Translation problem : Dharma is not religion and religion is not dharma!

    

       Translation in its simplest form is translating words from one language to another.Translation however gets tricky when translating words from one domain to another.In the domain of social science or theology words like religion, dharma, God , Ishwar etc have heaps of thoeries backing them and those theories are not always compatible , making accurate one to one translation of words almost impossible.

       In this essay I will try to point out some of the problems that translation of words like religion causes.

       In his outstanding books  “Heathen in his blindness” , “Cultures Differ Differently” and “What it means to be Indian” S.N Balgangadhara argues : what we have in India, is not religion but traditions. All those “isms” Hinduism, Buddhism , Sikhism and Jainism are not religions in the same sense of the word semitic religions are. (that is  Judaism , Christianity and Islam are religions)

     S.N Balgangadhar in his various books conclusively argues that religion as a cultural universal is a biblical idea or secularised christian idea ,which unfortunately today we all have  accepted as common sense truth. Very thought that there is no religion in India  (or for that matter in Asia .China and Japan for instance also do not have religion) makes us extremely anxious and defensive. 

        Whosoever translated religion to dharma has translated the word but understood neither religion nor dharma. These are not simple words from the same domain (theological in this case) , simple translation without understanding the theory of the domain can cause severe damage. 

         In the practical world today when we use the word “religion” for Bhartiya traditions , we  end up internalising all the negative traits of semitic religions. For example Bhartiya traditions do not have any concept of blasphemy , hence there is no question of punishment for blasphemy , same goes for apostasy. So when a child learns about these negative traits of religion and he/she is told that “Hinduism"is also a religion then he/she simply associates those non-existent perils of semitic religion with “Hinduism”.

       Translation of Sanskrit word Dharma to religion in English exacerbates matters. Dharma is supreme in Bhartiya traditions. ShriRam followed putra dharma by whole heartedly accepting 14 year vanwas for honouring his father’s promise.Mata Janki followed her dharma by accompanying Shriram in vanvas without worrying about hardships. Same goes for all protagonists in Ramayana , i.e Laxman , Bharat , Shatrughna , Hanuman , Bibhishan , Sugriva , Angand and others. What we see here is the actions of all those protagonists in Ramayana are as per Dharma , which has nothing to do with worship of God , commandments of God or how God created the world etc. All of which are quintessential aspects of Semitic religions. I wish this (translation of Dharma to religion) could have been a matter of mere academic inconsistency however it is much more than academic problem. By translating Dharma as religion we have blessed semitic religions with all the great qualities of Dharma. People read phrases like “धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः” , “धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे” ,"यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः” and then also come across words such as “Islam Dharma” , “Christian Dharma” are inevitably bound to associate all the aforementioned great phrases with Islam and Christianity.

     When an average Hindu reads in the newspaper about the killing of Kamlesh Tiwari by Islamic terrorist, for avenging Kamlesh Tiwari’s “blasphemous” act of disrespecting “Islamic Nabi”. That Hindu reader is bound to develop disgust not only towards  Islam but towards Dharma as well. Reason is very simple , one can know with the help of rudimentary google search that the motivation of Islamic terrorists has sound backing of Islamic religion. Thus the act of killing someone  for a mere blasphemous statement can be religious but it can not be and it is not a Dharmik act. However because of the translation problem you will see regional news paper in India using words like “धार्मिक कट्टरपंथी” , “धर्मांध आतंकवादी” etc for depicting such actions. Thus we end up attaching the epithets “कट्टरपंथी” “आतंकवादी” to Dharma.

     We can take example of BhagwatGita to understand difference between Semitic religions and Bhartiya traditions. For Jews,Christains and Muslims Bible or Qoran are word of God , disobeying God or Allah is not an option for believers.Whereas we see at the end of BhagwatGita ShriKrishna tells Arjun , I have explained most secret knowledge to you and you may do as you wish. Thus on one hand we have God/Allah commanding believers and on other hand we have Bhagwan after dialogue spanning 700 sholkas telling his disciple/friend/cousin to do as he pleases.

Now you see why translating Bhagwan or Ishwar to God and vice a versa is problematic.

Verse : 

"इति ते ज्ञानमाख्यातं गुह्याद्गुह्यतरं मया। 

विमृश्यैतदशेषेण यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु ॥ ६३॥

Translataion by Prabhupada : Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.

     To illustrate further lets look into Michel Danino’s brilliant comparison of Abrahamic God (Jehovah/Allah) with Hiranyakashyap. Following is the excerpt from Michael Danino’s book ( note : Jehovah is the Hebrew name for God)

     If you look at Jehovah in the light of Indian experience, it is striking that he has all the characteristics of an asura. Recall for a moment a being such as Hiranyakashipu: did he not, too, forbid all other cults? Did he not order that he alone should be worshipped as the supreme god? Did he not use fear and violence to try and coerce Prahlada? That he was stopped by a Divine manifestation, like many other asuras eager to possess this world, is another story; the point is that we find here the same seed of pride and cruelty as in Jehovah. 

     Thus some of the qualities of abrahamic God are same as adharmic asura in Bhartiya tradition and we realise the absurdity of translation of words like Dharma , Ishwar/Bhagwan to religion and God respectively.Bhartiya traditions (“Hinduism” ,”Jainism” , “Buddhism” and “Sikhism”) hence are not religions and Semitic religions (Judaism , Christianity and Islam) are not Dharma.

Anurag Choudhary

Message of Bhagwadgita : God resides in every heart.

         Bhawadgita was written more than three thousand years ago (1000 BC) if we even go by most conservative of various date predictions.Reading 700 shloks of Bhagwadgita you get awestruck by timelessness and how relevant its message remains till date. Hinduism often finds itself being accused of institutionalising discriminatory caste system or varna ashram,though varna and caste are not synonymous terms. Considering dubious credentials of "experts" who make such allegations I always had my doubts!

          While reading Bhagawadgita one thing strikes you as lightning , the message of equality. Ultimate goal of human life as explained by ShriKrishna to Arjun in Bhagwadgita is attaining Moksha and I did not find a single verse or sholka that says only person of particular varna can attain Moksha. In none of the hymns Shrikrishna condones discrimination based on varna.On the contrary there are several hymns wherein you find message of unequivocal equality or samatva.

           This is my humble attempt to put all such relevant sholkas together to make my point.Following is list of chapter wise selected hymns, text in Italic font is English translation of Sanskrit hymns.

Adhyaya 4

येयथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम् ।
मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः ॥४-११॥

As all surrender unto me, I reward them accordingly.All men are following my path in all respects, O son of Prtha.

           In this hymn Bhagwan Shrikrishna tells Arjun that all men are following the path that ultimately leads to him (the God).

Adhyaya 6

सर्वभूतस्थमात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि ।
ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्र समदर्शनः ॥६-२९॥

A true yogi observes me in all beings and also sees every being in me.Indeed , self-realized person sees me , the supreme lord , everywhere.

यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति ।
तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति ॥६-३०॥
For one who sees me everywhere and sees everything in me, I am never lost , nor is he ever lost to me.

सर्वभूतस्थितं यो मां भजत्येकत्वमास्थितः ।
सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि स योगी मयि वर्तते ॥६-३१॥

One who worships me (god) residing in the heart of every living being , remains in me always and by all means.

              In aforementioned hymns from sixth adhyaya, dhyanyog,ShriKrishna explains how a Yogi should meditate (dhyan) or worship god. True Yogi or devotee according ShriKrishna is able to see god in every human , is also able to find god everywhere and such a devotee ultimately attains oneness with the god.

Adhyaya 7

बीजं मां सर्वभूतानां विद्धि पार्थ सनातनम् ।
बुद्धिर्बुद्धिमतामस्मि तेजस्तेजस्विनामहम् ॥७-१०॥

O son of Prtha,know that I am the original seed of all existences, the intelligence of intelligent , and the prowess of all powerful men.

Adhyaya 9

समोऽहं सर्वभूतेषु न मे द्वेष्योऽस्ति न प्रियः ।
ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहम् ॥९-२९॥

I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whosoever worships me in devotion is a friend,is in me,and I am also his friend.

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः ।
स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥९-३२॥

O son of Prtha, those who take refuge in me, they may be lower birth women, vaishyas[merchants] and shudras[workers] – can attain the supreme destination.

            In above two verses of ninth adhyaya, named as param guhya gyan (super secret knowledge), it becomes clear that lord ShriKrishna treats everyone equally. He does not hate anyone , he does not discriminates based on birth. Neither gender nor varna of a person stops him/her from attaining supreme destination (param gatim). To reach God all you need is Bhakti or unconditional devotion.

Adhyaya 12

अद्वेष्टा सर्वभूतानां मैत्रः करुण एव च ।
निर्ममो निरहंकारः समदुःखसुखः क्षमी ॥१२- १३॥

संतुष्टः सततं योगी यतात्मा दृढनिश्चयः ।
मय्यर्पितमनोबुद्धिर्यो मद्भक्तः स मे प्रियः ॥१२-१४॥

One who is not envious but is kind friend to all living entities ,who does not think himself as a proprietor and is free from false ego , whose behaviour remains same in distress as well as happiness , who is pardoner,always satisfied,self-controlled and is engaged in devotional service with determination , his mind and intellect fixed on me –such devotee of mine is very dear to me.

समः शत्रौ च मित्रे च तथा मानापमानयोः ।
शीतोष्णसुखदुःखेषु समः सङ्गविवर्जितः ॥१२-१८॥

तुल्यनिन्दास्तुतिर्मौनी सन्तुष्टो येन केनचित् ।
अनिकेतः स्थिरमतिर्भक्तिमान्मे प्रियो नरः ॥१२-१९॥

One who is equal to friends and enemies ,who is equipoised in Honor and dishonour,heat and cold, happiness and distress ,fame and infamy ,who is always free from contaminating associations , always calm and satisfied with anything, does not care about home,who is fixed in knowledge and engaged in my worship – such a person is very dear to me.

ये तु धर्म्यामृतमिदं यथोक्तं पर्युपासते ।
श्रद्दधाना मत्परमा भक्तास्तेऽतीव मे प्रियाः ॥१२- २०॥

Those who follow this immortal path of devotion and who completely engage themselves with faith,making me the supreme goal ,are very, very dear to me.

            In these verses from twelfth adhyaya, Bhaktiyog,ShriKrishna depicts qualities of ideal devotee or Bhakta which are dear to him.If in ninth adhyaya Shri Krishna mentions how he treats all living beings equally then in twelfth adhyaya we see him asking his devotees to treat everyone equally and with compassion.

Adhyaya 13

ज्योतिषामपि तज्ज्योतिस्तमसः परमुच्यते ।
ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं हृदि सर्वस्य विष्ठितम् ॥१३-१७॥

He is the source of light in all luminous objects. He is beyond darkness of matter and is unmanifested. He is knowledge ,knowable , goal of knowledge.He is situated in everyone's heart.

समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम् ।
विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तं यः पश्यति स पश्यति ॥१३-२७॥

One who sees super soul(God) accompanying the individual soul in all bodies , and who understands that neither the soul nor the super soul within the destructible body is ever destroyed , actually sees.

           Gist of above hymns from thirteenth adhyaya is, god resides in heart of every living being ( hrdi sarvasya visthitam)

Adhyaya18

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप ।
कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः ॥१८-४१॥

Brahman,Kshatriya,Vaishya and Shudras are distinguished by the qualities born of their own natures, O destroyer of the enemy.

शमो दमस्तपः शौचं क्षान्तिरार्जवमेव च ।

ज्ञानं विज्ञानमास्तिक्यं ब्रह्मकर्म स्वभावजम् ॥१८-४२॥

Serenity, self control, austerity, purity, patience, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and belief in God are qualities by which Brahaman works.

शौर्यं तेजो धृतिर्दाक्ष्यं युद्धे चाप्यपलायनम् ।

दानमीश्वरभावश्च क्षात्रं कर्म स्वभावजम् ॥१८-४३॥

Bravery,power,determination,dexterity,not fleeing from battle, charity, and leadership are natural qualities of work for Kshatriyas.

कृषिगौरक्ष्यवाणिज्यं वैश्यकर्म स्वभावजम् ।

परिचर्यात्मकं कर्म शूद्रस्यापि स्वभावजम् ॥१८-४४॥

Farming,cow protection,business are natural qualities of work for Vashya and Shudras work is labor and service.

स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः ।

स्वकर्मनिरतः सिद्धिं यथा विन्दति तच्छृणु ॥१८-४५॥

One can attain the perfection by devotion to one's natural work. Hear from me how one attains perfection while remaining engaged in one's natural work.

ब्रह्मभूतः प्रसन्नात्मा न शोचति न काङ्क्षति ।
समः सर्वेषु भूतेषु मद्भक्तिं लभते पराम् ॥१८-५४॥

Absorbed in the Supreme Being, the serene one neither laments nor desires; he is equally disposed towards every living entity, he obtains the highest devotional love for God.

ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति ।
भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया ॥१८-६१॥

The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart,O Arjuna ,and is directing the wanderings of all living entities,who are seated as on machine, made of the material energy.

इति ते ज्ञानमाख्यातं गुह्याद्‌गुह्यतरं मया ।
विमृश्यैतदशेषेण यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु ॥१८-६३॥

Thus the knowledge that is more secret than the secret has been explained to you by Me. After fully reflecting on this, do as you wish.

         With the help of aforementioned verses from the last chapter , we can definitely infer that varnashram in Dwaparyuga was based on division of work done.You don't find  Shudra's work for instance being denigrated or Brahaman's work being praised here, on the contrary in shloka-45 Shri Krishna explicitly says it is possible for all to attain siddhi or perfection while remaining indulged in one's dutiful work.Only condition imposed is one has to dedicate his or her work to God without worrying about results.

          It is also interesting to note that cow protection is mentioned as duty of Vaishya and fighting in war is obviously duty of Kshatriya.Shri Krishna himself was cow protector hence known as Gopal .At the same time Shri Krishna was great warrior himself, he is known as Madhusudan for killing devil named Madhu.Thus Shri Krishna performed duties of Kshatriya as well as Vashiya.

        

         In verse number 61 , Shri Krishna reiterates that god resides in everyone's heart.Swami Vivekananda  in his numerous writings and speeches had always made distinction between Hindu religion and Hindu society and he on numerous occasion had pointed out how it is wrong to put all the evils of society at the door of religion.Caste based discrimination is the problem with our society,not religion.Bhagwadgita which we all Hindus believe to be word of God preaches us to treat everyone equally ,rather it asks us to see the divinity in every living being.

 

Anurag Choudhary

 

 

Hinduism : Religion which has always embraced reform and reformers.

Vivekananda during his famous Chicago address cited following sholk from Bhagwat Gita.

||यॆ यथा माम्́ प्रपद्यंतॆ| ताम्́स्तथैवभजाम्य् अहम् | ममवर्त्मानुवर्तंतॆ | मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः ||

In this hymn Bhagwan Shrikrishna tells Arjun that all men are following the path that ultimately leads to him (the God).

Hinduism is not all about idol worship , it is perhaps the only religion which recognizes all forms of worships as correct and denounces none.You will find in the writings of Swami Vivekananda that the great man has explained it at length about how atheism of Jain philosophy,agnosticism of Buddha and ritualistic aspects of Sanatan Dharma have all not only found peaceful coexistence but also flourished under this wide umbrella called Hinduism.

Hindus never crucified any of the reformers.To talk about reformers there were many starting from Jain thinkers who questioned the violence involved in rituals of animal sacrifice, there was Gautam Buddha whose agnostic thoughts preferred compassion over ritualistic religious zeal.In more recent history we had Guru Nanak founder of Sikh religion which emphasized on monotheism.Guru Nanak wanted Sikhs to do away with image worshiping although not in iconoclastic manner of Abrahamic religions. Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati,founder of Arya Samaj was was probably staunchest critique of idol worship and he wanted Hindus to get back to the methods mentioned in their oldest scriptures,the Vedas.

History thus shows that Hindus have whole heatedly embraced those who challenged religion of their time. Gautam Buddha, who challenged religious practices of Hindus of his time is even worshiped as God by Hindus.

In recent times Bollywood film makers have made subtle as well as overt attempt to condemn idol worship by Hindus.Oh my god staring Paresh Rawal criticized idol worship in sarcastic manner and now PK has used satire , mockery to take a dig at this form of worship.

Amir Khan in a statement made in defense of PK movie said he wants to consciously send a message to society through movies and hence he agrees with the message given by PK. So apart from primary objective of making money out of commercial movies there is also this moral grandstanding of spreading "right message". That means PK's mocking of idol worship can not be defended merely by saying that it is just a movie or artistic expression . People associated with the movie also say they are only against blind faith and not against Hinduism. They say they are especially against blind faith shown by people on God-men. Larger question is , don't you think faith in religion itself is blind. What is the difference between people who show blind faith in god-men and people who believe that god has stopped sending his messengers to the earth after certain messenger and it is that particular messenger who said this but we should believe that it was not the messenger but god himself speaking. Sounds like a blind faith isn't it?

Point I am trying to make here is , there is no problem with criticism of idol worship however we can not ignore hypocrisy of those who are trying to denounce one form of worship in the guise of reform.

Allow me to use following two quotes from Swami Vivekananda to make my point amply clear

1)“Superstition is a great enemy of man, but bigotry is worse. Why does a Christian go to church? Why is the cross holy? Why is the face turned toward the sky in prayer? Why are there so many images in the Catholic Church?Why are there so many images in the minds of Protestants when they pray? My brethren, we can Do more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing-By the law of association the material image calls up the mental idea and vice versa. This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he worships.He will tell you. it helps to keep his mind fixed on the Being to whom he prays.”

2)“Those reformers who preach against image-worship, or what they denounce as idolatry —to them I say "Brothers, if you are fit to worship God-without-form discarding all external help, do so, but why do you condemn others who cannot do the same? “

It is great to laugh and poke fun at others when you have courage and honesty to also laugh at yourself and this is where CharlieHebdo,French satirical weekly magazine is different from Amir Khan starer Bollywood movie PK.Charlie Hebdo used satire against all religions including Christianity whereas PK is guilty of mocking one form of worship that is idol worship which incidentally  also happens to be condemned in religion of film's leading protagonist.

Anurag Choudhary.

In the battle between fatwa and rule of law latter does not stand a chance!

In 1988 Rajiv Gandhi banned Satanic Verses, a book written by Salman Rushdie well before dubious fatwa was issued by Ayatoallha Khomeini in Iran. Iran mind you is Islamic republic and India is supposed to be secular democracy. Same Rajiv Gandhi government with the help of  more than two third majority had overturned a supreme court judgement by constitutional amendment in Shah Bano case. Two decades later Salman Rushdie a POI(person of Indian origin) card holder wanted to attend a literary festival in Rajsthan and Deoband was quick to issue a fatwa against him. Shameless/spineless response of our government made sure that fatwa is honored and Rushdie cancels his visit. From 1988 to 2012 nothing changed and forget about secularism even rule of law is not upheld by such spineless submission. In India this  unique kind of competitive secularism is practised wherein political parties can go to any extent to appease religious fanatics specially if they think such action would  influence electorally important minority community ahead of all important UP elections.

This is not the first of such instance, in 2006 Da Vinci Code movie was banned in six Indian states Punjab, Goa, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. India must be  only democratic country to impose ban on Da Vinci Code.

Now let us look into below two curious cases to understand how selectively this government acts

1) Few months back Arundhanti Roy shared stage with Kashmiri extremist Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao and various other people representing groups which had only one thing in common that is India hatred. She along with Geelani delivered extremely seditious, provocative anti India speech in the heart of the capital. Delhi police was forced to register FIR as few citizens approached it however no further action was taken.Congress government displayed tremendous tolerance in the name of freedom of speech.

2) Supreme court ordered release of Maoist ideologue Binayak Sen and law minister of the day Virappa Moily was quick to issue a statement that we need to rethink about the sedition law.  Dr Sen was also offered an important position in planning commission. In this case also congress government shown magnanimity in accommodating a person who supports violent armed action to overthrow democratically elected government.

These instances show that spreading anti India venom can be tolerated but you dare not utter a word which will hurt the sentiments of religious group considered as largest vote bank.Question that need to be asked is if this government  can let so many people get away with anti national speeches/writings then why it does not go extra mile to welcome  an author of Indian origin who is cautious enough in not making any reference to book which he wrote some 24 years back

This opportunistic politics of congress has its roots in Khilafat movement, congress started supporting  Khilafat  agitation in 1920.Ottoman Empire collapsed in world war 1 and position of Caliph(religious head) was abandoned. Khilafat  agitation was launched by Indian Muslims against British empire to influence an intervention from them. For all its religious significance to Muslims in India the issue had absolutely nothing to do with Indian independence movement but Mahatma Gandhi married those two issues and Indian national congress whole heartedly supported Khilafat cause. Whatever may have been merits of Khilafat issue but congress had set an extremely bad precedent by accommodating a religious cause in a national political movement to win mass Muslim support.

Protecting citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech is the primary responsibility of government and it can not shy away from it even if it feels doing so makes some loony fringe group unhappy and jeopardizes it’s  campaign in an important election. 

Anurag Choudhary

Indian batting misery : Is it beginning of the end of a great era?

In Indian cricket first decade of 21st centaury will always be remembered for Indian team breaking stereotype of  soft travelers and pulling off some great victories in tests outside subcontinent. When India won Perth test on 19-Jan-2008 , Australia had not lost single test match on it’s home soil since 16-Dec-2003 and guess which team beat them  back then, well it was India. That goes to show India’s improved overseas record and then we could boldly declare that dark Azharuddin era of dismal tours was indeed thing of past. We lost  4-0  in England this year and whitewash in  Australia is not looking unlikely .Question that comes to my mind is this the beginning of the end of illustrious overseas batting performances ? 

Sachin:  In South Africa this great Indian maestro was flying high with the help of second wing. Now also he is getting good starts but that illusive three figure mark ,that big innings is just not happening for him. Is all the hype and talk of 100th century taking its toll? Are old tiring body and mind not able to concentrate for longer periods? Only time will tell for we cannot enter into his mind to find an answer.

Dravid: Australian quickies are successfully penetrating red leather between bat and pad of our great wall. Dravid was the sole shining light, sole warrior in otherwise bunch of submissive, dismal batters in England. Siddle and company are getting the better of him with probing in-swingers.

Laxman: The  artist, most stylish amongst so called holy trinity, at this stage of  career finds himself in a situation where in every failure triggers talk of retirement. With every  Pattinson delivery that gets the edge of driving  willow of Laxman , we quitely ask if we have seen last of this great batsman. Throw pace and bounce challenge at him and he will overcome it with flying colors but same does not apply to seam and swing. This drawback was brutally exploited by Andersons and Broads of the world in English summer and now he  is struggling to cope with young  Ausi pace  attack on comparatively more seaming tracks.

Gambhir: For all his great efforts in subcontinent and in New Zealand, he has not proven his worth against quality bowling attacks away from home. That tentative poke at deliveries outside the off stump resulting in outside edge looks like same story played all over again. His case appears weaker than Laxman and he may be just one failure away from being axed.

Shewag:  Key to India’s success in 2003 was starts provided by fearsome Shewag and calm Aakash Chopra. Baring first innings at MCG Shewag’s failure meant middle order was exposed far too early for India’s comfort.

Kohli: Like Raina this prince of shorter format is realizing how tough transition from blue to white can get. When Kohli is batting it looks matter of time before he finds not so sweet part of the bat and umpire raises his index finger. His not so smart use of finger adjacent to index finger made sure he grabbed headline for wrong reason and lost 50% of match fees in the process. Rohit Sharma is knocking the door hard and I am sure Kohli is listening.

Dhoni: You cannot command respect as skipper with such batting record in test cricket. Good news for Dhoni is there is no decent wicket-keeper batsman knocking the door at the moment.

Anurag Choudhary

Redefining secularism.

                          Lokpal and reservation appear to be two completely different ideas and no sane person would think of marring them together. But then politics is art of possibilities. In it's haste to play to minority galleries ahead of UP election congress seems to be determined to redefine notion of secularism.
                          Debate about reservation always seems to be focused on “to whom” aspect and in post Mandal era we seem to have given up on the question of “why reservation”. Dr. Ambedkar wanted reservation for scheduled casts on the grounds of historical discrimination against them and to ensure social justice.Whether reservation is the only and correct way of providing helping hand to the deprived scheduled cast can be seriously debated however no right thinking person would disagree that helping hand  was indeed required. In principal helping hand is provided to make sure that in Independent India there is level playing field for the historically deprived section of society.
                         Body blow was delivered to this logic when VP Singh decided to bring OBCs under reservation umbrella. By including OBCs we have deviated from agreed upon principal of reservation. Reservation cannot be provided to a community just because majority of the people from that community did not find their way up the economic ladder. There has to be beyond reasonable doubt evidence that social discrimination did not provide level playing field to the particular community and hence they were not able to find they were up. I do not think OBCs come clean if put to test on aforementioned criteria.
                           As if this was not bad enough congress and other “secular” political parties are raising their pitch for providing reservation to minorities. Our constitution does not permit reservation based on religion and that makes lot of sense for a secular democracy like India. Besides many Muslim casts already fall under OBC category.
                            Was there a social discrimination against Muslims at any point in pre and post independent India? Did Muslims comprise of oppressed class at any point in time? Didn't they rule many parts of India for more than 200 years? How can community which once belonged to ruling class claim to be victim of social injustice? Is it not true that defiance to give up Madarsa education and refusal to embrace modern mainstream education is the root cause of lack of job opportunities for them?
                          It’s true that vast section of Muslim population lives well below acceptable living standards and so does the vast section of Hindu population (even ones which do not fall under any reserved categories).Does that mean Muslim should be given reservation? If yes then why not include economically weaker section of society irrespective of their cast and religion? If poor from Brahmin or a Kshatriya cast cannot be brought under reservation because that goes against principal of reservation then same logic disqualifies Muslims.
                         There is one more dangerous repercussion of religion based reservation that is conversion. In India barring few states such as Gujarat conversion is legal. There is serious polarization of opinion on whether change of religion should be permitted. Allegations and counter allegations are often made by both the parties. Religion based reservation would definitely incentivize conversion from majority to minority religion and in turn would act as fuel to the fire in an already confrontational problem.
                          Secularism essentially means separation of church and state. In an ideal secular democratic liberal polity, which India must strive hard to become one, there should be no place for religion based quota. Lets hope this  petty politics of religion based quota is defeated and  pseudo secular forces do not succeed in making necessary constitutional amendment.

Anurag Choudhary.

Alright Anna Hazare is not Gandhian so was Gandhi himself one?

Anna Hazare's comments about beating up durnkards in village and his reaction to Pawar slap episode have raised many eye brows.Intellectuals ,pundits in media are writing columns questioning these "non Gandhian" methods of Hazare.

Basic question that comes to my mind is what does being a Gandhian mean? Does it mean unconditional comittment to non violence ? By this rule if a person happens to induldge in any kind of violence himself or  supporting violence then he immideatley disquallifies from being Gandhian.Every statement issued by Anna Hazare nowadays  is scrutinized against Gandhian benchmarks of absolute non violence.

Alright now lets put Gandhi himself to those stringent benchmarks of non-violence and lets see if he comes clean.

1) In South Africa Gandhi used to run  a news paper named Indian Opinion.During British offensive against native rebellions (Zulu War)  Gandhi wrote many columns in Indian Opinion urging Indians to  participate in Zulu War and he also tried to persuade  government to accept support of Indians in their war effort.Finally Gandhi had to just settle for working in ambulance corp as government rejected his overture of Indians helping in combative effort.

2) Many of you might not know but Gandhi was ardent advocate of  India and Indians supporting Britain in world war 1. He also actively recruited Indians to fight for British in world war 1. Recruited Indian soldiers were obviously not going to employ non violent means to change the heart of British foes.

 So to much of our astonishment  we find that Mr Gandhi himself was not full proof "Gandhian". If Gandhi himself was not Gandhian then its foolish to expect Anna Hazare to be one.

Anurag Choudhary.