Aadhaar and the cobwebs

The Editorial, “Voluntarily mandatory” (The Hindu, Sept. 30, 2013), explaining what is voluntary and what is mandatory in the Aadhaar programme was very helpful. This is a point that was generally missed in public discussions of the programme.

         Instead of keeping the mandatory National Population Registration and the voluntary Unique ID Numbering separate, the UIDAI confused the people with the overt and covert support of a number of government agencies that they were a single programme. Many obviously believed that without the Aadhaar number they would miss various subsidies and services; that they would lose even their citizenship even if they possessed other identity proofs. The long queues in front of Aadhaar registration centres were formed by those who were evidently anxious about this threat. After the Supreme Court clearing the air and after spending thousands of crores of rupees, what the UIDAI will do next is worth watching.

NOTA, Mr. L.K.Advani and compulsory voting

A Letter to the Editor

NOTA and compulsory voting

Sir,

         In seeking to relate NOTA to compulsory voting as a “meaningful” requirement, Mr. Advani’s blog has completely missed its meaning. By allowing the right to reject, the Supreme Court has actually enlarged the choice of the voter. Mr. Advani wants to restrict it, ignoring the fact that democracy is all about voluntariness in political choices. Right to vote is an inalienable right vested in the voter, which includes also the right not to vote. Making it mandatory would give the establishment an opportunity to coerce the voters and punish the defaulters.

         That Mr. Advani has endorsed Mr. Modi’s idea is not surprising, for, both are products of an organization that upholds discipline, regimentation and uniformity in matter even of culture as virtues. There could be one more reason. The inspiration for launching the BJP in 1980 was the hope that the Hindus, being the majority community, would put the Party in power in perpetuity. Mr. Advani, perhaps, hopes now that at least when driven into the polling booths, a sufficiently large number of Hindus might always choose the ‘Hindutva’ party.

Who owns the alphabet?

Who owns the alphabet, of any language for that matter, but now, of English? Here is an interesting case.

Recently, Exxon Mobile filed a lawsuit Tuesday, 1 October, in the U.S. District Court in Houston, challenging the 21st Century Fox’s trademark registration and seeking an injunction against using the logo FXX. It also sought triple damages for the harm it suffered from the resulting confusion in the 'market'.

It complained that FXX, when contacted directly, refused either to stop using or to remove the interlocking FXX design. Hence the petition.

Among other things, it argued that it was likely to “cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive customers and potential customers.” It feared that, if not constrained, FXX might be mistaken for an affiliate of Exxon. In support, it cited some posts on the web, like "That FXX logo has to go, that is awful on a plate. Also, Exxon is going to be pissed.” A spokesman for ExxonMobil claimed that the “public associates the interlocking Xs with ‘Exxon’ and ‘ExxonMobil,’ and they represent a valuable part of our branding. ExxonMobil has protected its interlocking-X designs with numerous trademark registrations, and has been using its interlocking Xs both alone and as part of ExxonMobil’s distinctive family of ‘Exxon’ and ‘ExxonMobil’ marks for decades.”

FXX is an American TV network doing entertainment business, a David when compared.to the Goliath Exxon, which is world's richest oil company. A spokesperson of FXX asked whether a consumer ever approach FXX for oil or Exxon for a TV serial?

As David Sirota (a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future" E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com,), would put it: "Apparently if you are the world’s richest oil company used to making $104 million in profit every day, no lawsuit is too frivolous, expensive or downright hilarious when you are the plaintiff."

In essence, Exxon wants exclusive world rights to put two Xs next to each other. Lone X does not belong to it, Three or more Xs also are no problem, for now at least. Whether its lawsuit covers also the Xs in all other non-Latin alphabets, the mathematical symbol for multiplication or any symbol in any other script resembling X,  is not clear.

There already are logos containing double X, like that of Dos Equisll. As Sirota asks: 'what about the XX chromosome, and the roman numeral for 20, and any clothing companies that make T-shirts marked double extra large'.

According to Sirota, 'ExxonMobil’s suit instantly makes it a candidate for the list of the most famous intellectual property claims of all time.' Among instances he quotes are:

"- Spike Lee claiming exclusive ownership rights of his first name in a suit against Viacom’s Spike TV.

- Fox News being laughed out of court after claiming exclusive ownership of the phrase “fair and balanced.”

- Warner/Chappell Music arguing in court that the 120-year-old “Happy Birthday” song is its exclusive property.

- Huey Lewis suing Ray Parker Jr. over allegations that the latter’s “Ghostbusters” anthem resembled the former’s “I Want a New Drug.”

- Larrikin Music suing Men at Work for damages, based on the company’s claims that the music group’s flute in the song “Down Under” derives from a 75-year-old children’s song called “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.” The music company claiming the rights to the Kookaburra song didn’t file suit until 28 years after Men at Work’s hit was released. That’s when a television quiz show in Australia claimed there was a resemblance between the two tunes."

Whether intellectual property is protectable is a moot question. Even if we concede that stealing intellectual property is a serious crime, Sirota says that 'many of the aforementioned suits — including ExxonMobil’s — seem more than a bit absurd.' He reminds us that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ratified the right of companies to claim patent protections for DNA. May be, as he says, in the brave new world of intellectual property, “absurd” is apparently in the eye of the beholder!

To put it mildly, the intellectual property right issue is a bit bizarre. If I buy a house, I can do whatever I want with it, but not if it is a book. I can buy a kidney, and it will become my exclusive property. Neither its donor nor the surgeon who transplanted it has no right over it. But, in the case of a book, even its printer/ publisher can own its intellectual property rights. An original work of art can be bought and owned exclusively, but not a book. One can understand the claim of IPR for the original manuscript as long it is not sold, but even after it is printed in thousands and sold, each of the copies also carry copy right! In that case, should not the author himself and the printer/publisher be sued first for forging copies of an original work?

Dr. Kumar wrote:
There is no opposite to any thing that is truly real ....

What is the opposite of love, many will say is hate. But that is at mind level. 
But at the no-mind level, say heart level, there is no opposite to love.

LOVE IS JUST LOVE.
LIFE IS JUST LIFE.
BEAUTY IS JUST BEAUTY.
GOODNESS IS JUST GOODNESS.

No opposite unless we start using our all very 'useful utilitarian' MIND.

I responded:
Please leave this dead horse alone! Emotions, like tastes, why, even genders, are not in binary opposite relationships. Assuming first that they are, and then flogging the very same assumption was a pastime for the Sophists. It is a verbal labyrinth, a trap. No one will dispute that 'life is life', and if one wants to stay put at that level, quite fine for her or him. But, why grudge somebody who thinks life has various attributes and tries to understand and explain them? Further, how will one ever use a word without knowing what it means. Definitions, explanations, synonyms and antonyms - knowing what a word means or does not mean - are integral to understanding anything. Dismissing all that as the delusion of the mind is a pointless denial. There is one character in the VKN novel, 'One Week', one Electric Thoma, whose vocabulary in English was limited to less than a hundred words. For anything he did not know the proper word for, he would use 'that corner'! Think of a physician who tells all and every patient of his with running temperature - 'a fever is only a fever, take aspirin'! Such thinking is usually called 'reductio ad absurdum'. Indian philosophy for ages, starting with Upanishads, also has held this 'funnel' vision of the world. In human affairs, there are no perfect antonyms or synonyms. So, let us stop flogging a dead horse!

Dr. Kumar quoted Jiddu:
Life and death? 

Why do we regard death as something apart from life? Why are we afraid of death? And why have so many books been written about death? Why is there this line of demarcation between life and death? And that separation real, or merely arbitrary, a thing of the mind? When we talk about life, we mean living as a process of continuity in which there is identification. Me and my house, me and my wife, me and my bank account, me and my past experiences—that is what we mean by life, is it not? Living is a process of continuity in memory, conscious as well as unconscious, with its various struggles, quarrels, incidents, experiences and so on. All that is what we call life; in opposition to that there is death, which is putting an end to all that. Having created the opposite, which is death, and being afraid of it, we proceed to look for the relationship between life and death; if we can bridge the gap with some explanation, with belief in continuity, in the hereafter, we are satisfied. We believe in reincarnation or in some other form of continuity of thought and then we try to establish a relationship between the known and the unknown. We try to bridge the known and the unknown and thereby try to find the relationship between the past and the future. That is what we are doing, is it not?, when we inquire if there is any relationship between life and death. We want to know how to bridge the living and the ending—that is our fundamental desire. Now, can the end, which is death, be known while living? If we can know what death is while we are living, then we shall have no problem. It is because we cannot experience the unknown while we are living that we are afraid of it. Our struggle is to establish a relationship between ourselves, which is the result of the known, and the unknown which we call death. Can there be a relationship between the past and something which the mind cannot conceive, which we call death? Why do we separate the two? Is it not because our mind can function only within the field of the known, within the field of the continuous? One only knows oneself as a thinker, as an actor with certain memories of misery, of pleasure, of love, affection, of various kinds of experience; one only knows oneself as being continuous—otherwise one would have no recollection of oneself as being something. Now when that something comes to the end, which we call death, there is fear of the unknown; so we want to draw the unknown into the known and our whole effort is to give continuity to the unknown. That is, we do not want to know life, which includes death, but we want to know how to continue and not come to an end. We do not want to know life and death, we only want to know how to continue without ending. That which continues has no renewal. There can be nothing new, there can be nothing creative, in that which has continuance—which is fairly obvious. It is only when continuity ends that there is a possibility of that which is ever new. But it is this ending that we dread and we don’t see that only in ending can there be renewal, the creative, the unknown—not in carrying over from day to day our experiences, our memories and misfortunes. It is only when we die each day to all that is old that there can be the new. The new cannot be where there is continuity—the new being the creative, the unknown, the eternal, God or what you will. The person, the continuous entity, who seeks the unknown, the real, the eternal, will never find it, because he can find only that which he projects out of himself and that which he projects is not the real. Only in ending, in dying, can the new be known; and the man who seeks to find a relationship between life and death, to bridge the continuous with that which he thinks is beyond, is living in a fictitious, unreal world, which is a projection of himself. Now is it possible, while living, to die—which means coming to an end, being as nothing? Is it possible, while living in this world where everything is becoming more and... •

I responded:
Answering presumptive questions may fill time in an invited discourse or pages of a book commissioned by a publisher. Jiddu was good at both. Try to think out of the box he has set up. If one does not regard death as apart from life or fear death, which no one can say one should not, the whole argument will collapse. It will also prove the superfluity of Jiddu's assumptions. To counter him, one need only liken life and death to two stages of a continuous process, or metamorphosis, or change and continuity as is seen in history. It is not difficult, for, metamorphosis is a natural phenomenon. The egg, the maggot, the pupa, the fly, and again the egg - are they different stages in a continuous process, or separate episodes of sets of life and death? Answer will depend on what one wants to believe. Semitic religions believe that birth, death and after-life of each human being is a complete set. The Indian religions believe that they repeat. Both are, again, assumptions. You are free to believe the way you want to and fret the way you want to. I will leave the unknown as unknown and shut my mind on it. Further, that every one is not afraid of death is evident from the large number of suicides happening around us. Suicides prove fear of life and not fear of death. Instead of fretting over things unknown, I would rather leave such things to Jiddus, Alan Watts and the like who will make profit out of our anxieties. I prefer to leave the black cat in the dark room to mend for itself. I have better things to anticipate in life and prepare for. Cheer you!

Meditation, spiritualism and I, a dude. Some random responses

Dr. Kumar Maruthur wrote:
Reality; 
Years ago I used to go a church in my neighborhood. A person died and he was a mason. They had a funeral service at a local funeral home. They showed photos and videos i think of his life. Then some give eulogy. There were a few masons there, all dressed in black business suits. Then one of them got up and eulogized. I think he spoke in tongues. Nobody understood anything. Later I heard people saying that that is a super secret mason language. They were very impressed. I knew they spoke in tongues. The best part of it, I didn't know what they said, but that was the best eulogy I ever heard.

I responded:
 Free Masons speak to create and communicate experiences that vary from person to person, and not to create or communicate a shared idea based on conventional meanings of words. They are what we call mystic. This is what a voodoo or mantra is also expected to do. Pentecostal sermons also follow the same route. But that does not, need not and should not preclude communication through formal language. Just like saying abstract painting that leaves the viewer to see into it anything he/she can imagine is the only way to paint, saying one should speak only by producing sounds that have no formal meaning - 'incoherently' - is the only way to speak is an extreme 'black if not white' position. There are 'infinite' shades between the two 'colours'. You found the Mason utterance to be a eulogy because of the context, the funeral service in honour of the deceased. If you hear the same sound bite from a patient, you might imagine it is an account of his disease. Decease and disease! See how close they are! But, I would rather wish that a doctor and his patient should communicate with each other on a mutually understood system of sounds. Why not give a break to this stream of thought?

Dr. Kumar Maruthur Wrote:

MEDITATION:
"IT HAS NO MEANING OR PURPOSE!"
It always good to normal weight, health and physical strength. That is where YOGA comes in handy.

In India they sit in a easy position with legs crossed on the floor or in padmasana.. You can sit in a chair with straight,back. The position is just uncomfortable enough, you won't fall asleep.

Breathing: take a deep breath and expire as slow as possible all through meditation. Expire fully and completely and inspiration will happen spontaneously. 

If you are in the NOW where there is no division of TIME into past, present and future, you can sit in thIs position for a long time as observed by the clock time.

Then you begin chanting. It is not the meaning of the word that is important but the repetition of the chant for a long time. 

While chanting keep the slow rhythms of breathing, very important,

You might have heard the chant OHM, OHM, OHM or Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare or Rama Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare or Hare Rama Hare Rama Hare Hare or just Ram Ram, or Krishna Krishna. it is not the meaning of the word that is important , but the repetition for a long period of time like 20-40 minutes which is important. This might stop the THINKING and might give you peace of mind. Muslims do Allah Allah Allah continuously for a long period of time. Sufis do LLA LLA LLA LLA for many minutes and to hours at a time, some whirl around at the same time.

Transcendental meditation group will sell you a chant specifically designed for you for a certain amount of money. It has no meaning and are nonsensical words. 

Chinese and Japanese Buddhists use MOO MOO MOO and so on. Zen Buddhists give you koans. Some ask you to laugh loudly for a long time. Some speak in tongues for a long time. Some sing kirtans and some dance at the same time.

The purpose is to still the continuous mind chatter ir still the mind.

You can just sit and watch the colors that fall on your eyes, sound on your ears, your feelings on the skin, the smell and the taste as it were just an happenings. You may consider them as many senses or one sense, you may listen to the mind' thoughts as just noise like water fall or chirps of bugs, or tv or music or car horns or telephone rings and so on, as it were mere happenings without INTERPRETING them. 

You can sit for a long time in the NOW. MAY BE!

Past does not propel the present. The past and futures just MOVES away from the NOW like water from the wake of a boat or ship.

Gradually your mind chatter may go away and you may be in the expansive eternal NOW.
You may forget your SELF. 

Don't pay attention to your thoughts and senses. Just ignore them.

Gradually you may achieve a meditation state; all according to your own temperament. 

OR NO THING AT ALL.

The difference between ALL and VOID is just NAMES.
What happens then is everybody's PRIVATE MATTER..

BEST OF LUCK 

P.S: Pardon my English, Sanskrit, Hindi or Malayalam or Chinese and spellings. I don't care about languages words or spellings other than just an utilitarian device.

20 hours ago via mobile 

I responded:
I am weary of spiritualism as I understand it; and of all its vendors, whichever the brand be. It claims to know everything through intuition. I would rather give a go by to such claims. Intuition does not blossom in a vacuum. It springs from thought, which needs experience as its springboard. Thought is therefore empirical. It is a function of the sensory organs and the brain. I do not want to numb my thoughts and get inside a cocoon, even if it is made of the finest silk. I am aware of natural sensory illusions our neural system brooks and am ready to live with them, but I do not want to amplify them thorough self-induced hypnotism. Meditation as concentration of thought is welcome. But as auto-suggested delusion, is not. To be aware of a state of mind that is unaware of itself is, to me, a delusion. At least, it is a confusion. I will not knowingly fly anywhere near that cuckoo's nest, let alone into it!

Dr. Kumar Maruthur wrote:
My friend B is as much argumentative as you are. But nowadays he found an outlet for mental peace.
He found this NAM yoga place . He joins in their group singing chants and dancing. He gets very relaxed and happy. He says he goes into a trance. He takes a 40 minute bus trip to Santa Monica to do that, once or twice a week,
May be good thing for you too.

I responded:
I wish B all the peace he can draw from his engagements. And I wish all others too the same for their respective minds. Period. I am not against anyone's peace of mind so long as they do not prescribe it for others. To treat a malaise, there may be different systems of medicine. Choice is personal. I would rather avoid a witch doctor. And an astrologer. And a god-man. And a yogi. And, certainly the god himself!

We might follow this

Why I am a Hindu as explained by Perimpilavil Ramadasan and forwarded by C.P.Valsala

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Valsala Gopi wrote:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: mohan chandran
To: valsala.gopi@yahoo.com; V RAGHUNATHAN ; VINOD UNNIKRISHNAN ; SANUP BHASKARAN ; BALAKRISHNAN ERADY ; NARAYANAN KVG ; JAYA UNNI ; haridasan46@gmail.com; GOURI ERADY ; GOPI KRISHNAN ; gokulachandran@gmail.com; SMRUTHI MANOJ ; ANUP BHASKARAN ; ramakrishnan_tm@yahoo.co.in; CHITHRA K.KUTTY  
Sent: Thursday, 24 May 2012 10:29 AM
Subject: Fw: : WHY I AM A HINDU.
Hidus must read fully so that we can explain what is Hinduism

--- On Mon, 21/5/12, Perimpilavil Ramadasan wrote:

From: Perimpilavil Ramadasan
Subject: Fw: : WHY I AM A HINDU.
To: "Arun Menon" , "Vijayan Perumpilavil" , "Rohini jayakumar" , "baby shree" , "cd gautam" , "Gen. Ashok Kumar " , "Vinod Menon" , "Sabarinathan" , "rajkamal shrivastav" , "MOHANACHANDRAN" , "Ashish" , "Chandrika Ramadasan"
Date: Monday, 21 May, 2012, 6:56 PM

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ramachandra Subramanyam
To: shobha  
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:38 AM
Subject: FW: : WHY I AM A HINDU.


WHY  I AM    HINDU

MUST READ  Four years ago, I was flying from JFK NY Airport to SFO to attend a meeting at Monterey , CA. An American girl was sitting on the right side, near the window seat. It indeed was a long journey - it would take nearly seven hours. I was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible ...unusual for a  young American. After some time. she smiled and we had few getting-acquainted words.  I told her that I am from India
Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' I didn't understand the question..
'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'
'No!' I replied, 'I am neither Christian nor Muslim'. Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?'

'I am a Hindu', I said. She looked at me as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what I was talking about.
A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today. But a Hindu, what?
I explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.
'Who is your prophet?' she asked.
'We don't have a prophet,' I replied.
'What's your Holy Book?'
'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,' I replied.
'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'
'What do you mean by that?'
'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'
I thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.
According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything else is not acceptable. I understood her perception and concept about faith.. You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of god.
I tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one god and he can be a Hindu.. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in god at all, still you can be a Hindu. An atheist can also be a Hindu.'
This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.
'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'
What can I tell to this American girl?
I said: 'I do not go to temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes..'
'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'
'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'
She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'
'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.' I told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added. There is no institution or authority..
'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white.
'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'
'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'
'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense. I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.' I told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal gods. The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions..
'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'
'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,'
'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'
'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Om Peace, Peace, Peace.'
'Hmm ..very interesting.. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed. 'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita.. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.'
'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?'
'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single authority or organization either to accept it or to reject it or to oppose it on behalf of Hinduism.'
I told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one guru to the next..
For a real seeker, I told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life.
Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.
Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas.- It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.
Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion.
I said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception'
I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' - Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn't condition my mind with any faith system.
A man/ woman who changes his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life. Hinduism was the first religion originated. Be proud of your religion and be proud of who you are.
Om Namo shiva……………
Send it to all Hindus who you think will find it interesting!

I add:
This is representative of the group thinking among a good number of educated Hindus who are sincere and serious about understanding their beliefs but are unable to comprehend what they think or want to communicate. They mouth quotes from some ancient Brahmanical works, like "Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu", "Isavasyam idam sarvam", "Ahimsa paramo dharmam", and perhaps, "Vasudhaiva kutumbakam"!
Ms. Valsala is a retired Professor of Chemistry and a former colleague of mine, now associated with humanitarian work at Prashanti of Ramakrishnan Palat..

I sent her the following note as a tentative reply:


Valsala,

I wish I could share your faith in what Sarvasree Perimpilavil Ramadasan explains as Hinduism with the same amount of enthusiasm.

What he has posted is full of contradictions, like, "Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual", "it is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices", "Hinduism was the first religion originated", and "The British coin[sic] the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion".

At one place he says, he is "a Hindu by birth", at another that Hindus are Hindus by choice, and at still another that "Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion". If one is a Hindu by birth, how does it become his religion by choice?

I think he ought to have asked himself first what he understood by 'Hinduism' and then only posted his confused thoughts on the net based on the quizzing of a girl, real or imaginary but certainly ignorant, he met on a flight.

I am happy I was born a Hindu for the sheer latitude of thoughts and life styles it used to permit. But, of late, things have changed a great deal and are changing very fast.

My best wishes to you and Gopi.

Sudhakaran

  

How to save the PDF copy of Gundert's Malayalam English Dictionary

After downloading the PDF version, look for the options offered. One of the options is 'save a copy'. Click it, type a title and cick 'save'.

Gundert's A Malayalam English Dictionary

Free download of Gundert's A Malayalam English Dictionary in PDF from Columbia University is available at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_8661431_000/index.html

Pulappedi - Honor Killing in Disguise

Pulappedi ‘Pulappedi’ literally means ‘scare of the Pulayas’. It refers to a popular belief prevalent in some parts of Kerala roughly till the middle of the 20th cent. that men of the lowliest of the polluting castes such as Pulayas, Parayas and Mannans could appropriate young women of the higher Nair caste after defiling them. Depending upon the caste and the region involved, it was also called Parappedi or Mannappedi. The earliest known mention of this scare, though not by the name, was made by Duarte Barbosa, a Portuguese national stationed in Kerala at the beginning of the 16th century, in the context of describing the social plight of the Pulaya caste. [The Book, Vol. II, Hakluyt Society, London, 1921, pp.68-69]. In current popular belief, Pulappedi was a customary ritual observed every year with the permission of the local community in the month of ‘Karkitakam’ (July middle to August middle). During that period, men of the Pulaya, Paraya and Mannan castes, the so called ‘slave castes’, would roam around to defile Nair women who strayed alone outside their houses or were left unprotected inside their homes or wished to be defiled and possessed. Defiling could be by touching the woman or hitting her with a twig or a pebble, or by just sighting her and hollering ‘kande, kande’ (I saw, I saw). When defiled, the woman would lose her caste. She should declare it publicly and run away from her home and subject herself to be appropriated by the defiler, or become a beggar or a mendicant, or allow to be converted to another religion. If not, she could be killed with impunity by her own people, or killed or sold to any willing bidder by the local chief. The defiler and his kith and kin, on their part, could also be killed or tortured as the Nairs or the local chiefs pleased. The apparent definitiveness of this belief and its details owe largely to the fanciful descriptions of Elamkulam Kunjan Pillai [''Mannappediyum Pulappediyum'', Mathrubhumi Weekly, November 1957] who mixed local folk lore with a liberal misreading of Barbosa. He assumed that Pulappedi was actually practised in many parts of Kerala until ‘recent times’. Following him uncritically, other historians and text book writers only popularized his views. The fact is that there is no historical record of any instance of a Nair woman ever coming under Pulappedi. There is also absolutely no way of ascertaining whether it was ever practised as was popularly believed. Even Barbosa was not a witness to any actual instance of Pulappedi. He had most probably only reported what his local contacts had told him. The scare was, however, palpable as is indicated by a proclamation issued by a local chief in C.E.1696 prohibiting it in his domain and threatening its perpetrators and their families with summary execution. But, the historians had generally assumed that Pulappedi was actually practised in extreme secrecy, which was why records were not kept. Therefore, they tried only to explain its origin, significance and other related issues. Elamkulam, for instance, explained it as a community licence given to the slave castes to procreate in Nair women a mixed caste of agricultural slaves. According to him, the practice began sometime in 12th century C.E. after the size of the original slave castes in Kerala began to dwindle. [Elamkulam, 1957]. Another historian saw in it the instance of the ubiquitous class conflict between the Nair oppressors and the oppressed slave castes [K.N.Ganesh, Keralathinte Innalekal (in Malayalam), 1990]. Considering all the available facts, it is extremely doubtful that Pulappedi, including its other two variants, was ever practised as a custom in its popularly depicted form. Rather, it was only a scare consciously perpetrated by Nairs themselves to control their own women from straying outside the family and caste diktats, and to punish those who actually broke or were feared would break those diktats. The role of the polluter, a bonded slave of the Nairs, in this plot would have been to obey the commands of the master and defile or claim to have defiled the woman chosen by the master, or acquiesce to the charge of defiling the woman without actually defiling. Whichever way, the Nairs could punish the polluter also. Interestingly, the polluter castes connected with Pulappedi were known as practitioners of voodoo and magic, which gave those who scripted the story of defiling and abduction a credible excuse for failing. This view was first put forward in 1994 in an article, ‘Pulappedi – Puthiya Oranveshanam’ [in Malayalam], by P.P.Sudhakaran [Kerala Padanangal 4, January – March, 1994, Ed. K.T.Ram Mohan, Chithira Printers & Publishers, Ernakulam]. These are the reasons advanced in support of the view: 1. The social distancing between the polluting castes and the Nairs was so pernicious, the habitats of the polluting castes were located in such isolated areas, and the physical marks of the polluting castes were so distinct and loud that it would have been impossible for a polluter man to go anywhere near a Nair habitat even in ordinary times except perhaps with the overt or covert permission of the Nairs. 2. The polluter could not have defiled any Nair woman by surprise either as the Pulappedi season was known to all in advance, and it needed only some extra vigilance by the Nair men during that period to prevent it if they wanted to. 3. The life environment of the polluting castes compared to that of the Nairs being so depressing, and the other options available to a defiled woman being so devastating, no Nair woman in her senses would ever have risked coming under Pulappedi. 4. The punishment for the polluter, whether caught before the act or after, was known in advance to be so cruel and certain that none but a maniac would have dared to provoke the Nair fury

Brides are not cattle

Marriage is not just acquiring or keeping an object for lust release. It is the foundation for building a family. Thinking of importing brides duty free or at subsidized rates is typically male centered. Think beyond. A wife is not cattle that can be bought or sold according to man's means and pleasure. Studies have shown that femicide is not confined to the urban 'middle class' alone. Among the rural poor also it is practised, perhaps under the pressure of more urgent economic constraints, but almost always after the delivery. February 9 at 12:44pm Sreejith, I sensed sarcasm in Parthapratim's, but preferred to ignore whatever little was in yours, because, sarcasm cannot usually expect a serious response. Barring the one about getting fairer ones duty free, your remarks to Parthapratim's, I thought, was meant to be taken seriously. Your end-question especially, 'will that in any way end the discrimination and violence against the girl child...?', did not seem to dismiss the idea of import as a non option. The sarcasm, if at all there was any, was obviously lost on me. Overall, I feel, importing of women even as a flippant idea would occur only where it is thought of as an option, however distant it could be. Or, should we have just taken to the question as a light-hearted tease? Finally, happy to note that you are not an MCP even remotely. February 10 at 6:58am Parthapratim responds: logging on to fb after a while - i see that my comment was sarcastic, quite dark at that. i am truly sorry, if it sounded offensive. the comment was kind of triggered by the last of the tag lines: 'bike ke picche ---'. i realize that while trying to add a darker tone to the dark comic signpost, i have only managed to lighten the seriousness of the issue. really sorry for that. now i am not a feminist, but i am not against women or their rights. i believe, as sincerely as all you do, that female foeticide is a crime. i believe so because i guess that a female foetus is as good a foetus as a male one; not because some of these would make good mothers and wives and solid foundations of innumerable indian families. some believe, and i find some of their points quite noteworthy, that the family is the root of many social evils. having a family makes one selfish, family-centric. having a family leads to the idea of lineage and legacy, the patriarchy, irrespective of if the society is patriarchal or matriarchal or whatever. women's rights are to be supported not because they are more virtuous, but because they are a lot of people just as the lot of men. i really am rather shaky to post this long monologue in fb which is frequented by people wiser than those who are not in touch with the virtual reality. finally, dramatically or melodramatically i am not sure, but seriously, i would prefer a woman on my bike infinitely better than a tiger in a thousand years, or at least until i die or the tigers go extinct. have a good time folks, and blasted be the ones who cannot take a serious matter seriously, but seriously. February 16 at 1:29pm · My response: Parthapratim, after reading your latest post, I am convinced that your earlier response was not intended to hurt anyone, least of all me. Even before reading it, I did not feel any offence. What I usually do is, after taking note of what might help me introspect and improve my attitude to life and life itself, I move on. What is not worth it, I ignore. You have however touched upon a weighty issue as to what is the real worth of the family as a social institution. About that, another time, hopefully. About the worth of the female gender etc; everyone with a view should have a rationale for it. This is my reasoning: Gender equality is not a physical fact, whatever the women’s libbers might claim. I don't also carry any baggage of religious mumbo jumbo, like, all are equal in the eyes of god. Unlike the female cannibals among some species like spiders, praying mantis and fire flies, human females, overall, are physically weak. According to one estimate, 1 out of 3 women world-wide are being physically abused every day; that is more than one billion women a day, every day. See, for example, [http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/273-40/9999-one-billion-rising] Those abusers are a depraved lot, and there is nothing brave in joining them. They are bullies, and there are enough studies to believe that bullies are, beneath their skin, really miserable cowards. I don’t want to be counted among them. Instead of raping and beating and passing snide remarks in the guise of sarcasm (I don’t mean you), the last of which I believe is bullying on the sly, what is needed is concern for fellow lives, compassion for the weak. But, what I don’t know is this: While some are seen to even empathise with the weak, what makes some others tormenters and sadists? May be, some are born with compassion. Studies about the psychology of compassion are not definitive yet, as far as I know. Oxytocin, the enzyme the pituitary gland normally secretes, and lactating mothers are known to secrete in larger quantities, has been suggested as the one that makes the difference. Whatever that be, I believe compassion can be consciously cultivated. At least, men can learn to let the women live their lives; better still, though, will be learning to love them as fellow human beings, to protect them and be their friends, not possessors. There are, of course, black widows among human species also. But, that is a different problem, and gender imbalance in India’s demography is not related to it. February 17 at 7:25am

Gravity as energy

The total kinetic energy that winds can generate may be lesser than what was estimated earlier. But that need not make it undesirable. Whatever sources of energy that are environment-friendly and economical and can be stored and transported should be explored. One source for all regions and all seasons, which is a poisoned luxury oil has nurtured, will not and need not work any more. Among the different sources of energy discussed, one that is generally seen missed or bypassed is gravity. Transportation is one area that now burns away a large portion of the oil extracted the world over. At least this sector of energy-needs can be directly taken care of by gravity, especially in naturally inclined landscapes, with very little investment in erecting/installing monorails and rope-ways. Its potential for any type of landscape is also worth exploring. Besides, by tapping the motion gravity can generate, electricity can be generated without any technological hassles. The idea of using gravity for transportation is not new, but, the strangle hold of the oil-based automobile industry is bent upon killing all other options and enterprises.

Subramanian Swamy advocated disenfranchisement of the offending community

Dr.Subramanian Swamy published an article in DNA on 16 July 2011, How to wipe out Islamic terror.
Here is the url: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/comment_analysis-how-to-wipe-out-islamic-terror_1566203-all
I cannot copy and paste the article as it is prohibited if done without permission.

The Hindu, on 16 July 2011 published the following news item, the gist of which was: Subramanian Swamy advocated disenfranchisement of the offending community

The following is the text of what The Hindu published on 30 July 2011.

The Hindu, Published: July 29, 2011 23:48 IST | Updated: July 29, 2011 23:48 IST http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2306235.ece

"Offended minorities' panel to decide on Swamy's article"
Special Correspondent
Subramanian Swamy had advocated disenfranchisement as a punishment for Muslims refusing to acknowledge their Hindu ancestry

The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) will take a final view on Tuesday on an article written by Subramanian Swamy where he advocated disenfranchisement as a punishment for Muslims refusing to acknowledge their Hindu ancestry.

The NCM had taken suo moto notice of the article at its meeting on July 19. The article appeared in the Daily News and Analysis (DNA) on July 16 – three days after the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai. NCM chairperson Wajahat Habibullah told The Hindu that while the NCM found the article offensive in the extreme, a final decision on the commission's response would be taken when the full bench reconvened on Tuesday. He said the NCW will go by legal advice it had procured from within the government: “There are no two opinions that the article is highly offensive and violative of the law. I'm fairly clear about the course the NCM should follow, but the decision has to come from the full Bench.”

Since its publication, Dr. Swamy's article has been hotly debated on Twitter and Facebook, and last week it raised a storm in Harvard, where he taught Economics in the 1960s. In an online petition, students and faculty members demanded that Harvard end its association with him. The petition said: “While free expression and the vigorous contest of ideas are essential in any academic community, so too are respect and tolerance for human difference. By advocating measures that would grossly violate freedom of religion and the unqualified right to vote for different religious groups, and by aggressively vilifying an entire religious community, [Mr.] Swamy breaches the most basic standards of respect and tolerance.”

In the article titled, ‘How to wipe out Islamic terror' Dr. Swami, who is also president of the Janata Party said that by 2012, he expected Islam to confront Hindus to “complete unfinished business.” He said: “Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”. All other countries conquered by Islam 100 per cent converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75 per cent Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule. That is jarring for the fanatics.”

Dr. Swami prescribed strategies to defeat the political goals of Islamic terrorism. Among them: “Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.”

“Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle illegal migrants.”

My Comments:
I sent a comment, pointing out that Dr.Swamy's knowledge of Indian history was poor as he did not show any knowledge of when the Hindu label was applied to all the castes, and at least the disabled castes would not feel any "pride" in remembering their "Hindu" ancestors; and that his suggestion to de-link caste from birth and link it with code or discipline was naive as birth is the only determinant of the caste.
The Hindu, I feel, may edit it out.
So, I sent another comment: Perhaps, Dr.Swamy's article is not worthy of any comment, as remarked by Prof.Dipankar Gupta, and by extension, also any comments on Dr.Swamy. So, please moderate my previous comment out. Thank you.