The Abomination of Casteism

IN HIS ground-breaking book, Annihilation of Caste, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar diagnosed the caste-problem as being fundamentally religious in nature and proposed the only cure to be a rejection of the Shastras or Hindu scriptures; for, he observed, "the acts of the people are merely the results of their beliefs inculcated in their minds by the Shastras, and that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded." He proposed inter-caste marriages and inter-caste dinners as a plan of action; but, in response to Gandhi's response to have a rational approach to the Shastras and reject only interpolations rather than reject them altogether, he replied that the "masses do not make any distinction between texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told, and what they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of Caste and Untouchability." Towards the end of his indictment, Ambedkar begins to hint at a deeper problem than that of the Shastras:

For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them, there are hundreds who break Caste [[e.g. when a Brahmin sells shoes instead of practicing priesthood]] and trample upon the Shastras every day, but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity? Because they feel that if the masses are emancipated from the yoke of Caste, they would be a menace to the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this intellectual class, who would deny the masses the fruits of their [=the Brahmins'] thinking, is a most disgraceful phenomenon. [Text in double parenthesis, mine]

Ambedkar had noted that there are intellectual Brahmins who do not care for the Shastras but care much for caste. In other words, he had in a way acknowledged that the rejection of Shastras is the not real solution. Already in the discourse, he had noted that "Caste is no doubt primarily the breath of the Hindus. But the Hindus have fouled the air all over, and everybody is infected—Sikh, Muslim, and Christian." Was he referring to the permeation of casteism into Sikhism, Islam, and Christianity in India? If so, as is also the fact, the very phenomenon invalidates the argument that rejection of Shastras is the cure for caste-communalism. The Sikhs, the Muslims, and the Christians do not accept the Shastras.* Then, how is it that casteism holds a grip on many of them?

Though Ambedkar had tried to show in the treatise that castes among Sikhs, Muslims, and Christians is different from that which is found among Hindus, modern facts show that, on the contrary, the caste-system, regardless of religion, has permeated even these faith-groups. In fact, for a long time there have been movements among Christians that sought emancipation through various expressions in what is studied in Seminaries as dalit theologies. The question is raised whether identification with caste is a class problem or a religious problem. It is notable that converts from the different castes of the Hindu-fold continued to carry forward their caste-identities. See the following entries:

Caste System Among South Asian Muslims
Caste System Among Indian Christians
Caste System Among Sikhs in Punjab

Though "untouchability" is not always very obvious, casteism plays a big role in issues of marriage and association. In fact, there are, sadly, some "Christian" denominations in South India that are heavily caste-oriented. The author has personally heard of cases where some "upper caste Christians" wouldn't partake of the Lord's Communion because it was being administered by a Pastor who they regarded as being a "low caste". How repugnant?

Ambedkar had noted it well that it is easier for some "saints" to preach the equality of men in the eyes of God. There were examples of such preachers in the history of Hinduism. Ambedkar noted: "They did not preach that all men were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God—a very different and a very innocuous proposition, which nobody can find difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in."

Utilitarianism is the king. Mammon or worldliness bears the scepter over these men who make adulterous liaisons with the devil for the sake of earthly profit. They sell their faith for a pot of pottage and betray their Lord for 30 pieces of silver. They would secretly create false certificates and adopt false surnames of the lower caste in order to avail of jobs or privileges reserved for the latter. Then, they would proudly bear about their ancestral surnames and rejoice in their being a special species of men. How corrupt! How corrupt still that the abomination is placed in the Holy of Holies!

Is there a cure? Of course, there is: Repentance! Men are only slaves to what they submit to in their mind. Nothing can enslave them. Casteism is not just a social problem. It is SIN! It is the most irrational and superstitious concept to ever occur to human mind and the most self-dividing and self-destroying notion. Religion IS NOT THE ANSWER. If it was, why are there still castes among different religions. Why was there the division between nobility and the common man in the West? Why was there such persecution against the freedom of conscience?

God calls humans to repent of their sins against their fellow men. And, unless they are willing to treat their neighbors as themselves, they have no place in the Kingdom of God.

See Also:
The Origin of the Four Castes According to Manu

---

* Though it is an undeniable fact that casteism has its theoretical basis in the Vedas and the Hindu scriptures, including the Manusmriti, while converts to other faiths try to retain their caste-status in opposition to the doctrinal basis of their faith. For instance, when a Christian practices caste discrimination, his practice is not in conformity to the teachings of the Bible. However, for a Hindu to observe caste is not in any way a contradiction of the teachings of the Shashtras. [Sat 5 Aug 2017]

Anti-Conversion Bill Passed In Jharkhand

The draft of the Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Bill 2017 has been approved by the Raghubar Das Cabinet.¹. The Bill prohibits religious conversion by means of force or allurement. It states:

No person shall convert to attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion/ religious faith to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet any such conversion.

The Bill further prescribes that any religious conversion must only follow prior permission from the District Magistrate:

(1) Whoever converts any person from one religion/religious faith to another, either by performing any ceremony by himself for such conversion as a religious priest or takes part directly or indirectly in such ceremony shall take prior permission for such proposed conversion from the District Magistrate concerned by applying in such form as may be prescribed by rules.
(2) The person who is converted shall send intimation to the District Magistrate of the District concerned in which the ceremony has taken place of the fact of such conversion within such period and in such form as may be prescribed by rules.
(3) Whoever fails without sufficient cause, to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees five thousand or with both.

The Evangelical Fellowship of India responded immediately:

We note that similar laws already exist in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. They were made in Rajasthan, and were made and withdrawn in Tamil Nadu.

Although such laws existed in some Hindu principalities in colonial India in early 20th Century, since Independence, the Union or state government have not been able to define the terms inducement, coercion, force or fraud in the context of religion. The Government and in fact the Supreme Court have not given a definitive definition of the term ‘religion’ specially when it relates to faiths other than Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, or Buddhism and also has not yet explained, after 70 years of being a Republic, indigenous faith and belief systems of hundreds, if not thousands of small communities across the country, and especially in what are called tribal areas, are not listed separately but are lumped together under the majority religion.

The government has also not been able to adduce any proof or evidence over half a century of aggressive implementation of such laws, of any forcible conversions by Christians against whom such laws are essentially targeted. There are hardly any convictions in courts to sustain police and political allegations of forcible and fraudulent conversions. As a matter of fact, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, a few years ago, struck down efforts by the government to force prior approval, after the Evangelical Fellowship of India moved a petition along with other parties.²

Religious conversion is a burning issue in India. During the Independence Movement, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, had concluded that there was no dignity for the depressed classes as long as they identified themselves with the Hindu caste religion. He converted to Buddhism. He strongly opposed Gandhi's decry of religious conversions of the depressed classes. Gandhi regarded the "Harijan" (a term he coined) as not possessing the calibre for freedom of religious decision. Ambedkar opposed that. The concern of most leaders has been that the masses are incapable of decision making in matters of religion. However, these political leaders were elected by exercise of the freedom of decision by the same masses. Or was it that lure and force were used to conjure votes? Why not pass a Political Freedom Bill that requires any citizen voting for a political party to obtain prior permission from the Magistrate? Of course, this is unimaginable. The idea of prior permission is antithetical to the idea of freedom. Of course, these laws will not prevent citizens from exercising religious freedom. Religious conversions will continue to occur though many may not find it necessary to report their matters of conscience to the state.

One thing is positive about such laws, however. They prove that religious conversions that take place in spite of such laws cannot be called as inauthentic and false anymore. Faith conversion (a better word) cannot be challenged when one has genuine grounds for his/her personal belief.

See Also

Anti-Conversion Laws In India

NOTES
¹ Jharkhand Cabinet Clears Anti-Conversion Bill, Indian Express, Aug 2, 2017.
²Jharkhand Bill Ignores Himachal Lesson - (Download Bill copy)

Anti-Conversion Laws In India

From Marbaniang, Domenic. Secularism In India: A Historical Analysis (2009).

THERE WERE bills and acts in relation to religious conversion even before the independence. Instances are the Raigarh State Conversion Act of 1936 and the Udaipur State Conversion Act of 1946. These laws aimed at eliminating the rural and tribal rights of freedom to conscience and religion.[1] After independence, there have been at least five states (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat) that have enacted laws to either curtail or cease conversions. The following section is an account of the Freedom of Religion Acts enacted by States of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat to check the tide of religious conversions and problems arising from it. The Gujarat Law and parliamentary affairs minister Ashok Bhatt, recently, has referred to these laws as anti-conversion laws.[2]

1. The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1968

This anti-conversion law was enacted in face of allegations that the Christian Missionaries were using lure and force for religious conversions. In 1954, the Niyogi Committee set up by the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh accused Christian missionaries of creating ‘a state within a state’ and observed that the ‘philanthropic activities of Christian missionaries are a mask for proselytization.’[3] The Sangh Parivar also alleged that the missionaries were promoting political dissent in the State.[4]

The Madhya Pradesh Assembly rejected the Freedom of Religion Bills of 1958 and 1963. However, this bill was passed in 1968 as ‘The Freedom of Religion Act.’[5]

The Madhya Pradesh ‘Freedom of Religion Act’ requires that a convert produce a legal affidavit that s/he was not under any pressure, force, or allurement to convert but was converting by own will and desire after evaluating the religion properly.[6] Also according to this law, anyone who writes or speaks or sings of ‘divine displeasure’ (with an intention to induce forced conversion by means of threat) can be imprisoned for a period of up to two years and fined up to five thousand rupees.[7]

Evidently, this law is an open violation of the right to freedom of religion that includes the freedom to propagate one’s religion. What is ‘divine displeasure’ in one religion may not be ‘divine displeasure’ in another religion. However, without propagation of religion, this cannot be known to a person belonging to another religion. Moreover, if there is no propagation of such fundamentals of religion, which distinguish one religion from the other, then there can be no conversions. Therefore, a law prohibiting the preaching of a fundamental tenet such as ‘divine displeasure’ is an attempt to prevent the citizen from a proper exercise of his/her right to freedom of religion.

2. The Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968

 The state of Orissa enacted the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act in 1968. It stated that “no person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.”[8] Contravention of this law was punishable with imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to Rs 5,000. In the case of a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the punishment was up to two years of imprisonment and the limit of the fine raised to Rs. 10,000.[9]

The Orissa High Court, however, struck down the Act as ultra vires of the Constitution[10] on the ground that the state legislature did not have the right to legislate matters of religion.[11] The same year, the state of Madhya Pradesh also enacted the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act as seen above. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in contrary to the Orissa High Court, negated the challenge of some Christians that the Act violated their fundamental right as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution. The decisions of both the Courts were challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reversed the decision of the Orissa High Court.[12] The Supreme Court ruling by a full bench said:

We find no justification for the view that Article 25 granted a fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed of one religion only, but covers all religions alike and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following other religions.

What is freedom for one is freedom for others, in equal measure; and there can be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.[13]

Ruma Pal notes that this decision of the Supreme Court has been justifiably criticized for its failure in distinguishing between conversion by force and conversion by persuasion.[14] Even advertisements make use of the art of persuasion. The right of freedom to choose one’s own religion has no meaning if the very means of choice were removed. Choice between religions is unthinkable in the absence of an intellectually persuasive propagation of religion. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling that disregards the fundamental right to freedom of propagating one’s own religion is unjustifiable. As H.M. Seervai notes:

Art. 25(1) confers freedom of religion—a freedom not limited to the religion in which a person is born. Freedom of conscience harmonizes with this, for its presence in Art. 25(1) shows that our Constitution has adopted a “system which allows free choice of religion.” The right to propagate religion gives a meaning to freedom of choice, for choice involves not only knowledge but an act of will. A person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him. To propagate religion is not to impart knowledge and to spread it more widely, but to produce intellectual and moral conviction leading to action, namely, the adoption of that religion.[15]

Thus, the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968 cannot at all be considered a Freedom of Religions Act since it takes away the very means of freedom to choose and practice one’s own religion.

3. The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1978

This Act was enacted to prevent the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh from converting to other religions. It reads:

3) Prohibition of forcible conversion.

No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise any person from indigenous faith by use of force or by inducement or any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.

4) Punishment of Contravention of the Provision of Section.

Any person contravening the provisions contained in Section 2, shall without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment to the extent of two (2) years and fine up to ten thousand (10, 000) rupees. (i) whoever converts any person from his indigenous faith to any other faith or religion either by himself performing the ceremony for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking part directly in such ceremony shall, within such period after the ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to which the person converted belongs, of the fact of such conversion in such forms as may be prescribed.[16]

Evidently, the meanings given to the word ‘inducement,’ namely ‘the offer of any gift, or gratification, either cash or in kind and also include grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise,’ in the law can dangerously affect social work by religious groups, even though their intentions are charity-oriented. Such ambiguity within the law is a clear indication of the State’s intention to restrain individuals from using their right to freedom of religion.

4. The Tamil Nadu Anti-Conversion Act of 2002.

The Tamil Nadu Anti-conversion Act of 2002 stated that ‘No person shall convert or attempt to convert directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another either by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means.’[17] The immediate provocation for this Act, supposedly, ‘was the threat of hundreds of Dalits of Koothirambakkam village, near Kancheepuram, to change religion because their decades-old demand that their right to enter and worship at the common village temple be protected by the government had not been conceded.’[18]

There had been great protest against this ordinance from various corners. Police arrested 10 people who were planning a mass conversion on December 6, 2002 in protest to the new anti-conversion law. About 3,000 Dalits were to be converted to Christianity and Buddhism, without applying to the local magistrate to approve their conversion in accordance to the new law, on this day according to this plan.[19] Apparently, the Dalits saw this law as violating their fundamental rights and also ridding them of the opportunity to rise. However, President of the Maharashtra branch of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Ashok Chowgule, congratulated the Tamil Nadu government on the ordinance. He said conversions cause social tensions.[20] The State Council of the All-India Democratic Women's Association also opposed the bill as being unjustified and opposed to the rights of minorities and Dalits ensured in the Constitution.[21]

On May 7 2004, the Prohibition of Conversion Act Protest Committee appealed to the electorate to vote for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA). The DMK was said to have in its manifesto a promise to repeal the Anti-conversion law.[22] However, soon after the defeat of the BJP led coalition in the 2004 elections, the Tamil Nadu Government led by Jayalalitha repealed the law in June to the chagrin of many Hindu Fundamentalists and Nationalists.[23]

5. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.

Soon after its victory in Gujarat the Narendra Modi government decided to accord "top priority" to the commitment given in the BJP poll manifesto and enact a law against religious conversions in the state.[24] Accordingly, the Gujarat Assembly passed the Freedom of Religion Act in March 2003.[25] It was called the Dharam Swatantrata Vidheya[26] (Freedom of Religion Act). Narendra Modi called the Act as one of the main ‘achievements’ of his government’s one year in office.[27] Evidently, anti-conversion law is a significant part of BJP agenda. The law prohibited conversion by force or inducement.[28]
All the above anti-conversion laws violate the Constitutional provision of fundamental rights to the citizens of India. Thus, it has been seen that the various anti-conversion laws are a direct contravention of the provisions given in the Constitution.

Also, the opposition of conversion is, evidently, an attempt to destroy the citizen’s right to freedom of religion and desecularize Indian society. Though it is known that this attempt is futile in this globally connected world of information explosion, yet many of the Sangh activists are actively busy in trying to stop conversions, reconvert non-Hindus to Hinduism, and make India a Hindu nation. Back in 2002, L.K. Advani, the then Deputy Prime Minister of India, told the parliament that ‘India can never be turned into a Hindu nation.’[29]

True to Advani’s statement, India can never be turned into a Hindu nation because of the educational, economical, social, and political foundation that the British and the early leaders of Independent India laid.

NOTES

---

[1] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[2] ‘Anti-conversion Laws Yet To be Framed,’ The Times of India, Nov. 7, 2004, Ahmedabad.
[3] Subhash Agarwal, ‘Law, Order, & Religious Conversions’, The Financial Express, Sept. 25, 2003.
[4] Hansel D’Souza, ‘Christians Awake! The Secular Citizen’, June 1995, http://www.hvk.org/Publications/cihp/an1.html
[5] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[6] Ibid, p. 146 & R. Domenic Savio, ‘A Descriptive Study of Prarthana Bhavan, Sanjay Koyala Nagar’, (unpublished M.A. Thesis, Acts Academy of Higher Education, 2004), p. 81.
[7] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 142.
[8] Section 3 of the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act, 1968. As cited by Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, Religion and Personal Law in Secular India (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), http://iupress.indiana.edu/textnet/0-253-33990-1/0253108683.htm
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[11] Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, op. cit.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[14] Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, op. cit.
[15] As cited by Ruma Pal, op. cit.
[16] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, pp. 141-2.
[17] ‘Anti-conversion Ordinance Decried’, The Times of India, Nov. 6. 2004, http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=2469800
[18] Frontline, Dec.3, 2004, p.10.
[19] ‘Crackdown Over India Mass Baptism’, BBC News, South Asia, Friday, 6 December, 2002, 04:56 GMT .
[20] ‘Anti-conversion Ordinance Decried’, The Times of India, Nov. 6. 2004.
[21] ‘Anti-conversion Bill unjustified: AIDWA’, The Hindu, Nov. 12, 2002. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/11/12/stories/2002111204290500.htm
[22] http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/08/stories/2004050803510400.htm
[23] http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/09/stories/2004060905050500.htm
[24] http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=1&date1=2003-01-11&news2=main1
[25] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/382992.cms
[26] BBC News, Tuesday, 25 February, 2003, 17:25 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2798771.stm
[27] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/382992.cms
[28] http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=1&date1=2003-01-11&news2=main1
[29] BBC News, 5 December, 2002, 19:08 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2546023.stm

Road Accidents in India: Safety Tips

According to Wikipedia, "The frequency of traffic collisions in India is amongst the highest in the world. A National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report revealed that every year, more than 135,000 traffic collision-related deaths occur in India." (Wikipedia)

Further, the Wikipedians stated:

Tamil Nadu records the highest road accidents for a decade and its capital Chennai has more accidents then any other city in India.

In New Delhi, the capital of India, the frequency of traffic collisions is 40 times higher than the rate in London, the capital of the United Kingdom.

Traffic collision-related deaths increased from 13 per hour in 2008 to 14 per hour in 2009. More than 40 per cent of these casualties are associated with motorcycles and trucks. The most accident-prone time on Indian roads is during the peak hour at afternoon and evening.

According to road traffic safety experts, the actual number of casualties may be higher than what is documented, as many traffic accidents go unreported. Moreover, victims who die some time after the accident, a span of time which may vary from a few hours to several days, are not counted as car accident victims.

In 2015, one person dies every 4 minutes in roads accidents in India, according to NGO 'Indians for Road Safety'.

India stands out miserably in the latest World Health Organisation's (WHO) "Global Road Safety Report-2015" with an estimated 207,551 deaths on roads.

While a lot of road development work continues to be done by the Government, these are not sufficient to decrease the rate of road accidents. In several parts of India, road traffic is chaotic with everyone in a hurry trying to get fast past everyone in whatever space they can squeeze in by. Also, there is rash driving and drunken driving. Not everyone understands much about traffic rules, the proper use of lights, the control of speed. Very few drivers realize that they need to dim their lights when there is a head-on approaching vehicle. The intense glare of lights dazzles visibility and is extremely dangerous when there may be pedestrians walking on the road or cows sitting on the road or pot holes ahead which become invisible due to the glare of light. A slight distraction from the road ahead can prove fatal.

http://www.michelin.in/ provides certain tips:

Driving on Wet Ground:

• Always drive with two hands to stay in control.

• Slow down: tyres will have better traction and contact with the road.

• Increase your distance from other cars significantly.

• Stay vigilant of other drivers and dangers in your surroundings. Anticiliate dangerous situations rather than waiting to react to them.

• Before turning: only brake in a straight line before the turn, and do so gradually. Do not brake during the turn as this can make you slili.

• While turning: slow down before turning, and maintain a consistent slieed throughout the turn.

• While turning: don’t make any sudden steering wheel movements.

• Inspect your tyres monthly: make sure your tyres have the proper amount of tread and tyre pressure.

• Choose tyres that offer maximum grili in wet weather.

Safe driving at night:

• Give your eyes some time to adjust to the light and shadows.

• Tilt your rear view mirror slightly to reduce the dazzling effect of the car headlights behind you or change to night setting, if your rear view mirror has this option.

• Don't look directly at the headlights from cars travelling in the opposite direction. Avoid driving with headlights on high beam to avoid inconvenience to commuters travelling in opposite direction. High beam should be used when there is no vehicle in front for some distance.

• Always flash the headlights a couple of times before overtaking a vehicle.

• Don’t drive too fast: visibility is reduced at night, making it hard for you to see the road ahead.

Safe driving in fog:

• Visibility deteriorates in fog:

• Turn on your dipped headlight and fog lights.

• Reduce your speed and refrain from overtaking.

• Leave enough time to react in an emergency by keeping a safe braking distance from the vehicle in front of you.

Safe driving in wind:

• Reduce your speed. Be prepared to stop at any time.

• Close all windows. An open window can attract airborne particles like dust that can affect visibility.

• Keep an eye out for obstacles or debris being blown on to the road.

• Be aware that people may not hear your horn during strong windy conditions.

• If you’re carrying cargo on your vehicle, make sure it’s tied down securely.

• Be very careful passing taller vehicles especially in exposed areas or on bridges.

Safe driving in mountain areasBefore driving:

• Prior to setting off, check your brakes; test them and check the brake fluid.

• Carry the tools necessary in case you break down (for a full list see Precautions and Emergencies).

• Check the condition of your spare tyre: the appropriate pressure is especially important.

• Check the weather and road conditions in the mountain area and choose your route wisely.

• Avoid driving at high speed

• Horn while turning on roads in the day time and in the nigh time use dipper

While driving:

• Sound your horn in advance if your view is blocked during cornering.

• Drive carefully and slow down in turns, especially when your view is blocked.

• Never speed or pass in sharp turns where you may not see oncoming vehicles.

Safe driving in mud

• Simple ways to decide if you can get across the mud:

• When there’s heavy mud on the road or if you’re driving off-road, stop your vehicle and inspect the hardness and depth of the mud before driving through it.

• Observe tire tracks of other vehicles to gauge the depth and consistency of the mud.

• Determine the type of vehicles that have left the track from the sizes and widths of the track. Use that information as a reference to decide if you can get across.

Check Michelin for more tips
Also check Business Today for defensive driving tips.

Automobile Association has the following tips for two-wheelers and car-drivers:

Riding on a Two wheeler you are Most vulnerable Save Yourself and others by Safe and defensive driving.

• Check Vehicle condition particularly Brake, Tyre Presssure, Light, Horn Clutch before starting the vehicle for the day.

• Wear Helmet fixing the chain strap properly for your bare head cannot bear a fall on the Road. Wearing it and carrying it may be inconvenient. But not wearing it, is not worth the risk of dying or living like a Vegetable. Be specially careful while carrying a pillion passenger. Do not make him or her suffer for your mistake.

• Drive on left side of the Road leaving the centre of the road for cars and avoid zig zag driving.

• Signal your intentions clearly and well in advance and follow traffic signals correctly.

• Do Not Turn Abruptly and Don’t take chances.

• When Vehicles wait for signal or due to some Block, que up and do not go infringing opposite vehicle’s right of way.

• Space in between moving vehicles is left for avoiding collision and do not ride in that Gap.

• Speed limit of 40 km per hour is only the maximum limit and speed depends on traffic and road condition.

• On the road traffic situation can change at any time and hence alertness is a must.

• Anticipate and make allowance for the mistake of other users.

• Respond properly to what you see in the mirror.

• Vehicle cannot stop at the same place where you brake and this stopping distance will increase with the speed.

• Treat every junction as ‘Halt and Go’ Point and slow down well before approaching the junction.

• Never overtake on Bridges, Junctions, Pedestrian Crossing, School Zones and in places marked with yellow lines.

• Overtaking on left is never right.

• Do not talk on cell phone while driving. Park and Talk.

• Be prepared always to give way even if it is your right of way for courtesy and consideration will make your trip peaceful and pleasant.

• Give Way to pedestrian at pedestrian crossing.

• Stop at stop line when signal turns from green to amber and do not start before amber becomes green again.

When you are driving a Car

• When starting from parked place watch out, signal and then proceed.

• Give way to pedestrians at pedestrain crossing.

• Restrict speed according to Traffic conditions.

• Signal your intentions clearly and well in advance and follow traffic signals correctly.

• Remember that braking distance increases steeply with speed.

• Be cautious and slow while going in the school zone.

• Overtaking in bridges, cutting yellow lines and in junctions can result in head on collision.

• Overtaking in right only is right.

• Stop at Traffic signal even when green treen turns to Amber.

• In signal points and traffic hold ups que up without overtaking.

• Fasten Seat Belt.

• Keep children in the rear seat only.

• Horn only when you must.

• Dip and Dim your light while driving in night to prevent accident arising out of Dazzling light.

Defensive Driving is ‘Driving expecting the unexpected’. You have to drive giving allowance for other road users behaviour. The National Safety Council of U.S.A defines Defensive Driving as ‘Driving to save lives, time and money inspite of the conditions around you and the actions of others’.
Defensive driving is discipline driving. Defensive drivers must exhibit patience, cooperation and courtesy.

Fight Against Corruption

Denmark ranks as the 1st among the world's least corrupt countries. Singapore ranks 8th. India ranks 65th. North Korea and Somalia rank 149th.

A study of these systems reveal the following facts.

1. An Anti-corruption agency, independent of the police and executive is crucial to check corruption. Countries having multiple anti-corruption agencies don't seem to have much success. One cannot remove dirt with dirt; one has to use an agent that is intrinsically anti-dirt (soap-water). Singapore's "anti-corruption agency, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), is well resourced and independent. It is empowered to investigate any person, even police officers and ministers, and conducts public outreach to raise public awareness and shape social norms." (Lee Hsien Loong)

2. In countries like Singapore, the high-level officials are paid well and corruption is kept at bay at that level. The idea is that anti-corruption begins from top to bottom. "There is a Chinese proverb: "If the top beam is askew, the bottom beams will be crooked." Keeping a system clean must start at the very top." (Lee Hsien Loong)

3. Spreading awareness and educating the people in order to encourage them to support a corruption-free society is important. The citizens must detest a corrupt system and be willing to report instances of corruption to the concerned authorities.

4. Integrity and willingness to be corruption-free is crucial among both leaders and citizens.

5. Ideologies that endorse and justify corruption must be discouraged.

6. Citizens must be willing to cooperate with policies that aim at combating corruption. They must be careful not to criticize before having tried to understand. Citizens must "expect and demand a clean system." (Lee Hsien Loong)

7. Governance systems and services that facilitate corruption must be dealt with immediately. One open example is the weak state of Indian railways that makes it easy for TTE's to practice grafting by abusing their powers since people who really have no other means to obtain seats succumb to bribing these TTE's since the railways do not provide sufficient travel facilities to meet the demands of the people.

8. Transparency norms must be binding on all government servants, citizens and all businesses. Accountability must be mandatory. "Beside law enforcement, there is a broad consensus that fighting corruption involves public participation and transparency mechanisms such as disclosure of information." (Marie Chêne)

9. Freedom of Press is a crucial element in curbing corruption.

10. Deterrence, Prevention, and Education is the three-pronged strategy applied by Hong Kong. "Hong Kong ICAC adopts a three-pronged approach: deterrence, prevention and education. As a result, the Commission consists of three separate departments : the Operations Department to investigate corruption and to prosecute the offenders: the Corruption Prevention Department to examine the systems and procedures in the public sector, to identify the corruption opportunities and to make recommendations to plug the loopholes; and the Community Relations Department to educate the public against the evil of corruption and to enlist their support and partnership in fighting corruption." (Kwok Man-Wai)

Why Not More Government English Medium Schools in India?

Globalization compels linguistic unity as it competes for the easing of international barriers. It is the reversal of the Babel phenomena that effused nations through confusion of languages. It may portend an age similar to the antediluvian. The positive side of it is that it facilitates faster communication which could mean jet propulsion of information, provided the media of education is more prospective than just cultural. Certainly, one cannot hold new wine in old wineskins. This explains the massive support for private institutions despite the immense costs involved. Sadly, there are those who have exploited this situation to turn their institutions into a mad money-making machinery; a system of monetary discrimination. What if Government schools provided the same education in English medium? Why not? Wouldn't there be more equal opportunity for all? Certainly, it is not acultural to seek the progress of the nation.

There are government English medium schools run by the Central government. In recent times, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Gujarat have also taken encouraging steps towards implementing English as a medium of instruction in state-run government schools. The results have also been very encouraging. Some are still doubtful whether this would help or hinder the learning abilities of children; they feel that one must first move from primary education in one's own mother tongue to later, perhaps, education in any other language at the Upper Primary Level. However, not everybody would agree with this thought. At least those who press for English medium education of their children don't seem to agree.

Now, it is certainly sought for that children be educated in the language they speak at home; therefore, there is the importance of the vernacular. However, in practice, the results appear different. The utilitarian element is not limited to what is, but what could be. Isn't it human to look beyond the present?. Therefore, there is mass movement away from the government structures. It is very anachronistic to disregard the effects and demands of globalization anymore. The results could be embarrassing. A few years ago, the media laughed at the English of our present PM Modi. Now, he fluently speaks in the language though, they say, with the help of a teleprompter; in short, a necessity.

A Times of India article in 2008 observed that Hindi itself is undergoing a significant change as the urban context is rapidly gearing towards English. Again, this does not mean that people have become less patriotic. Who will not wish the best for his own family? It only means that reality cannot be compromised in an increasingly competitive world. Our little boats can cross an ocean; can they? A world-wealth of literature, now available in English through the massive efforts of the many will take eons to get translated into any vernacular. And, then how many are competent to invest time in such translations, seeing that most of the academicians are losing touch with the vernaculars? Certainly, wisdom consists in the redemption of time.

Yet, what about those who are still naming missions of translating texts into every language and every dialect, giving it the appearance of a worthy cause? Do they ask why the Protest movements in India, in the 6th century BC, avoided the use of Sanskrit and chose Prakrit instead? The New Testament writers chose Greek. They didn't sacralize Hebrew, for a means cannot be turned into an object of worship. I know of at least one agency that is still funding projects of learning and inventing scripts for certain dialects whose children are getting educated in a more unifying local language. I asked one of the boys if he wished to read in his own dialect or in Hindi, and he replied, "Hindi, of course!". Languages have widening circles of utility. Every linguistic region has a common language; Odisha has odiya, West Bengal has Bengali, Andhra has Telugu, most North Indian states have Hindi, as so on. People pragmatically seek what gives them a wider space to move freely in. Globally, we know what the answer is.

Pass through villages which are poverty-stricken, and the question is how much are we contributing to reduce poverty? How much is culture the reason behind wealth or poverty? How much is the lack of educational opportunities a reason? It does less to just try to keep the leaves green and not strengthen the roots. The government is certainly spending prodigiously towards the giving of educational rights to children. However, the fact that government schools are still last sought for or least sought for is embarrassing. They should have a stronger place in the building of the nation. What if the same money they spend to somehow maintain vernacular medium schools be equally distributed to also establish some good English medium schools? Of course, we do have the Kendriya Vidyalayas and the Navodaya Vidyalayas; but, why not more at the state-levels as well? Why should parents start getting worried when their kid is nearing age 3; for now, it would mean wait-lists, long queues, hefty donations, and high fees for the education of their kid, their world? Is it that the government is really incapable to do anything with its existing structures? Of course, it can. Government English Medium Schools are already faring better in the rural parts of Andhra and Telangana. [DC]. The Gujarat government has also taken steps towards this [IE]. It is hoped that the state governments of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and all other states will also take strenuous steps in this line.

---

Government schools take a hit as craze for English medium education grows
Does Hindi have a future?
India's craze for English-medium schools is depriving many children of a real education
Why India will always flock to 'English medium schools'
Will English dominate India in another fifty years?
Stop grants to Eng medium schools or face stir: BBSM to Goa
Govt to open 48 English-medium upper primary schools in state [Gujarat] April 2013
[Gujarat] Education dept plans English-medium primary schools to increase enrollment. April 2015.
English Medium in Government Schools: KCR
Telugu Medium may become extinct in AP, TS

Atheism in India

Atheism is disbelief in a personal God. It is not very popular in India, despite the various ploys of inroad it has attempted throughout history.

There are various kinds of atheisms in India. Some of these are dead, as far as systems are concerned; others live in compliant modes. For instance, charvaka atheism died away as a system, but yoga, samkhya, and Vedanta took accommodative modes.

The six heterodox schools (Charvaka, Jainism, and 4 schools of Buddhism) were labelled nastik or non-believing because they rejected the Vedas. However, these also have no place for the Supreme Personal God in their systems. Jainism considers a plurality of spirits to be eternal, and matter to be evil. Buddhism considers the human spirit as an aggregate of the 5 skandhas; in fact, it disbelieves the spirit as being real according to the doctrine of anatta.

Samkhya looks at Purusha and Prakriti as the eternal principles in a form of dualism. Vedanta regards the spirit as all that is and the one without an other (non-dualism); everything else is a delusion; thus, only the self eternally exists according to it. God, as the wholly other, doesn't exist.

However, neither the popular Hindu nor the tribal, following his various belief-systems, is willing to accept such atheistic doctrines. Thus, some sort of worship is vital in popular Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Of course, magic has made some inroads as well, quite contradictorily to the concept of theism (Theism can't allow any power apart from God nor able to supersede God, since God, by definition, is the Supreme One).

There are a few antisupernaturalists who regard science as the enemy of the concept of God and of creation. But, their impact doesn't seem to be as strong among the 4/14 Window group who have already formed faith before entering High School. We don't count godless lifestyles here. It is possible that one believes in the supernatural and still lives a godless life. The demons do - they believe in God and yet are godless.

We also don't mean that most Indians are monotheists. We only mean they are not atheists. Atheism is too tasteless for them; and quite impractical as far as philosophy of life is concerned. Atheism has no inspiring story to tell.

Happy Independence Day 2014!

India today celebrates its 68th Independence Day. Many of us weren't there when tears of joy streamed through the eyes of our fathers who witnessed the first flag hoisting of Independent India. It was a freedom they fought for and obtained with a price. Freedom became possible because a few stepped forward to voluntary sacrifice their lives so that the others will enjoy the fruits of their struggle. The Independence Struggle was not about kings fighting for their kingdoms. Those were ordinary Indians, like you and I, that fought in ways that took the world by surprise. The world of political struggle perhaps had never heard of the possibility of non-violent resistance; but, our fathers saw it spiritually and overcame evil with good (cf. Rom.12:21). Evil can never overcome evil. Mahatma Gandhi understood that "an eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." But, light dispels darkness; that is the absolute quality of light. Our fathers also knew that freedom within precedes and guides our struggle for freedom without. That is what satyagraha was truly about. Satyagraha means the holding on to and insistence on truth. Truth is freedom. Plato said, "The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32). Deception, violence, and selfish ambition only lead to greater entanglements. Peace comes through the orderliness of truth within. Where truth governs, there is peace, justice, and liberty.

However, freedom always has a cost, and the cost of freedom is sacrifice. Sacrifice means to give up what rightly belongs to us so that others may benefit from the fruits of what we have worked and paid for. We cannot sacrifice what does not belong to us. For instance, to respect other people's boundaries is not sacrifice, it is justice and right-living. What comes under someone else' boundary belongs to that person; what comes under ours belongs to us. Certainly, a person who chooses to not pick-pocket another person is not sacrificing his desires or opportunities; he is only living right and abstaining from self-destructive crime. In fact, to abstain from evil is to preserve both our freedom and the freedom of others. But, when we say that the cost of freedom is sacrifice, we are talking about sacrificial love. Sacrificial love is the rule of freedom within and freedom without. The Greek Bible uses the word agape to express it and sums up the discussion in a few aphorisms:

Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom 13:10 NKJ)

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Gal 5:14 NKJ)

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. (1Jn 4:18 NKJ)

Jesus prescribed the Golden Rule: "Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 7:12 NKJ)

Love for others will lift us to see beyond ourselves; it helps us see and understand the plight of people around us; it helps us to look through their eyes and to feel their pain. Only a person who has agape love can be a good neighbor, a good citizen, and a true friend - the friend who gives his life for his friend (Jn.15:13). Freedom is not just the ability to have and possess; it is the opportunity to give and help those in need.

Our fathers, who fought for freedom, didn't just fight for themselves; if they did so, they wouldn't have risked their lives. They fought in love, as true neighbors of each other and as true friends, ready to give their lives for the people of India. They understood that if they didn't step out, change was impossible. Someone has to take the lead in order for others to follow. A good neighbor cannot be indifferent to things around. Plato said it well: "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." David knew it: "The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men." (Psa 12:8 NIV)

Today, we are in danger of greater evils that are warring to destroy the foundations of our freedom. There are forces of bitterness, resentment, lust, promiscuity, materialism, commercialism, and fake heroism that aim to destroy peace in communities, in families, and in the nation. There are intense roads being built for desocialization of society, deindividuation of individuals, and dehumanization of humans. Cries for freedom well up for a time, then die away in the cry and clamor for individual pursuits. There is decreasing respect for the concept of sacrifice, because sacrifice is held in suspicion and the monster of materialism paints "sacrifice" in bleak pictures. There have been those who pretended to be sacrificing and used this as a tool to tap in material possessions. Also, there are false concepts of sacrifice that lure the youth to violence, to desocialization, and dehumanization. They live far away in the jungles or meet in secret places, hidden from the eyes of society, and suddenly turn to monstrous, inhumane deeds. Haven't the Standford Prison Experiments proven that violence appears just and right in cases where other humans are no longer regarded as persons, as neighbors, as friends?

But, don't these have a cause? Don't those who turn to violence within certain secret societies in cities and villages too have a cause? They cry for justice, they cry for freedom; however, we know that justice and freedom have a cost. The cost is not destructive violence; but, the cost is sacrificial love.

True liberty is not lawless; it conforms to the perfect Law of Liberty (James 1:25); because, the purpose of the commandment is a community bound by love, in purity of heart, good conscience, and sincere faith (1Tim.1:5). Also, true liberty is the only condition for spiritual transformation, to become what God has called us to be (2Cor.3:17-18).

The story of our Independence Struggle should inspire us. It must inspire us to get beyond our personal ambitions, our personal grudges, our personal dreams; it must inspire us to combat evil with good; it must inspire us to look into the perfect law of liberty (not the law that divides and discriminates, but the law that gives justice and freedom); it must inspire us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to be a true friend.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. - Thomas Jefferson 

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson

But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don't forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it. (Jam 1:25 NLT)

But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord -- who is the Spirit -- makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image.  (2Co 3:16-18 NLT)

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well. (Jam 2:8 NKJ)

What is the New Government in India Up to?

Like a storm that grows fiercely strong, then calms down into a modest breeze, has been the advent of the BJP into the present political scene.

But what can be predicted ahead of all this? Let's use the following three tools to analyse that:

1. The Modus Operandi Tool. (The Empirical a posteriori Tool) The markets have already responded in prospect of predictions based on Modi's previous modus operandi and expressed commitment to economic empowerment of the nation. There are estimated statistics of the number of jobs that'll be created and economic surges to come. One needs to wait and see if the predicted market efficiency will be real.

2. The Essentialist Tool. (The a priori Tool) Will the BJP be patient to address its central and essential motives for choosing to become a political party? Issues like Article 370 on the Kashmir issue, a Uniform Civil Code, Anti-Horizontal Conversions, and the Ram Mandir can only be ignored given the zeitgeist of the Party has transited to more moderate weathers. The essentialist analysis would argue that the BJP will not abandon the fundamentals in the same way that it is impossible for the tiger to give up his tiger-nature; a compromise on the ideologically-related areas can indicate a compromise of essential identity. But, a political party of the second generation should not be fully equated with a tiger-cub of the second generation. The latter don't undergo nature-transformation; but, knowledge and historical experience can change a lot of things in humans - and, to be a human means to be open to constructive change, to have wider and more liberal vision.

3. The Existentialist Tool. This would rather be a bolder prediction if one views Modi not as an (or just an) essentialist but as an existentialist - someone who refuses to follow the dictates of the "previous"; someone who moves ahead to discover what is more meaningful and worthwhile at the present moment. Already, it seems that Modi hasn't taken into the working team the seniors - not because he disrespects them, but possibly because meaningfulness, team, and next-generational leadership succession is in focus. Also, his choice of his ministers looks quite simple and humble (much to the chagrin of others who would have opted for larger representation, experience, expertise, etc). The bigger position ought to force some of the ministers to humble themselves to listen and learn. Is that good for leadership (if one expects the leader to be the eyes of the team)? - But, that model of leadership may perhaps be dropped. The professionals always remain, though governments and ministers change. A leader is more a visionary and a servant, and may not always need to know everything. The very word "minister" means "servant".

One concern lies in the area of propaganda management (controlling the third Pramana, Sabda), which is usually what determines public opinion and majority vote. "What is seen is sold" and men can only listen and believe what is told (boldly, loudly, repeatedly, and convincingly). Will the BJP try to revise the history textbooks? Will it try to culturally guide the nation? The above three tools will give slightly different answers. We'll need to wait and see what will come to be. Truth, liberty, integrity, and efficiency is what the nation looks forward too.

I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior... (1Tim.2:1-3)

Raja-niti Vs Loka-niti (Sarvodaya's Quest for True Democracy)

Raja-niti refers to the politics of party and power ("raja" means king and "raj" means rule). It is the common word used for "politics" in India. In contrast to it, the Sarvodaya philosophers, especially Vinoba Bhave, in the Gandhian line promoted what they called as "Loka-niti", i.e. the politics of people. For the Gandhians, centralization of power in any form (dictatorial or "democratical") is a threat to swaraj (self-rule).

"...any state, with separated and strongly developed organs of legislation, execution, and judiciary in well organised large societies, cripples the free-play of individual's faculties and curbs his initiative by enlarging the regions of state control. Progressively it attains the position only next to air in its all-pervading nature. No matter whether such government is an elected representative of its people or a dictatorially established one against the will of the people, it unfailingly produces the evils of centralization and hence necessitates its own eradication for the sake of real democracy.... When the modern centralised state threatens the liberty of individual, of which it professes to be the guardian, it becomes the symbol of violence and a tool of exploitation, and as such loses its right to existence. That is why, according to Vinoba "power must pass into the hands of the people at all levels. Government must continually recede into the background or wither away." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, p.102)

The philosophical basis of such a concept is a strong belief in goodness within man, in humanism, in the human spirit which is free, individualism, and a leaning towards communism. Of course, communism everywhere has only led away from "community-rule" to more dictatorial and totalitarian regimes - its tragedy. Indian thinkers may ascribe communism's failure to its fundamentalist anti-religious and its dialectical materialist understanding of people and politics. In contrast, "Sarvodaya" (well-being of all, which includes all living beings) begins from freedom of the spirit and rejects deterministic materialism. But, how does that justify Lokaniti?

"Sarvodaya exhorts the people to accept Lokaniti--the ethic of the people in social life--by eschewing Raja-niti. In his "Last Will and Testament" Gandhi had expressed a wish to transform the National Congress that stood "as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary machine" into a Loka-Sevak-Sangh--an organisation for the service of the people. He believed that it would attain the democratic goal in India by the avoidance of "unhealthy competition with political parties and communal bodies." This remained merely an unfulfilled dream.... Vinoba's Land-gift and Village-gift movements have been conceived to fulfill Gandhi's dream of village-republics (Grama-Swaraja). Through this movement Vinoba hopes to bring political liberty along with the legislative and executive powers from Delhi to the small five hundred thousand villages of India. It can be achieved through the transformation of Raja-Niti into Loka-Niti.

"Loka-Niti in contrast with Raja-Niti strives to establish the real values of democracy. It is the respectable and equal position of every citizen that constitutes the core of democracy. His liberty irrespective of caste, class and sex, is the life-breath of its successful rule. It is the fact of 'humanity' and not the ability, either physical or intellectual, that guarantees the right to security in every sense of the term, under its domain. But the model of democracy has the other and even more valuable side, namely, that of obligations. Every conscientious citizen is alert in shouldering his responsibilities and abhors external compulsion of every kind. Loka-Niti acknowledges the fact that more the citizen become vigilant about the interest and rights of his neighbours, the less the need of a third intervening agency to set order in human relationships and the better for the mutual co-operation of citizens. Then no coercion need spoil the harmony of the corporate life. Naturally, wakeful self-reliance and willing service, instead of grim authoritarianism and the alluring power, will prove the advancement on democratic lines. For this Gandhi had warned--"Swaraj government will be a sorry affair if people look up to it for the regulation of every detail of life." He also detected the dangers of increased governmental power: "I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because, although apparently doing odd by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress." It is for the same reason that Vinoba Bhave warns the people against reliance on State, time and again. The shower of help by government, animated by welfarism should be a cause of anxiety for a real democrat since it blunts the sharpness of critical consciousness and tightens the knot of external authority, thus working for 'illfare' of the people. To the Sarvodaya thinkers the remedy lies in self-control which alone ensures self-rule.... In the society of self-ruled individuals, needless to say, no electioneering and struggle for power with the whole paraphernalia of propaganda machinery and machiavellian machinations can find any place." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, pp.100-102)

Loka-Niti tries to balance self-rule with community-rule in a way that a citizen can both be self-aware and neighborly-aware, and is able to "love his neighbor as himself". Citizens don't look to the state for welfare, but themselves practice welfare conscientiously, mutually, and liberally.

Of course, the quest doesn't end here, though the ideal looks certainly sublime. There are psychological questions regarding the individual human by himself and in society that the philosophy needs to address. There are theological questions as well, regarding God, world, sin, and salvation that need to be addressed. In any case, a political theory can't hang on thin air; it must address the issues relevant to the individual, rational, moral, social, and spiritual man.

Democracy Is Not Meant to Be Mobocracy

Basically, there are two kinds of government or rules: the rule of people and the rule of law.

The rule of people is manifest in democracy (mobocracy) where majority rule or in dictatorship where the whim of a single man pilots the state. Obviously, the rule of law is preferred above the rule of the mob. - The Rule of Law Vs The Rule of People

Today, women protested against the Delhi Law Minister, Somnath Bharti's "raid" in the night hours against women being accused of running a drug and prostitution racket. The police didn't want to cooperate with Bharti since they stated that this was an illegal move. However, the idea of a "people's government" was hot on fire, and it seems Bharti was zealous to be sensitive to the complaints. The AAP justify Bharti's move by stating that since the police weren't responding to the local people's complaint, and usually crime flourishes under the patronage of the police, the Law Minister had to take a move. Of course, the police must answer why it hadn't properly responded if the complaints had been made. Investigations need to be fair. Of course, a letter from an Ugandan official seems to have come in that affirms drug and sex trafficking going on by duping African girls into it.

However, the more severe issue of concern is the breach of the existent law, made by the government itself out of public pressure;. To what extent can such breaches be justifiable? There are dangerous pits on this track.

Propaganda, caricaturing, and dehumanization have many times led to mob crimes. We must be careful to avoid these. If the rule is handed over to people (in majority), then the minority will soon become victims of rumor, dehumanization, ghettoisation, and mob crime. The goal of a law-abiding nation cannot be reached by breaching the law.

We must understand the dangers of giving into the demands of propaganda propelled, passion driven masses. We must not forget that Socrates was poisoned because the majority voted for his death, Jesus was crucified because the majority wanted Him to die and wanted Barabbas the murderer to be released. Justice should not be blindfolded by the demands of the people. This will only end up in another instance of hooliganism. If the law is evil, then let's get rational about correcting it first in a rational manner; why use brute force, especially against the defenseless? We must remember the sagacious warning of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Is it Ethical for Kejriwal to Refuse Police Protection?

Kejriwal is a bit theological when He brings his faith in God to issues of personal security.

But, what about the police concerns? Obviously, there is no atheistic prong of approach taken. Nobody seems to have hurled a skeptical or agnostic concern arguing that we don't know if God exists and if He does whether He is interested enough in the affairs of mortal men. Not that India is not ripe for atheism; but, I think it has tried and abandoned atheism in the far distant past. We are a people, despite the various religious traditions, who believe in the Supreme God. In the past few decades we have also learnt to not mix organized religion with politics. When religion is politicized, religion is polluted, instantly. History stands as witness to this fact that where politics became custodian of a particular strand of religion, the religious spirit was violated. However, this doesn't disallow politicians from being religious. It is better for a politician to be a believer in the God of mercy and justice than to fall prey to the merciless ethics of a Nietzschean universe (Nietzsche pronounced God as dead in the 19th century and painted hopes of the rise of a Superman who would be above ethics; Hitler's desire to fulfill it is still a dark blot on the timeline of history, a disgrace to humanity). But, of course, a politician's faith must not in anyway compromise the freedom of spirit in the right to faith - God Himself allows us that freedom; if not, humanity would be one soup of religion.. We've noted elsewhere (God and Politics in Secular India) that God and politics are not strangers; and, there is a way of speaking of God as being secularly involved in history (i.e. unecclesiastically: the New Testament supports the division of religion and state). Certainly, Kejriwal's faith in God is strong. Is it fatalism? He will need to answer that. But, his actions are certainly too vociferously anti-fatalist: he believes that the future of India CAN BE CHANGED. Perhaps, his confidence in God is an affirmation of divine sovereignty. God is in control and nothing escapes His omniscient ordering of the world. He has publicly argued in the Parliament that nothing can harm him if it's God's will to keep him on earth and nothing can save him (not even the biggest legions of security) if it's God's will to take him away.

So, it's not atheism or fatalism that the police is bothered about. Certainly, it's their sense of duty and responsibility. They are meant to ensure the protection of the city; and, one important step in this order is to protect the head of the state. But, Kejriwal is revulsive to this idea. He doesn't want to be seen as the head; he has repeatedly affirmed that it is the people of the nation who are the rulers. He hates the notion of a government ruling over the people. So, his argument is quite cogent. The police cannot aristocratize security - he doesn't believe in the VIP culture, after all. But, shouldn't security be prioritized? Is the security of the soldier in combat less important than the security of the leader? What would a doctor say about this (I mean an ethically responsible doctor, not the one sold to avarice)? If the lives of two humans are in danger, one a politician and the other a "common man", and he has to prioritize, whose would he save first? Is it a matter of aristocrizing or prioritizing? But who decides the value of anybody's life? To Kejriwal, the life of the common man is more important.

But, there is another hook. The police claim that they have received intelligence about threat to the life of Kejriwal and so are constrained to prioritize security. Kejriwal is not just skeptical about this; he is more pronounced about his convictions. Let's quote a few lines from the Hindustan Times here:

Hours after reports emerged that terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM) was planning to abduct Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister refused to accept any form of security cover and said the Delhi Police were playing politics along with the central government.

“Is delhi police n central govt playing politics with my security? (sic)” Kejriwal tweeted. “Police officials met me in afternoon. Informed me abt threat. Asked me not to disclose it to media. Den dey themselves went and told media,” he sent out another tweet minutes later.

He said the police had themselves compromised his security. “By announcing this, haven't police made me vulnerable. Now anyone can attack and it wud be said that Bhatkal's men did it.”

Kejriwal, who had earlier turned down Z-category cover by the Ghaziabad Police, reiterated that he won’t accept any cover despite the IM threat. “I am not afraid of my life. As i said, i strongly believe in God. Will not take any security,” one of his tweets read.

Denying the Z-cover security earlier, Kejriwal had said, “I don’t need security, the aam aadmi (common man) needs security”. He stressed his demand for security to the ‘aam aadmi’ again on Sunday. “I wud urge police to stop playing politics. Rather than giving security to me, let them deploy these men for aam aadmi's security,” he told his Twitter followers on Sunday.

Obviously, if it is true that the police have received such intelligence, then it becomes their responsibility to act in accordance to such intelligence. Certainly, if anything does happen to Kejriwal, the police will become answerable; and they must have the confidence to say that they had done everything that could be done to ensure protection. But, perhaps Kejriwal also wishes to say that if the innocent little ones in the city are not protected, if a young girl on the streets of Delhi is not protected, if the poor find no protection from the police, he doesn't want their protection either. God is enough for him.

____________________________

Few Pertinent Quotes on Politics and Religion by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The right way to requite evil, according to Jesus, is not to resist it. This saying of Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law. The Church is not to be a national community like the old Israel, but a community of believers without political or national ties. The old Israel had been both — the chosen people of God and a national community, and it was therefore his will that they should meet force with force. But with the Church it is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore it must patiently endure aggression. Otherwise evil will be heaped upon evil. Only thus can fellowship be established and maintained.

By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass. Evil becomes a spent force when we put up no resistance. By refusing to pay back the enemy with his own coin, and preferring to suffer without resistance, the Christian exhibits the sinfulness of contumely and insult. Violence stands condemned by its failure to evoke counter-violence.

By his willingly renouncing self-defence, the Christian affirms his absolute adherence to Jesus, and his freedom from the tyranny of his own ego. The exclusiveness of this adherence is the only power which can overcome evil.

Jesus is no draughtsman of political blueprints, he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering. It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus. And the cross is the only justification for the precept of non-violence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey that precept. And only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ's victory as well as his sufferings.

The great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts. For evil to appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity or social justice is quite bewildering to anyone brought up on out traditional ethical concepts, while for the Christian who bases his life on the Bible, it merely confirms the fundamental wickedness of evil. The "reasonable" people's failure is obvious. With the best intentions and a naive lack of realism, they think that with a little reason they can bend back into position the framework that has got out of joint. In their lack of vision they want to do justice to all sides, and so the conflicting forces wear them down with nothing achieved. Disappointed by the world's unreasonableness, they see themselves condemned to ineffectiveness; they step aside in resignation or collapse before the stronger party.
Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people.

Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God — the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?

We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds: we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?

There remains an experience of incomparable value. We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcasts, the suspects, the maltreated — in short, from the perspective of those who suffer. Mere waiting and looking on is not Christian behavior. Christians are called to compassion and to action.

...there are three possible ways in which the church can act toward the state: the first place, as has been said, it can ask the state whether its actions are legitimate and in accordance with its character as state, i.e., it can throw the state back on its responsibilities. Second, it can aid the victims of state action. The church has an unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community. "Do good to all people." In both these courses of action, the church serves the free state in its free way, and at times when laws are changed the church may in no way withdraw itself from these two tasks. The third possibility is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself.

Empowering Consumers: National Portal of India Letter

To provide simple, speedy and inexpensive redressal of consumer disputes Department of Consumer Affairs offers several services.


If you have any grievance against any Brand, Product or Service Provider please refer the following options to raise your voice and exercise your rights:

• File a complaint online with Consumer Online Resource & Empowerment Centre (CORE)
• File an online complaint with National Consumer Helpline (NCH)
• You can call at the CORE toll free number 1800-180-4566
• National Consumer Helpline (NCH) also provides a National Toll Free No-1800-11-4000 (for BSNL/MTNL Users); Other users can dial- 011-27006500 (normal call charges applicable)
• SMS to 8800939717 can also be sent mentioning the name and city
• You can also call on the State Consumer helpline numbers

Consumers can also lodge complaints with the District Consumer Forums, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

An enlightened consumer is an empowered consumer. Be alert and report the discrepancy to protect your Rights.

I Didn't Sleep (Crocodile Fear)

Lady: What time did you sleep?
Maid: Didn't sleep! Feeling very tired and sleepy now.
Lady: Why? Any problem?
Maid: No, the pandit (priest) told us that if we sleep in the night in this festival season, we'll become a crocodile in the next birth.
Lady: What!?
Maid: Yes, he also told us that if we drink milk, we'll become a cat; if we eat meat, we'll become a tiger; and, if we drink water,... umm can't remember what he said... But, we are to keep awake through the night and keep listening to the katha (tales in songs)....
Lady: Gee!!

The Remorse of Ashoka - Poem

THE YOUNG WARRIOR stood motionless
On the bloodied ground where battle
Had raged yesterday with vehemence
Of heat and sound; of flashing metal
Clashing, slicing, piercing, battering,
Flying, falling, striking, slaughtering
Men and women in the battle of pride,
Filling the air with blood curdling cries
As bodies fell one after the other with sighs –
All now calmed; the violence, stilled; the battle, won.

“But, what did I win here?” the Prince thought,
As his eyes gazed around the tormenting scene
Of strewn bodies that had once valiantly fought
A battle of dignity and the right to be rightly free;
“What have I gained now?” the Prince sighed,
“An open grave, a banquet to worms and vultures,
A treat to hyenas.” “It’s not so,” the devil lied
“They deserved this for being against your culture!”
A little child came walking with tears in his eyes;
“My remorse shall equal all my sin,” the Prince began…

“For every act of violence that I have done,
Ten thousand acts of non-violence shall I return;
For every hand of cruelty that I did wield,
Ten thousand hands of kindness shall I yield;
For every single child that I did orphan,
Every child of the world as mine shall I reckon;
For every beast that this war has slaughtered,
Every beast of the field shall henceforth be preserved;
Let my remorse be so great that never a life I will annihilate;
May trees and beasts, as all humans, now freely live
And breathe peace in this Land of Non-Violence.”

“You are a fool to make such a pledge” the devil replied,
“Another fool for a Prince after Siddhartha, who shunned
The delight of palace for the wilderness’ plight,
The heroism of war for a monk’s bowl of rice,
The light of victories for a patch of worthless lies;
And what will you gain by all these?
The enemies will gain their upper hand –
He who refuses to slaughter will himself be slaughtered –
Then, you shall repent and relent; but, it shall be
Too late! For Fate will have switched her wand –
He who doesn’t listen to Time shall by Time be bartered –
So, be bold, O Great Maurya and do your duty;
It is the duty of the Kshatriya to slay the enemy;
Let Ahimsa be the delight of the weak herd
Who can neither string a bow nor wield a sword;
Leave non-violence to the monks and the nuns;
Let them pursue remorse, holiness, and all that is weird;
But, you must pursue power by sly and force;
And make all efforts to follow the violent course
Until you have finished with all and all is won,
And every inch of this land has become yours!”

“Begone, O Prince of Vices!” the Great Maurya roared,
“I will have none of yours; for, you are a concocter of lies:
What I have purposed I will with all my strength do;
As I said, the path of kindness and non-violence shall I pursue.
This shall be my penitence; this shall be my lot;
This shall be my inheritance, my only reward;
This shall be the evidence of the change of my heart
That I do what I do desiring no other reward
But the good of all, dharma as ahimsa, peace on earth.
My hands will sow kindness and reap kindness in return;
My eyes will sow goodwill and reap goodwill in return;
My thoughts will sow benevolence and reap benevolence in return;
My life will sow righteousness and reap righteousness in return –
Thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and hundred-fold; wasted, none!
I can barely atone for the sin I have done…
Yet, no more! What’s done is done, may Justice do His work!
I shall return to acts of kindness; to kindness is Ashoka won!”

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2012

---

After the Battle of Kalinga, King Ashoka (304-232 BC) renounced war and violence forever. He embraced the non-violent path of Buddhism and preached kindness to all living creatures. His reign is known as the Golden Age of Indian History. “Ashoka” means “without grief or sorrow.” The wheel in the center of the Indian Flag is called “Ashoka’s Chakra”; it symbolizes Truth, Justice, and Virtue.

---

Regarding Conversion
Quote added on August 16, 2012

"the tradition that Ashoka actually became a Buddhist monk is now discredited. The inscriptions never mention the Buddha and show no awareness of his 'Noble Eightfold Path' or any other Buddhist schema. Even the idea of 'conversion' is suspect, since codes like those of the Buddhists and Jains were not seen as exclusive...... conversion, in the sense of renouncing one set of doctrines for another, was meaningless." [John Keay, A History of India, London: Harper Perennial, 2000, p. 96]

See Also:
The War of Kalinga and Modern Religious Conscience
Emperor Ashoka and His Humanitarian Approach to Religions