhanush at Mithila. They should go there to have darshan of that. They will also take part in Sita-Swayamvara. During the journey, they found Gautam Ashram which was completely deserted. Vishwamitra tells them about story of Gautam muni and Ahalya. As the story says, Indra disguised as Gautam and did adultery with her. Gautam cursed both Indra and Ahalya. Some reference says he cursed her to do Tapas to remove materialistic desires. Some says she was made into a stone. Vishwamitra tells this story and told them that she is waiting for someone. When Ram asked waiting for whose coming? Vishwamitra replied: “One who can uplift the fallen. All know how to judge, blame and punish someone but the redeemer of sin who raises the fallen is rare indeed. Touch of such a great soul’s feet redeem all sins”. Then Ram touched the stone with his feet and Ahalya got freed. 

One may think that Ahalya did not know that it was not Gautam and she should not be blamed for that. However, Gautam muni understood it. Why he cursed Ahalya was because they were living an austere life there. Getting materialistic desires is considered as a setback in their spiritual sadhana. He asked Ahalya to do austere penance in rectitude so that she can come out of her desires. The symbolic meaning of this tale is quite deep. 

Indra having adultery with her should not be taken in literal sense. Indra represents our five Indriya and Mind. Here adultery means mind and Indriya took control of Ahalya. When instead of your consciousness your mind runs you, materialistic desires can haunt you anytime. Once our spiritual power becomes weak, any novice sadhak feels the attraction of materialistic pleasures to be greater that spiritual joy. Sadhak gets carried away with it and it requires more sadhana to come back to same stage. Thus, Gautma muni advised her to do more sadhana and went for hermitage. 

The symbolic story that she became a stone says that she took all the Indriyas inside her such that she became as inert as a stone. A materialistic mind always reacts. A stable mind watches. A Sthit-pragya Sadhak has all its Indriyas in control of oneself. One can then see how mind plays all the tricks in making you believe all that it wants. Ahalya was doing this sadhana for quite a long time. When Ram comes to meet her, she met them and realized that her penance is completed. She might have had some satsang with Vishwamitra and Ram-Lakshman. Ram was embodiment of love and wisdom. By the touch of him, Ahalya realized that she has become pure now. She then left to meet Gautam Muni. 

http://udtrivedi.blogspot.com/2007/08/ramayana-yoga-vashishtha-and-ahalya.html

I was surprised to see that Srilanka underwent the Presidential Polls some days back. This has happened so soon after Srilankan victory over Tamil rebels and the LTTE.  

I feel whenever a nation or a region undergoes an exceptional and historical crisis – there should not be any immediate polls for at least one year, or till the dust settles. Its because the public and electorate are expected to cast their votes on sentiments rather than on factual realities. What we call electoral ‘wave’ – I don’t think its good for a healthy democracy. A very good example of it is when elections were carried out in the post-Godhra riot infested Gujarat state of India – the ruling party won and a fear psychology was also a major contributor in the win. Same for the case of post Indira Gandhi’s murder – it was a plain guess that Rajiv Gandhi would win the polls, not becaue he was capable but because the voters voted for him in gratitude for his mother. Same was the case soon after Rajiv Gandhi’s assisination – Congress won the polls and P. V. Narasimha Rao came to power. Then we can have examples from other nations too – when people by and large voted just on one issue or event or crisis. Such elections which are conducted while the nation is ‘psychologically involved’ with one event (like assisinaiton, death or war) can’t be unbiased.  

I wonder if some other international think tank has thought about it before. I strongly advocate for no-elections till things come to normalcy – may be one year after the occurance of the exceptional event or crisis which changed the nation’s mood and sentiments. Till then, we can have options from the previous government, a new caretaker government, or the presidential rule in a state, to go on. I think what I am advocating for is very important for a healthy democracy to function properly.  

- Rahul

The Wine Shop  

I was sitting in a restaurant waiting for my order to be served. Just in front of it was a buzzing road. And on the other side of the road there was a wine shop. I gave it a look and also noticed that it was very busy with business. Many people came in after stopping their vehicles by the side of the road. They went away with a package or black polythene bag in their hand. It was an afternoon and it seemed the shop did a very good business. It was also because it was on the main road and in a very populated area. Next moment, I saw a couple walking in there. They were a young couple, the man was in his shorts and the lady seemed to be from the North Eastern part of India. They went in holding hands of each other and also walked out after few minutes in the same manner. I didn’t feel nice – it seemed to me that today wine and alcohol had entered into people’s daily life like never before. And such shops which made alcohol easily available – near their homes and anytime they wished – also contributed to their drinking habits. But then I tried to control my thoughts. Some drinkers would be young but they had the freedom to decide what was good and what was bad for their lives. I tended to be too idealistic and moralistic too – and hence I convinced me that may be it was I who was seeing too much into the whole thing. I didn’t drink; it didn’t mean no one should drink. Gradually, I let the thoughts fly away and started having my food. Just before I was to leave after finishing the meal, I watched something that disturbed me.  

A father stopped his motorbike by the side of the road. He had a three year old baby girl in his lap. He carried her in his lap and entered into the wine shop. Few minutes later, he came back with a black polythene bag in his one hand. And his baby daughter in the other. The scene made me uncomfortable.  

Agreed, that the young or otherwise parents had the freedom to enjoy their lives by drinking as and when they liked. But while doing so, were not they also bringing alcohol in the lives of their children? I didn’t know if they drank while hiding from their children; but one day the children would definitely know their habit. I had no idea how the parents would behave with the young children while in drunken state. But the whole picture revolving in front of my eyes – after seeing the father leaving the wine shop with his baby daughter in his lap – was not at all nice…  

Does someone from the governments keep a tab on the number of wine shops and their vicinity with densely populated areas? Do they have any mechanism to prevent young children from getting exposed to others’ drinking habits and alcoholism from very early age? I don’t think so.  

Then are not we doing something wrong somewhere?  

- Rahul

Our office celebrated the Republic Day one day before actual 26^th of January. Many games and events were carried out for us in the office. A part of the contests was a drawing competition. All of us made drawings on any of the three themes given to us. The idea was to take us back to our childhood days when we took part in similar competitions and won prizes. Colleagues used pencil, sketch pens and crayon – or whatever they got. At the end of the day, all the drawings were put on the wall and three best drawings got prizes.  

If one gave one look at the drawings, one would not be able to correctly guess the actual age of the artists. All drawings looked like those made by children in the age group of 10-15. Even the selection of themes in general was like those of the children, barring a few exceptions. The picture elements – the huts, the river and mountains, as well as the use of colours, and the art in general – all were exactly like those from the juvenile. Noting that, I made an interesting observation.  

When we grow up; its not that each aspect of our personality grows up in the same proportion. That is why children are better than the grownups in many respects. And that is why all of us still remain kids, no matter how old we become. The Drawing competition painted this clear message for us.  

- Rahul

I saw a friend using the term ‘apartheid’ to describe the prevailing caste-based reservation system in India. I wondered if this term is applicable in Indian case and tried to read more into the term.  

I found the word meaning of Apartheid: (Ref: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid)  

a·part·heid (-pärtht, -ht)

n. 

1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation. 

To know more, I got to read what the term ‘apartheid’ stands in relation to politics and government: (Ref: http://www.answers.com/topic/apartheid) 

apartheid

n

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation; officially renounced in 1992 

apartheid  

Policy of racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in South Africa. The term was first used as the name of the official policy of the National Party in 1948, though racial segregation, sanctioned by law, was already widely practiced. The Group Areas Act of 1950 established residential and business sectors in urban areas for each “race” and strengthened the existing “pass” laws, which required nonwhites to carry identification papers. Other laws forbade most social contacts between those of European descent and others, authorized segregated public facilities, established separate educational standards, restricted each group to certain types of jobs, curtailed nonwhite labour unions, denied nonwhite participation in the national government, and established various black African “homelands,” partly self-governing units that were nevertheless politically and economically dependent on South Africa. These so-called homelands were not recognized by international governments. Apartheid was always subject to internal criticism and led to many violent protests, strikes, and acts of sabotage; it also received international censure. In 1990 – 91 most apartheid legislation was repealed, but segregation continued on a de facto basis. In 1993 a new constitution enfranchised blacks and other racial groups, and all-race national elections in 1994 produced a coalition government with a black majority. These developments marked the end of legislated apartheid, though not of its entrenched social and economic effects. 

So the question is: Does India practice apartheid? Does the government’s policy of caste based reservation qualifies itself to be called ‘apartheid’? 

I think it depends on how we define the term. If we define it in social sense, like “the condition of being separated from others; segregation”, then the term becomes too vague. Even if we define it in terms of general policy / social use, then all nations have been practicing apartheid (if called so) in some form or the other; and in all ages. Even the Muslim rulers in India discriminated against Hindus and hence it was apartheid. Even the British treated native people differently and hence it was apartheid (though the British racial discrimination against brown/black Indians had elements of true apartheid by definition). Even the Christians when they claim “only Jesus is true god” do apartheid because they divide this world into believers and non-believers. Then we can stretch it to the things like saying governments do apartheid when they come out with “below poverty line” segmentation. Or, even by creating states within India, govt does apartheid. I think such stretch is illogical. So we have to define apartheid only in terms of its political meaning. 

And when it comes to political meaning, apartheid is what the White Govt in South Africa practiced against Black natives!  

I think we should not “loosely” apply this term against Government of India. GOI does caste and religion related discrimination in the form of reservations in jobs and studies, but it is not exactly “apartheid”. On the other side of thinking, even the discriminatory caste-system followed by Indians or discrimination against so called dalits is not apartheid. We Indians should be careful in application of this term. 

- Rahul

Two days back, Bombay High Court made a controversial ruling.  

Marriage doesn’t change a woman’s caste, rules HC 

Hetal Vyas / DNASaturday, January 23, 2010 0:14 IST 

A woman’s caste does not change after marriage, the Bombay high court has ruled.  

The order came on Friday on the hearing of an application by Mumbai resident Rajendra Shrivastava, who had sought anticipatory bail after his wife, a scheduled caste, accused him and her in-laws of dowry harassment and ‘casteist atrocities’. 

Shrivastava said that since the woman was married to him, a forward caste man, she could not seek protection or benefits under the Prevention of Atrocities Act (PAA), 1989. 

But the bench of justices BH Marlapalle, Abhay Oka and RY Ganoo did not agree. 

It said: When a woman born in a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe (SC/ST) marries a person belonging to a forward caste, her caste does not change.  

An SC/ST person suffers from disadvantages and indignities just because he or she is born into a particular caste, which he or she acquires involuntarily on birth.  

The suffering of such a person is not wiped out by marriage to a person born in a forward caste. The SC/ST label continues notwithstanding marriage. 

Ref - http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_marriage-doesn-t-change-a-woman-s-caste-rules-h_1338153

I think the court is making a mistake here. No one says the indignities of a person from so called lower caste is “wiped out” (wiping out indicates towards making null the atrocities done in the past), but the petition here was for whether such a person should keep getting benefits of the law applicable for her even “post marriage” (when the woman was accepted in the family of a so called higher caste and also acquired new surname)?  

This issue is tricky. If the court says a person will never lose/change his/her caste status that s/he acquired by virtue of birth; then it’s sad and a hopeless situation. I don’t think the court of law should pass such a harsh verdict, confining a person with status acquired by birth.  

Such a verdict will also make men avoid marrying inter-caste to women from SC/ST communities - in order to avoid potential legal actions. If a husband and wife fight and the wife files a case under Prevention of Atrocities Act (SC/ST), the man’s future may get doomed.  

I think such harsh laws should not be applicable for marital disputes. If the man had married the woman, he would have considered her as ‘equal’. If he changed his mind afterwards, then also such cases could be filed under normal human rights laws (e.g. Protection of Civil Rights Act), not necessarily PAA (Prevention of Atrocities Act). The only situation where this rule may deem fit to be applied is when atrocities are made against the woman by her in-laws and relatives. Some times a man from so called higher caste marries a woman from so called lower caste without honest consent from his parents and relatives. In such cases, the bride may have to bear atrocities in hands of her in-laws, because of her previous caste. But husbands should be spared from this act.

I think PAA should not be applicable under marital disputes; otherwise there are high chances that this law would be misused by aggrieved women and it would discourage inter-caste marriages. 

- Rahul

I used to wear a slim silver ring which had a pearl at its centre. I had been wearing it for around 15 years. After some years of use, it used to get loose and I would get it fixed by the silversmiths. In my hometown they would charge me only Rs 10 for the job. They would heat a pair of metallic tongs and press the metal around the stone, thereby fixing it.  

I needed to get the same job done while I was in Mumbai. But I found no jewellery shop agreeing to do the job! And to my horror, they criticized me and had a ‘you are so cheap’ look in their eyes when they saw me wearing this ‘light’ and ‘thin’ ring! One after the other all jewellers offered to help me only if I agreed to get some more metal and get the ring remade as a heavier one. That would make them earn some hundreds of rupees and I would get a big heavy ring. I didn’t like the idea as it would give me flashy jewellery and was costly too, but I had no choice. If I didn’t agree with them, I would have to bear with wearing a loose ring which had the risk of the stone getting out and losing itself. Ultimately I agreed to their design.  

Just some weeks afterwards, I felt an itch in my little finger with ring. I took out the ring and was shocked to see the skin below it. The skin was swollen, pinkish and very different! I removed the ring for some time and it became alright. I wore the ring again and faced the same problem! Water would go inside the ring and since the ring was too bulky and big, it would keep some water beneath – resulting in skin becoming wet and swollen. I got the ring enlarged a bit but now it became more uncomfortable to wear because of its weight. After hanging on with it for some more weeks, I permanently removed the ring. I lost my dear ring and the white pearl – the ring that had witnessed ‘life’ with me.  

I realised that I had made a wrong decision by agreeing with the money-minded jewellers. My earlier ring was thin, light and comfortable. It was unnecessary to use a ‘big’ and ‘heavy’ ring. The jeweller gained by making a heavy and big ring for me, but I lost. 

‘Less’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘scarce’. We should be careful, because businessmen’s lust for money is creating an environment which doesn’t support those who are ‘content with less’. My dear ring gave me this message. I will try to get another thin and light ring made for me and will be content with it.  

- Rahul

One evening, I was reading Madhushala by Harivansh Rai Bachchan. Many lines from the poem seemed very different to me than their plain literal meanings. For example, I pick three stanzas: 

मदिरालय जाने को घर से चलता है पीनेवला,

‘किस पथ से जाऊँ?’ असमंजस में है वह भोलाभाला,

अलग-अलग पथ बतलाते सब पर मैं यह बतलाता हूँ -

‘राह पकड़ तू एक चला चल, पा जाएगा मधुशाला।‘। ६। 

A person on the path to spirituality may get confused after seeing so many religions and so many sects - all of them claiming to be the “true path” shown by “the true lord”. What will the learner do, especially in case the multiple paths have some very different traits? Here, the poet tells - “Catch any one of the paths and just keep going. You will reach your destination.” Since the destination is “one” while the paths can be many, it doesn’t really matter which path we are on. All paths would lead to the same truth, if one walks properly.  

बिना पिये जो मधुशाला को बुरा कहे, वह मतवाला,

पी लेने पर तो उसके मुह पर पड़ जाएगा ताला,

दास द्रोहियों दोनों में है जीत सुरा की, प्याले की,

विश्वविजयिनी बनकर जग में आई मेरी मधुशाला।।२४। 

There would be many fence-sitters who would be sceptic towards religions and spirituality. They would not believe in things without even trying them out. The poet calls all such people as naive and remarks that they would be spell bound if they first drink a bit from the spiritual reservoir of dharma. Goals of dharma remain the same for all, whether they are rich or poor and all of us worship the same God. Therefore, our dharma is a kind of equaliser and it unifies and levels all worldly differences. 

एक बरस में, एक बार ही जगती होली की ज्वाला,

एक बार ही लगती बाज़ी, जलती दीपों की माला,

दुनियावालों, किन्तु, किसी दिन आ मदिरालय में देखो,

दिन को होली, रात दिवाली, रोज़ मनाती मधुशाला।।२६। 

In these lines, the poet tries to show us the constraints in and smallness of rituals. The festivals that we celebrate come only once every year. Holi comes only once; Diwali comes only once a year. But for a devotee, there is no special day or night to submit him/herself to God. The path to spirituality has no special days, times or place - unlike ritualistic religion. Therefore, we should not remain bound by ritual-based religions and we should celebrate our bhakti anytime, anywhere. 

I don’t know if I made much sense; but on afterthoughts, I liked the manner in which a very different meaning came out of this famous poem. 

- Rahul

I had developed a boil on the skin of my leg. Within some days, it grew big and became painful. I consulted a doctor and started medication, but for initial days there was no respite. I had decided not to buy the pain-killer as was prescribed due to fear of side reactions. The boil was in no mood to give me any peace; and it pained all the day. Some puss came out initially; later on blood was all that I saw around. I didn’t tell anyone in the office about my illness. It was business as usual for others; but for me it was as if I saw every moment passing by. 

I was in a meeting and we were discussing things. I was as usual at exterior and no one knew what pain I felt within. Suddenly it occurred to me if I could be sure that I was the only one in such a situation?  

Everyday, we meet and interact with dozens of people. Some of them would be friendly, some others not so much. Some would be courteous, some others a bit rude. But many of them would be in a similar situation as I was in at the moment. May be, many of them would also be suffering from some illness which they won’t have told us about. Many others would have some problems and worries in their minds, which we would never know. Therefore, if we don’t find someone at his/her best or courteous enough, we should not judge one at sight.  

We can’t see the whole truth. We can’t see what lies behind a face. Therefore, we should not conclude.  

- Rahul

One day, our office witnessed a high drama because someone fell down! But there was a very useful lesson in the end…  

The time was just before lunch. There was a new person who was working since morning in a glass chamber near my cubicle. I had recently joined the company and didn’t know who he was. Just before lunch, there was a huge commotion near his cabin. When I went there, I found a group of people looking down at a point on the floor. I went in and saw it was the same gentleman, fallen down flat and apparently unconscious! I guessed a heart attack and asked to contact the control room for help. Suddenly, the peon entered the scene in haste and banged his head on the glass door – he had missed to see the transparent but visible door despite crossing it every day! It was a loud big-bang which later left its mark on his face in the form of a big swelling on the forehead. By this time people had made a discovery – there as a moveable chair which was lying broken!  

Moving ahead, colleagues helped the fallen man on his feet. The man was huge – obese to be honest - and in his 50s. His age should generate some sympathy, if his situation was not enough to. The first thing he did after getting up was to say, “I have fallen like this (breaking a chair) for the first time in my life!” His statement appeared to be an explanation in the light of his weight! The high drama continued. He started sobbing, at the apparent ‘insult’ of having fallen down flat breaking a strong chair! Someone proposed and others obeyed – he was given a ‘pain-killer’ tablet. Someone else made the pantry-guy console him with two gulab-jamuns! It was not enough. People from other floors and divisions started pouring in to see the ‘accident’ scene by their own eyes! (People now days have perhaps lost either trust or patience or may be both!)  

When I went for the lunch, another colleague asked me, “Rahul, why did you made the guy fell down”? I smiled and said I had done nothing (even nothing to help him). Next, I heard a huge laughter from another corner. Someone had asked another colleague the same question and he had replied with, “Gire hue ko kaun girayega?” (Who will make a ‘fallen-guy’ fall?) I couldn’t understand the joke! But the laughter it had generated had made me amused! How could they laugh at the poor fallen-guy in his mid-50s? I couldn’t understand it! Until it was close of office hours, when I got to know who the fallen-guy was.  

The guy worked (for too many years) in the administration department and was a devil in the eyes of the employees for his unaccommodating nature. He would often harass them for small mistakes and would not try even a bit to help them. He enjoyed his position as a matter of prestige and since he was in admin he got too many opportunities to throw his weight around. It was because of this reason that no one really felt bad for him when he had fallen down. And hence the joke, “Who can make a ‘fallen-guy’ fell down”?  

His ego of being ‘higher’ than the rest resulted in him getting into such an insulting ‘fallen’ position!  

- Rahul

Jaisa Karoge – Waisa Bharoge: As you sow so will you reap. All of us have heard this saying. Some days back I saw it happening in front of my eyes.  

I was travelling to a locality which was not known to me. I had taken an auto-rickshaw. To my surprise that auto-driver was highly uncooperative (as an exception to the extremely helpful Mumbai auto-wallahs). He was rude, non-responsive to queries and even pretended to be in half-sleep. Before getting into his rickshaw I had asked him about the place and he had nodded in affirmation. But after reaching nearby that place he showed complete ignorance to the place and the lanes. I needed to stop him and get down many times to ask for a proper way to reach. I was angry at his apathy and laziness. It was then that a traffic-policeman stopped him and took him away. When he returned back he told that he had crossed a red light in haste and hence was panelised with a bribe of Rs 100. 

Reaching nearby my destination, I got down and left after paying him the basic fare. He complained about his loss of revenues due to the penalty – apparently hoping that I would help him with some tip. After having that kind of experience with him, the tip was hard to come by.  

His lazy and inattentive attitude not only resulted in him getting penalised by a fine, but it also put me off to help him in anyway. Indeed that was an example of Instant Karma in action.  

- Rahul

How negative attitudes like greed are self-defeating can be seen in one of my recent experiences.  

One of my friends was stuck up in his job and was eagerly looking out for a change. I helped him with fixing an interview with one of my previous employers. I was sure that he would get through and I assured him of a positive result in order to boost him up. Now when this guy saw something coming up to him, he showed some hidden traits. First, he increased his ‘expected salary’ to a level to match ‘my’ own present salary (perhaps showing envy to me). While doing this, he forgot that his educational/professional credentials never matched mine and hence his expectation was unjustified. Secondly, he cooked up his present salary to a very high level in order to justify the demanded jump. When I heard what he salary he had demanded in the interview, I was disappointed because I knew the company could never afford this salary for the open position. The result: even after renegotiating for several months, he didn’t get selected. And he has not got any further opportunities so far. The lost opportunity costed him dearly, and he was left in a frustrating condition. And after this experience I too would never help him again.  

If only he could have been realistic – which was possible only if he didn’t possess greed – today he would be in a much contented position. 

- Rahul