ANIL KUMAR ONLINE - Official Blog of G. Anil Kumar

Great Artist Who Practiced Selective Immodesty

2011-06-10T13:27:00.006+05:30

M. F. Hussain is dead. Long live his sane-paintings.

Yes. there are insane-paintings too. When he selectively (he had painted his own relatives, friends and fellow religionists in fully-clad forms) depicted Hindu Gods in nude/porn forms, he had crossed all the limits of artstic decency .

He had not expressed regret. Instead, he chose to verbally attack all those who have expressed their displeasure and moved to courts against him. Facing non-bailable arrest warrant, he fled the country of his birth, a tolerant democracy, to Qatar. He accused Indian society as intolerant of artistic freedom, and selected Qatar, an Islamic theocracy, as his new home. Perhaps it was a great nation on earth which has respected artistic freedom to the core!

No doubt he was a talented artist. One can always call M F Hussain, a great artist. But was he a great human being too?

Historically, we can recognize a form of human weakness that attributes great virtues to great achievers without any proof!

People who have opposed M. F. Hussain's obscene paintings of Hindu Gods/Godesses are now being portrayed as extremists. It seems, some of our politicians and media persons are determined to carry forward the tradition of attacking Hindus.

But reality is different People, who peacefully opposed Hussain's pornographic art were not extremists. They were just ordinary people who got upset. They were the members of the civil society. There were doctors, lawyers, journalists, teachers, students, Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

Artistic freedom does not mean that you can do mean things. Freedom is always a subject of decency and morality. You cannot violate artistic decency to show that you have artistic freedom. Even corrupt politicians take people to courts when they feel they are being "defamed".

Communities also get upset when they feel their sacred symbols are being desecrated.

Anyway, artists have excluded Prophet Muhammad from their canvas, isn't it? They have done it (barring one or two incidents) in good faith. Mutual respect is the key. Then why one should insult Hindus?

We all do not want child-porn. No artist can paint child-pornography. Laws will not permit that. Similarly, M. F. Hussain's God-pornography should be opposed too. And it was opposed by the civil society for that reason only.

There are limitations to artistic expressions. Child porn is universally banned. Likewise, God- porn depictions must also be banned. Civil society should not be assaulted in the name of artistic expressions.

It must be saved from art-attacks.

The quest for a theory of everything

2010-08-30T13:10:00.000+05:30

This is an age of reasoning. Man has become more inquisitive. He is trying to understand the physical world in its entirety. A-theory-of-everything is the latest mantra of scientists. New mathematics is being developed to assist this exercise.

I think we have to tread a long way before we arrive at a mathematical unification. Still, it will be a "mathematical solution" and very difficult, if not impossible, to verify it through experimental physics.

LHC experiments to find "God particle" has a long way to go. It would take many decades, perhaps centuries, to process the huge data, to be gathered by these experiments.

Quantum mechanics is opposite of relativity theories. Currently string theory is doing the rounds and is the sole `hope' for the unified theory. Still, dark matter and black holes are not "revealing" themselves!

We are the creatures of three-dimensional world. Now scientists are talking about ten-dimensions and hyperspace! The latest researches point out, that, probably, we would never be able to unravel the secrets of the universe, or, at least, in the lifetime of our planet.

Is it skeptical view? I do not know. Our mathematics has not yet developed to suit the proportions and complexities of the universe.

We have had great scientists. Isaac Newton was a great genius. He developed mathematics on his own to present his own theories. We need many more such geniuses today.

Yes, we are progressing well towards a “theory of everything”. But time will certainly take stock of all theories. We had to believe Newton's static universe until Einstein and Edward Hubble showed us "different truths".

It is also true that human mind or intellect has its own limitations. Ancient Indians realized it and resorted to indirect methods in their quest for “ultimate reality”.

Upanishads and Geertha say Atma or Brahman is Shuddha, Buddha, Nithya, Anadi, Anantha and Achintya. It is Self and Him, says Advaita Vedanta.

Geetha says Atman is more sookshma than Paramanu, which is the smallest representative of the physical world in ancient books (we can include sub-atomic particles also, and everything including quarks and boson within Paramanu). Atman or Brahman is non-physical, space-less and time-less.

As we are the creatures of three-dimensional world, we can not visualize spaceless-ness and timeless-ness in our minds (time is also a physical dimension). Naasadeeya Sookta of Rgveda recognizes this.

That is why Adi Shankaracharya had to take different, a negative, route, to put-forth what he wanted to convey. That route is Neti, Neti, means Atman is NOT this, and NOT that. By trying to show what is NOT atman, he believed, that he can, to an extent, make us understand the true swaroopa of Him.

That is the limitation of languages. Timeless, space-less, beginning-less and end-less state of being is hard to realize and visualize. It is only a matter experience in the form of consciousness.

Atmajnani cannot explain physical / biological sciences. But he (she or anything) has no need to "understand" the physical, "unreal", world, the domain of "scientists".

But I find universe as a different thing, in the sense that it is a physical world. But I also believe that at the highest level, physical science has to be one with spiritual reality.

As for theory-of-everything with regard to the physical world, we need to have a more advanced mathematics, for it is the language of the nature (Apara Vidya). For that, we need to wait for a while.

Here, we have a great paradox. More we dig up the cosmos; we end up with more questions!

That is the beauty of science. Worldly life (loukika jeevana) will be exciting only if something remains to be known! Certainly ignorance is not bliss, the path of trying to acquire knowledge is blissful!

I do not think everything with regard to the universe or physical world will be explained to everyone's satisfaction in the near future. Again, that theory-of-everything will be open for further assessments. Now, even Einstein's relativity theories (vis-à-vis space-time) are being reassessed.

The vastness and complexities of the universe will engage human mind endlessly!

(C) G. ANIL KUMAR 2010.

Do our “leaders” have conscience like Roh Moo Hyun?

2009-06-04T11:15:00.002+05:30

Like Rajiv Gandhi, he started out as a promising national leader. Like Rajiv Gandhi again, he ended up in corruption scandals. But unlike Rajiv Gandhi, he took all the blame, took his conscience as his guide, became sensitive to public mood and … committed suicide.

That was South Korea’s former president Roh Moo-Hyun. He was a human rights lawyer. He worked for student activists of South Korea and worked for national unity. In 2003 he became the 16th president of his country. So far so good.

But gradually he drifted towards incompetence and corruption and ended his presidency in 2008 with eroded public support. Later, bribery scandals surrounded him. During his leadership his Uri Party had collapsed like a pack of cards.

Roh succumbed to temptation while in office. He succumbed to internal pressure afterwards. He did not want to show his face to the public anymore. After leaving a suicide note, he jumped from a mountain cliff on 23 May 2009 [His funeral on 29 May was possibly the largest-ever attended popular gathering in recent memory, an indication of public forgiveness of a tarnished hero - editor].

Can we ever imagine such a situation in India? I am not glorifying the suicide. Suicides of politicians are not uncommon in the world. Even Adolf Hitler had committed suicide. Death would never wash off one’s sins or misdeeds. Japan has a large list of politicians who have committed suicide in the midst of scandals. Suicide is not self-sacrifice. But we need to note Roh’s sensitivity to public opinion.

This brings us to an important question: how many Rohs do we have in India? Wikipedia has a huge list of politicians who have committed suicide. But there are no Indian names in that list. There are two reasons for this. One, Indian thought does not believe in the finality of death. Secondly, Indian politicians are “mature enough” to defend themselves even against glaring evidences!

Leave suicide aside. How many of our ministers, Chief Ministers and Prime Ministers have voluntarily resigned over corruption and criminal allegations? We always cite the example of Lal Bahadur Shastri, who resigned as a Union Minister for Railways, after a train accident in 1956. Only one example!

Leave the old-timers aside. Take Rajiv Gandhi, widely regarded as a young, modern and promising leader. As Prime Minister, the purported “Mr. Clean” faced many allegations like the Bofors payoffs, Octavio Quattrocchi’s escapades, and dirty money from the KGB, etc. Although he was personally implicated in the scandals, he never offered to resign to facilitate an impartial investigation (he was posthumously cleared of the Bofors allegation in 2004 due to “lack of evidence”).

Mr. V.P. Singh, who uncovered the Bofors scandal as Rajiv’s Defense Minister, did nothing to take the investigation to its logical end when he became Prime Minister! P.V. Narasimha Rao, Deve Gowda, Inder Gujral and Atal Bihari Vajpayee also could not get any conviction in the Bofors case. P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister was associated with various corruption charges such as the JMM bribery scandal, St. Kitts forgery scandal, Harshad Mehta’s bribery allegation and stock market scandal, Lakhubhai Pathak cheating scandal. He never consulted his “insider” then.

This is the situation in India. What sort of sensitiveness can be expected from persons like Lalu Prasad Yadav, Shibu Soren, Mayawati, Sonia Gandhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Karunanidhi, Deve Gowda, and Jayalalithaa? Insensitiveness to public opinion is now being regarded as an “important quality” to “survive” in politics!

Until 1999, BJP leaders were able to keep themselves away from major corruption charges, although in public perception not all of them were clean. In 2000, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha’s decision to ‘let off’ Mauritius-based foreign institutional investors over the double taxation issue became a major controversy. He did not offer to resign.

In 2001, the then BJP president Bangaru Laxman was involved in a major controversy. Tehelka.com showed him taking bribes on a hidden camera. He did not volunteer to quit, but was forced to step down as a criminal case was registered against him. Even then he termed the event as “a conspiracy to sideline a dalit leader”!

Former Union Minister and Congress leader Sukh Ram was unperturbed when convicted in the disproportionate assets case recently. His illegal assets included Rs 2.45 crores in cash, recovered from his official residence in Delhi, and Rs 1.16 crore from his house in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. These were amassed during 1991 to 1996 when he was a minister. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and fined Rs 2 lakh. The Special CBI Court also ordered forfeiture of his disproportionate assets. All that Sukh Ram had to say was: “This is a conspiracy by my enemies to finish me”!

No question of morality, no call of conscience, no explanation, no sense of responsibility, no sensitivity!

The list of insensitive Indian leaders is endless. Among these Sonia Gandhi has cultivated a unique formula: “never respond to allegations”. She has not responded to any of the myriad serious allegations made against her!

In a brilliant article (http://www.boloji.com/myword/mw042.htm) columnist Rajinder Puri unearths many skeletons from her closet:–

“Dr. Yevgenia Albats is a Soviet journalist who officially investigated the KGB when the communist regime was still in control. She was appointed as a member of the official KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in 1991. She had full access to secret files of the KGB. She authored a book, The State within a State: KGB and Its Hold on Russia… After translating official KGB documents Dr. Albats disclosed in her book that KGB chief Victor Chebrikov in December 1985 had sought in writing from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), ‘authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi.’ CPSU payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi’s family and “have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.”

“… In 1992 the media confronted the Russian government with the Albats disclosure. The Russian government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure and defended it as necessary for “Soviet ideological interest”. The Hindu of July 4, 1992 carried this report. Mr. AG Noorani included this information in an article published in The Statesman of January 31, 1998. In December 2001, Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court with relevant KGB photocopies and sought a CBI investigation. In May 2002 the Court ordered CBI to ascertain from Russia the truth of these charges. The CBI stalled for two years and eventually told the Court that without a registered FIR the Russians would not entertain any such query. But why was not an FIR registered? ... In November 1991 the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate, published a report alleging that Rajiv Gandhi had 2.5 billion Swiss francs, equivalent roughly to two billion US dollars, in numbered Swiss bank accounts.”

Where is Sonia Gandhi’s famous “inner voice”? Doesn’t she owe an explanation? Among leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Roh Moo Hyun stands out as a sterling example. He could have apologized and started out afresh after serving his jail term. But that requires a different personality.

Our own “leaders” defend themselves against all glaring evidences and shift all blame on others till eternity! Roh did not do that.

Castes and Conversions: Is Christianity a solid monolith?

2008-12-19T12:17:00.004+05:30

Also see: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=294

-----

In India every debate on conversion to Christianity ends with Hindu society's caste-based "poison of divisions". Missionaries and their supporters present conversion as the only "antidote" available. And missionaries are "doctors," hell bent on administering that antidote! And our "secularists" have been repeating it.

"Caste" was an old weapon of missionaries who established the conversion business in India. Anti-Brahminism, "Dravidianism," conversion as "the solution" to caste and the Aryan-Dravidian divide were effectively introduced as stratagems for conversion by Bishop Robert Caldwell. In his book "Christianity explained to Hindus: Christianity and Hinduism compared" (1893), he wrote that caste first arose from difference of race; people with black skin were "original inhabitants of India" (p. 20).

"On the other hand", he wrote, "Christianity teaches that God gave us life and continually preserves us. He is therefore our Father in heaven… The Brotherhood of man follows Fatherhood of God… But Hinduism makes life a curse instead of a blessing" (p. 20-21). Caldwell’s arguments are well known. His "Dravidian Grammar" was a trend-setter. But why did he painstakingly write so many books? If we read his lecture, "Progress of Christianity in India" we get the answer.

He says, "an encouraging amount of interest in the progress of Christianity has now at last been awakened, and a demand for information has been excited: it is now felt that a great door and effectual has been opened to us in India, and that the conversion of India to Christ is one of the greatest works, if not the great work, to which the Church and nation of England are called" (Lectures on the Tinnevelly Missions, 1857, p. 4).

For sheer audacity and bigotry, Caldwell could today be called a "cultural terrorist". Yet his views are endorsed by a section of India's "secular" intelligentsia! They were reiterated in Karnataka's recent public debate on conversion.

The debate on conversion was launched by the oldest Kannada daily, Samyukta Karnataka, with some well-researched articles by selected writers and scholars (my own essay has appeared in Karmaveera, a weekly of the same group). Taking the cue, the largest circulated Kannada daily, Vijay Karnataka, provided a platform for a bare-all debate. Noted Kannada novelist Dr. S.L. Bhyrappa started with a big bang with his one-and-a half-page article. Every small and big, famous and notorious person in Karnataka has presented his or her opinion on the subject.

Professional missionaries kept silent; our secularists did all the batting on their behalf! Once again, leftists are proving that they are "more Christian" than the original faith-sellers.

First of all, is it good to debate conversion as suggested by some political leaders time and again? Should anybody debate conversion with anybody else out on the street? Would one debate it with professional missionaries, who have taken a vow, or money, to compulsively meet a number of people everyday just to persuade them to embrace Christianity? Should we organize an open debate at an open forum where anybody, from a scholar to a street vendor, from a professional gangster to a professional pimp, could come and vent his "thoughts"?

I do not suggest we should shy away from such debates. While they do not solve any religious problem, they bring pertinent questions into the open. Let people be aware of everything vis-à-vis conversion and Christianity, and about castes.

Hindus should not hesitate to debate caste as they have nothing to hide. But they should understand what Christianity is all about. They should study and debate its history and methods of expansion, its "spiritualism" and "brotherhood." They should ask missionaries why casteless societies were converted to Christianity throughout the ages and throughout the world.

Missionaries' typical answers are well known. In India, "conversion is the best solution for caste-based differences within Hindu society;" in America, "barbaric tribes had to be civilized and spiritualized." They always proffer local issues to justify conversions. In India's case, most proponents of Christianity's "monolithic unity" and Hinduism’s "caste- based divisions" invoke B.R. Ambedkar to remain politically correct while attacking the faith! But all fail to explain why Ambedkar did not convert to Caldwell's "great brotherhood" called Christianity.

In fact, Ambedkar wanted to send a strong message through his religious conversion. After examining Christianity, he wrote in 1938: "caste governs the life of Christians as much as it does the life of the Hindus. There are Brahmin Christians and non-Brahmin Christians. Among non-Brahmin Christians there are Maratha Christians, Mahar Christians, Mang Christians and Bhangi Christians. Similarly in the south there are Pariah Christians, Malla Christians and Madiga Christians. They would not inter-marry. They would not inter-dine" (Selected Speeches and Writings, Vol. 5, Government of Maharashtra, 1989, p. 445-78).

Ambedkar converted to Buddhism as it was a "part and parcel of Bharatiya culture." He said: "I have taken care that my conversion will not harm the tradition of the culture and the history of this land" (Quoted in 'Ambedkar', by Dhananjay Keer, p. 498).

The hard truth is that even Buddhism is not a monolithic unity! It has different schools of thought and different traditional streams. For that matter where do we find the most unified, rock-solid group on earth? Is Islam one single entity? Is Christianity a superb monolith? If so, since when? Since its inception or through "spiritualism"? Since the First Council of Nicaea, when Emperor Constantine decided, at sword-point, what should and should not be the tenets of 'official' Christianity? Or since the Second Vatican Council, when it was decided to establish the supremacy of Catholicism once again?

Let us examine the facts; consult their own sources.

Christians are not one; they are divided into separate churches and traditions. Over the centuries, Christianity has divided into numerous denominations. Each denomination has its own distinctive beliefs or practices, yet we hold them to be branches of the same religion. But when it comes to Hindu society, every Tom, Dick or Harry talks about caste and asks us "where is the common unity?" as if there is no common thread of beliefs among Hindus!

Although missionaries never talk about their internal divisions openly, conversion always happens to a particular denomination, to a particular church. One can never get converted to "Christianity". He or she can only become a member of a particular church. When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair converted to the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican community and its church vehemently protested.

Why do street missionaries never talk about their internal divisions? This is an age-old strategy. The famous Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, who wrote Mere Christianity, in 1940s, reminded believers about this strategy: "our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is his only Son"!

Let us move on to the denominations. In 1985, it was estimated that there were 22,000 Christian denominations with 5 new ones being formed each week! There are nearly 34,000 (probably more) Christian and Messianic denominations and churches in the world now. These may be broken down to six different main blocks:

1] Independents 22000
2] Protestants 9000
3] 'Marginals' 1600
4] Orthodox 781
5] Roman Catholics 242
6] Anglicans 168
Total 33791
(Source: World Christian Encyclopedia, by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson; Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 2001, Vol. 1, p.16-18).

What are denominations? The encyclopedia explains: "a denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations" (Barrett et al, Vol. 1, page 16, Table 1-5).

Pope John Paul II once called Protestant missionaries "rapacious wolves" for converting Catholics! So much for "monolithic unity"! In the second week of August 2007, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Pentecostals, Orthodox, Evangelicals (sounds like caste names!) gathered to map a "common religious conversion code" in France. The code, which has to be finalized in a year or two, was named "Ethical Conversion Code".

"Conversion is a controversial issue not only in inter-religious relations, but in intra-Christian relations as well," admitted Dr. Hans Ucko, World Council of Churches programme executive and one of the organizers of the meeting.

So much for "monolithic unity" and "great brotherhood"!

(C) G. ANIL KUMAR 2008.

Catholic-Secular Forum (CSF) In Panic Mode

2008-12-14T02:15:00.009+05:30

“How would we react, if fundamentalists attacked Christians again (during) this Christmas?”

Thus begins a pamphlet, published and circulated recently by The Catholic-Secular Forum (CSF).

What does CSF mean by “fundamentalists”?

“The terrorists exposed how vulnerable we were & how easy it was to kill hundreds” it says. Does it bothered by Pakistan based Jihadi terrorism? That could be one of its fears. But the CSF has different hints.

“AP, TN, UP, JK, Goa, Kerala, Mumbai, Gujarat, Karnataka, New Delhi, Rajastan, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab-Haryana, ..these are the places where Christians have been attacked. Dozens of Churches, Chapels, & Crosses were torched & vandalized. Alters, Relics, Bibles, Statues, Blessed Sacrament, etc. were desecrated. Nuns were raped & molested, while priests/pastors/leaders were murdered. Christian land/resources were captured. Women and children were not spared...” the pamphlet goes on and on.

Although a Orissa nun, who has complained that some Hindu activists have raped her, is not co-operating with investigative agencies, and also has failed to prove any sexual activity though medical tests, the CSF has put forth her charge as a fact. See how rapes and murders are generalized.

Its conclusion: Christians are being persecuted in India by Hindu organizations.

Next focus is on media. “The media of course will give publicity. Christians should be able to manage that well….” It goes on. "But that is not enough. We have to go back to our own places. And everything will be repeated again”.

Then, what is the solution?

“Maoists have warned the RSS/VHP against Christmas bandhs” the pamphlet informs. 'But that development may lead to another mayhem", it suspects. See how Maoists were invoked! What CSF has to do with Maoists?

Recent media reports indicate Maoist-Missionary nexus in Orissa. Is CSF also a party in this arrangement?

"According to Vatican sources, Muslims outnumbered Catholics in the world and churches are converted into mosques", it says. In India, Hindus are persecuting Catholics and all over the world Muslims are overwhelming them, it informs.

So, what needs to be done to counter all this?

The CSF has devised a plan. “There has been a great interaction between India’s Christian Who’s Who and some community leaders met in Mumbai recently to brain-storm….We concluded that the desperate need of the hour is a national, activist, all inclusive (all denominations) and representative mechanism or structure was a must to meet the Goliaths ahead…This is to empower Christians economically and politically….We decided no turning back…Our initiative includes data bank, a think tank, corpus fund, political lobbying, networking for self-sufficiency” etc.

That means more Christian activism in the coming days; more aggressive conversion plans to compete with the growing number of Muslims; more clever media management; more political lobbying. More reliance on Maoists and other terrorists to meet its ends.

“We aim to have by next year, a grand federation of every Christian hue & shade. Thousands of Christian churches, organizations, institutions, activists, NGOs, etc. with no discrimination on the basis of Denomination - Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic, Region, Clergy, Laity, Rite – truly the body of Christ in the country.

See how CSF is in panic mode. See how fear-psychosis is being created. See how there is no introspection about religious conversion, which is the root cause of any inter-religious tension.

Indirectly, more conversions are guaranteed. “It’s the Lord’s work. And by His Spirit, success is guaranteed” the CSF screams!

(C) G. ANIL KUMAR 2008.

ANIL KUMAR ONLINE - Official Blog of G. Anil Kumar

Great Artist Who Practiced Selective Immodesty

The quest for a theory of everything

Do our “leaders” have conscience like Roh Moo Hyun?

Castes and Conversions: Is Christianity a solid monolith?

Catholic-Secular Forum (CSF) In Panic Mode

Assembly results: who has the last laugh?

When Mumbai was burning....

Let us welcome the elite to mainstream!

Made in Vatican "Sanits"!

Truth about Godhra

Psychology of Separatism, Dilemma of Democracy

Are Missionary Schools different from Madrassas?

When you do nothing about the evil...

"Secular" writers suggest Balkanisation Of India - Govt. tolerates sedition - Is tolerating anti-national elements greatness?

Oh stupid leaders, it's a war, fight it

"Extraterrestrial brothers" (or "sons") waiting for the Pope?!

Why Priyanka Visited Nalini?

With leaders like these, you don’t need enemies

On Indo-US nuclear deal

Rahul's new family mantra

Baptist Tirupati, Pentecostal Mantralaya!

Dhimmitude as Indian Secularism

Enter the era of Rahul Gandhigiri

Great start!!