Quagmire

Stuck on these thoughts- 


Is it in what i feel?
or is it in what i do?

What if i do what i don't feel?
What if I feel and don't do?

Should i do what i do
and then feel it too?

But what if i feel what i feel
and then do?

India shining, but why parents are still whining...

A lot has been made about India stepping into the 21st century. The politicians & community leaders are very quick to give exemplary references to the India shining campaign. Still many of them are gracious enough to espouse the cause of minority reservation to show solidarity to the meteoric & equitable growth of the nation. But when we talk about Indian marriages which are inter caste and inter religious, it seems like a taboo to most of these community leaders. Why a big-deal is made out of an inter-caste marriage in our country?

Forget about the rural areas, even the so-called ‘educated urban’ parents draw a line where marriages are concerned.However loving and caring the parents maybe, when it comes to the question of marriage parents ‘demand’ complete filial obedience. And the problem gets escalated manifold when a girl of the house wants to marry somebody out of caste. Immediate aspersions are cast on the up-bringing of the girl by the community & the fear of the same draws unequivocal rejection by the parents; which in some cases go as far as torturing the girl both physically and mentally. Also the parents ‘wash-off’ their hands from the girl & keep chastising the day the ‘girl’ was born who had the temerity to blotch the family name. Honour-killings, just to preserve the chastity of the family is also not unheard off.

Recently I heard a case in my community where the father & his immediate relatives are blaming the mother (who is supposedly single-handed responsible for the upbringing of the girl) for abetting her daughter in going against her pure-brahminical values; to the extent that the father has threatened the mother with divorce if the daughter goes ahead with her decision.

Such atrocities raise many questions like: Why is caste imposed on couples who want to get married peacefully? In simple words, what is the big deal? Where does the buck stop here? Why is marriage between two individuals made out to be a grave community problem? Why the decision to marry 'somebody else' implies that a person has no respect for his/her parents? Just because a girl decided to get married of her own choice, why are aspersions caste on her upbringing and her character? Why is she not free to like or love someone and live happily with her partner?

As Chetan Bhagat opines, we are taught to love by our parents. Then does love loses its meaning just because it was not bound by geographic, casteist or religious parameters?

God, who?

First a disclaimer: I am not a true devout...nor am I total atheist. My relationship with God, as with many, is sadly based on mutual convenience (i.e. whenever it is convenient to both God and myself to exchange notes at a particular place!) And I often try to hide my lazy nature by claiming to Mom that it is definitely not necessary to go to temples to have belief in God!

But then unlike me, who there are some people who claim to believe in God, but instead of relying on an abstract concept - faith, rely on hard facts to prove the existence of an even more abstract concept- God Himself!

Even while the scientists in CERN are trying to disprove the existence of God by recreating through the LHC experiment what is supposed to be God's biggest miracle- 'Creation of Universe', there is a theoretical physicist who is trying to use science itself for calculating the possibility of God being in existence (using the solid mathematical principles of probability). And the result is...67%!!!

I have just finished reading a fantastic book called 'THE PROBABILITY OF GOD' by Dr. Stephen Unwin who has set out to mathematically and objectively determine what are the odds of God being in existence, without giving an actual 'Yes' or 'No' answer whether there IS INDEED a God. And for that Dr. Unwin started off with an initial 50-50 chance- same as a coin toss- for God having an existence in this world.

Using then what is known as Bayes theorem (apparently, a popularly used probability formula), Dr. Unwin then examines the evidence gathered around 6 parameters ( recognition of goodness, moral evil, natural evil, prayers, resurrection & religious experiences) by assigning them grades s, based on how God's presence affects their existence in this world (If your eyes are glazing over, keep reading. I'm about to wind this math business soon). And viola, he found after factoring these probability of evidences, the probability of God being in existence increases from the initial 50% to 67%!!

But the most interesting thing is Unwin has included everything- from natural disasters to supposed miracles, from existence of wickedness to propensity of suffering, from evil to philanthropic nature of man- by grading the probability of their existence both in presence and absence of God! The theory is obviously a big hit- Considering the fact there are equal numbers of physicists praising & criticizing it :)

Interesting premise, surely. Lolz.

Karmic thoughts

Heard of a cousin's 10 year+ marriage disintegrating today. Kinda shocking to me, because I have known both her and her husband well enough and always considered them to be a cool couple.

When I called her, she left me with a poignant gem...."The worst thing in the world is not when somebody hates you or irritates you; the worst thing is when somebody is stoically indifferent to you."

Sigh. How true.

Also heard of someone who decided to get married after a long relationship.

Just made me think. Is relationship karma also like humans? Does the number remain constant in the world, like energy?

Anyways, Good luck to them both.

Love, Scoop and Dhoka

Everytime I switch on the news channels these days, I am assailed by the greatest mystery plaguing the country at this moment (no, I am not referring to the inflation or even the opposition to the RTE/women's reservation bill, those my dears are quite passe these days. The press wouldn't be caught dead raking up a dead issue nyways!)...Am referring to the reality TV-meets Ekta Kapoor saga unfolding...the Shoaib-Sania-Ayesha triathalon (The press has even coined the saga LSD- Love, Sania & Dhoka) Endless hrs spent questioning the parties who are indulging in free-for-all rounds of mud-raking and the rest spent speculating over the moot question- Did he or didn't he? Am afraid the country would stop functioning, if we don't get an answer to this question of historic & national importance soon.

However, the main crux is NOT the point that even the most respected media-persons are plunging themselves wholeheartedly in this useless TRP war; HERE I am questioning the objectivity of the Indian media in covering important issues. Often, as in the Shoaib case, the press is quick in condemning the accused without properly hearing out the contentions of the accused as well. And if you see the line of questioning taken by any interviewer, it is in an extremely accusatory and derogatory tone; almost seemingly that in a matter which is sub-judice, it is not actual the judiciary but the media which is holding the trial and more-so a trial wherein the innocent-till-proven-guilty concept is reversed for the sake of generating exclusive scoops!

Moreso woebegone is the case of any male accused of causing any emotional/physical trauma to any female. The Indian press then starts seeing itself as a savior of the oppressed classes (read here a poor trodden-upon female) whose cause needs to be espoused to highlight the tyranny of the sexually-superior-class, assuming that if any accusation is leveled by any 'poor' female, it must always be true. And so in India, the press literally can get away with practically maligning any individual, as in 99% of the cases people just don't sue the channels fearing a long drawn-out legal battle, unlike the west!

Media is a very important tool & can be used to influence the judiciary too. There are many cases like the Jessica Lal case or the Nitish Katara case, where the public outrage after the media-coverage, brought forth a speedy and uncorrupted trial. However perhaps now, even the distinguished members of our media need reminding of the fact that foremost, it is the duty of media to report hardcore facts and not conduct trials-by-fire. Objectivity of the press is a very sanctimonious issue and shouldn't be discarded at any cost.