The Common Wealth Games have finished and so I let out a sigh of relief saying to myself, "all's well that ends well". I feel proud that India scored 2nd just after Australia as far as gold medals are concerned. India did well in spite of all the uproar and allegations of corruption. I feel proud as an Indian and happy for Canada as it secured its position by gaining 4th place.
Since then I have been questioning myself - why do I get so happy or sad when it comes to Indian victory or failure? I am a Canadian citizen, and yet my loyalty is more towards my country of birth than the country of my citizenship. My heart pains when media here talks badly about India. I become defensive and start behaving like a brand ambassador of India although I am not officially appointed. My heart rejoices when India is praised, or handles any crisis intelligently and practically. I feel proud when our cricket team does well or our girls become Miss Universe or Miss World. I feel happy when an Indian living outside gets a Nobel prize. It gives me an identity. Even if we are holders of a Canadian passport we will be first known as a national of India and its image, its progress , and its good and bad will get associated with our image. We will be treated accordingly in our work place...e.g. Indian getting opportunities in the Silicon Valley based upon their performance in their own country first.
I feel we Indians, living outside, should try our best to always keep the flag of India high and contribute our best to the society we live in. We all are, as individuals, carrying the responsibility of being an ambassador of our country, so we should represent ourselves in the best possible manner. We should not think of India only as a shopping centre (because of the low cost) but also a place where the philosophy of love, compassion, understanding and mysticism originated. The world looks towards it for higher meaning and higher salvation. Wherever I may be, I will never forget that I am an Indian first. Jai Hind.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Friday, 12 November 2010
HINDI - A BONE OF CONTENTION
Recently Hindi became a bone of contention in India. Lots of news channels were debating about the legitimacy of Hindi as a national language. I have some opinions on this topic so I thought of sharing them with all of you.
Being an Indian myself and living outside India for almost 17 yrs., these matters still concern me. I love Hindi and speak Hindi all the time whenever I get a chance. I have taught the language to my children as well. The sad thing is that Hindi is not widely accepted in India, and since we as Indians are divided on so many issues, we don't mind doing regional and communal politics even if they are sensitive issues of national interest. Recently, I was watching a debate conducted by NDTV and CNN-IBN and was appalled to see the amount of resistance Hindi is facing from within India. Though majority of the Indian population speaks Hindi, it is still not an accepted language and most of them from other states were saying it is a dysfunctional language. How any other regional language can be functional, I cannot understand. They are willing to accept English as their national language and not Hindi, because it will be a defeat on their part. Though only 8% of population in India can speak English, the English channels were trying to project that 48% of the janta in India are in favour of English.
First of all, on this kind of a forum, we need a good Hindi speaker, who can look educated, elegant, and sophisticated enough to be heard by so called-anchors of the shows and other invited guests. They never invite a highly sophisticated, elegant and stylish person who can represent the majority interest of the people of India.
The second issue is about convent schools. For this I think, we, our mind-set, competition outside, and lack of govt's will to improve the quality of Hindi schools, were responsible for its failure. 4-5 years ago, when I was in India, I met my mom's maid servant who was a young girl of 14-15 and she sounded very intelligent. So I asked her to enrol herself in the Govt. Girl's High school. She refused. She said, if she ever goes to school, she would like to go to an English school. She doesn't want to go to a school where the teachers give work to children and then get busy into knitting and other kind of activities. I was shocked to listen to this impression from a village girl, who refused to be educated at all if she had to go to a Hindi school. Hindi schools have poor etiquettes and almost zero presentation. Teachers are not up to the mark. If we want people to send their children to our own schools, we will have to improve a lot of things in order to make it functional. Govt. representatives keep on visiting Europe and North America, but they never try to learn and implement things that are good about the west. For them, coming to the west means eating, drinking and being merry. When it’s time to go back home, then they do petty politics.
Today, at least Raj Thackeray (Maharashtra) and M.K. Kanimozhi (Tamilnadu), who are involved in language politics are able to sustain themselves, although they and their children didn't go to regional schools, because they think English is an international language and so they need to know it in order to progress. Where is a Hindi ka pratinidhi ( a strong one)...when Samajwadi party tries to fight it out...it sounds more like politics than a real concern. When BJP says something, they make it look like saffron politics or desi politics or fundamental politics. We need a strong Hindi voice that belongs to someone who knows how to play the game with all sophistication and elegance.
Being an Indian myself and living outside India for almost 17 yrs., these matters still concern me. I love Hindi and speak Hindi all the time whenever I get a chance. I have taught the language to my children as well. The sad thing is that Hindi is not widely accepted in India, and since we as Indians are divided on so many issues, we don't mind doing regional and communal politics even if they are sensitive issues of national interest. Recently, I was watching a debate conducted by NDTV and CNN-IBN and was appalled to see the amount of resistance Hindi is facing from within India. Though majority of the Indian population speaks Hindi, it is still not an accepted language and most of them from other states were saying it is a dysfunctional language. How any other regional language can be functional, I cannot understand. They are willing to accept English as their national language and not Hindi, because it will be a defeat on their part. Though only 8% of population in India can speak English, the English channels were trying to project that 48% of the janta in India are in favour of English.
First of all, on this kind of a forum, we need a good Hindi speaker, who can look educated, elegant, and sophisticated enough to be heard by so called-anchors of the shows and other invited guests. They never invite a highly sophisticated, elegant and stylish person who can represent the majority interest of the people of India.
The second issue is about convent schools. For this I think, we, our mind-set, competition outside, and lack of govt's will to improve the quality of Hindi schools, were responsible for its failure. 4-5 years ago, when I was in India, I met my mom's maid servant who was a young girl of 14-15 and she sounded very intelligent. So I asked her to enrol herself in the Govt. Girl's High school. She refused. She said, if she ever goes to school, she would like to go to an English school. She doesn't want to go to a school where the teachers give work to children and then get busy into knitting and other kind of activities. I was shocked to listen to this impression from a village girl, who refused to be educated at all if she had to go to a Hindi school. Hindi schools have poor etiquettes and almost zero presentation. Teachers are not up to the mark. If we want people to send their children to our own schools, we will have to improve a lot of things in order to make it functional. Govt. representatives keep on visiting Europe and North America, but they never try to learn and implement things that are good about the west. For them, coming to the west means eating, drinking and being merry. When it’s time to go back home, then they do petty politics.
Today, at least Raj Thackeray (Maharashtra) and M.K. Kanimozhi (Tamilnadu), who are involved in language politics are able to sustain themselves, although they and their children didn't go to regional schools, because they think English is an international language and so they need to know it in order to progress. Where is a Hindi ka pratinidhi ( a strong one)...when Samajwadi party tries to fight it out...it sounds more like politics than a real concern. When BJP says something, they make it look like saffron politics or desi politics or fundamental politics. We need a strong Hindi voice that belongs to someone who knows how to play the game with all sophistication and elegance.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
A misunderstood speech
While reading Vivekananda I came across these statements of his, (1888-1902)
"Non-Injury is right. 'Resist not evil' is a great thing – these are indeed grand principles; but the scriptures say,' Thou art a house-holder; if anyone smites thee on thy cheek, and thou dost not return him an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, thou will verily be a sinner.' Manu says, 'When one has come to kill you, there is no sin in killing him, even though he be a Brahmin.' (Manu, Viii. 350) This is very true, and this is a thing which should not be forgotten. Heroes only enjoy the world. Show your heroism; apply, according to circumstances, the fourfold political maxims of conciliation, bribery, sowing, dissensions and open war, to win over your adversary and enjoy the world – then you will be Dharmika (righteous). Otherwise, you live a disgraceful life if you pocket your insults when you are kicked and trodden down by anyone who takes it into his head to do so; your life is a veritable hell here, and so is the life hereafter. This is what the shastras say. Do your Svadharma – this is truth, the truth of truths. This is my advice to you, my beloved co-religionists. Of course, do not do any wrong. Do not injure or tyrannize over anyone, but try to do good to others as much as you can. But passively to submit to wrong done by others is a sin – with the householder. He must try to pay them back in their own coin then and there."
At another place he is saying to his devotees,
“Bless others when they revile you. Think how much good they are doing you; they can only hurt themselves. Go where people hate you, let them thrash the ego out of you, and you will get nearer to God.”
I find these two statements very contradictory. At one place he is advocating “an eye for an eye” and at the other he is advising to visit those who can insult or humiliate us with good grace, so that we can be able to tame our ego and thus learn the art of surrendering completely to the Lord.
I have seen few people reacting or humiliating others for trivial things and then justifying it by citing Vivekananda’s householder definition. To understand the background of this statement, I would like to go back into Swami Vivekananda’s other lectures which he gave regarding Bauddhistic practices. He found Buddhism quite unpractical because the path of Moksha, (sannyasa) cannot be for all. This desire of many, made society dysfunctional and India got invaded by other kings and countries and lost to them on the name of Moksha and non-violence. In regards to the context and timing of Swami Vivekananda’s delivered speech, the message of action versus passivity was greatly needed. During the time of British rule in India along with Bauddhistic practices, citizens of India were taking the backseat to their own nation’s affairs, in the attempt to follow Buddhism. Although non-violence is definitely feasible on paper, it is not always practical. Keeping that in mind Swami Vivekananda gave that lecture to householders to convey the message that one should do their duty as per their dharma and position. If it comes to fight, then one should fight if the end cause is important and worthwhile.
As far as the second statement is concerned, it is very difficult to take the insult and understand the cause of it. Not only the cause of it, but to have an understanding of why the person has insulted you. But, if one gains understanding of the others' perspective, then that person goes far in life. Although the two statements are contradictory, they cannot be judged solely on their content, but also must have their time period and context taken into consideration.
Think about it and do send me your comments and interpretation of these statements.
"Non-Injury is right. 'Resist not evil' is a great thing – these are indeed grand principles; but the scriptures say,' Thou art a house-holder; if anyone smites thee on thy cheek, and thou dost not return him an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, thou will verily be a sinner.' Manu says, 'When one has come to kill you, there is no sin in killing him, even though he be a Brahmin.' (Manu, Viii. 350) This is very true, and this is a thing which should not be forgotten. Heroes only enjoy the world. Show your heroism; apply, according to circumstances, the fourfold political maxims of conciliation, bribery, sowing, dissensions and open war, to win over your adversary and enjoy the world – then you will be Dharmika (righteous). Otherwise, you live a disgraceful life if you pocket your insults when you are kicked and trodden down by anyone who takes it into his head to do so; your life is a veritable hell here, and so is the life hereafter. This is what the shastras say. Do your Svadharma – this is truth, the truth of truths. This is my advice to you, my beloved co-religionists. Of course, do not do any wrong. Do not injure or tyrannize over anyone, but try to do good to others as much as you can. But passively to submit to wrong done by others is a sin – with the householder. He must try to pay them back in their own coin then and there."
At another place he is saying to his devotees,
“Bless others when they revile you. Think how much good they are doing you; they can only hurt themselves. Go where people hate you, let them thrash the ego out of you, and you will get nearer to God.”
I find these two statements very contradictory. At one place he is advocating “an eye for an eye” and at the other he is advising to visit those who can insult or humiliate us with good grace, so that we can be able to tame our ego and thus learn the art of surrendering completely to the Lord.
I have seen few people reacting or humiliating others for trivial things and then justifying it by citing Vivekananda’s householder definition. To understand the background of this statement, I would like to go back into Swami Vivekananda’s other lectures which he gave regarding Bauddhistic practices. He found Buddhism quite unpractical because the path of Moksha, (sannyasa) cannot be for all. This desire of many, made society dysfunctional and India got invaded by other kings and countries and lost to them on the name of Moksha and non-violence. In regards to the context and timing of Swami Vivekananda’s delivered speech, the message of action versus passivity was greatly needed. During the time of British rule in India along with Bauddhistic practices, citizens of India were taking the backseat to their own nation’s affairs, in the attempt to follow Buddhism. Although non-violence is definitely feasible on paper, it is not always practical. Keeping that in mind Swami Vivekananda gave that lecture to householders to convey the message that one should do their duty as per their dharma and position. If it comes to fight, then one should fight if the end cause is important and worthwhile.
As far as the second statement is concerned, it is very difficult to take the insult and understand the cause of it. Not only the cause of it, but to have an understanding of why the person has insulted you. But, if one gains understanding of the others' perspective, then that person goes far in life. Although the two statements are contradictory, they cannot be judged solely on their content, but also must have their time period and context taken into consideration.
Think about it and do send me your comments and interpretation of these statements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)