Idol worship

Why do we worship idols?

First, I would like to make it clear that this is my personal view and there may be conflicts from the popular beliefs. Also, I am a Hindu and hence my views are like what a Hindu would think about idol worship; this may not be in congruent with other religions’ idol worship.

We worship nature. We worship rivers, mountains, trees, plants, sun, moon and all the natural forces. Because we know that we can’t survive without and hence are indebted to the nature for its mercy shown to us. We know our goal – to rise and become God like, and are clear about that. We are humble people who accept and acknowledge the help of natural forces in our attempts to achieve our goals.

We love nature. We can’t live without them. It shows in our day to day customs and behaviour. This is not one-way taking or collectivist attitude. We give water to plant and trees, we protect them, nurture them. We worship the Sun like our God. We feel humble at the powers of natural forces, we worship the wind also.

Idols are visual representations of what we see and feel. Idols are made up of rocks, clay, they part of our nature. They are not created in some imaginative shapes and sizes to threaten and create an awe feeling in some tribe. We believe in education and enlightenment. We believe in reasoning and no matter how much we are able to decode, we always remain amused with the complexity and simplicity of nature.

When we worship nature and natural forces, we also see God everywhere. God is omnipresent. We give the idols the shapes and human like characteristics and hence we acknowledge that there is a God inside all of us. We all can become united with Gods. This couldn’t have become greater than this. We see God in you, him, her, and them. And hence our idols look like humans, because our love, our worship, our and our dear God does come to us in human forms. He came to us in the form of Ram, in the form of Krishna and He does come to us in human form each and every day. If only we could see and recognise Him….

Our idols are parts of the nature; they are human like, they are like us! We take care of our idols. We keep the area around them clean, we take care of them and we bend down in front of them……. Because we salute our God – we thank him for giving us this birth, for giving us this chance to live the single moment that we are alive. We bend down to show our gratitude and our love for Him.

When we love someone, we see him/her everywhere: in flowers, in birds, in moon and in the sun. Our love for God is above any singular feeling in this world. For that we don’t complain. That He made us poor or didn’t give us the riches that some others enjoy. For we took birth in this world that our God created, that we lived even a single moment, that our mothers held us close to their breasts, we are privileged.

We believe in Karma – that we do good and will get good. We do good and that makes Him happy. We don’t hurt others and don’t make others suffer. Not because there is a God watching us, but because there is a God in the other person also.

We worship idols – because we see God in them. If we saw God only in idols and not anywhere else, that would be very different. To say that we ‘need’ idols to see God is foolish. God is everywhere and in every form. Even in that bird and in that plant. Idols are one form of Him and Him only.

God is our love, our worship and also our friend. We talk to Him. And we take care of and love Him in the form of idols. Serving and taking care of the idols also represent the way our dear God takes care of us… and we also see that as the way in which we should take care of others…
What if someone attacks and hurts our idols? We will fight in defence and our religion doesn’t prevent us from fighting for dharma. We will do whatever in our capacity to prevent our idols from being troubled. But if something happened, we know that He allows us to learn many lessons from sufferings and problems. There is a right time for everything and He has plans for all. If we did our karma honestly and our hands didn’t shake, then we accept things and don’t worry too much about results. Because we believe in Him.

And hence we worship idols.

Business of Conversions

It was one of those summer evenings of late 90s when there won’t be power in our town and all of our family members would sit together and have a chat. Mother would have finished cooking, father would have come back after meeting friends, and we would have finished the homework… We had given our upper floor on rent. At that time, two of the elder sons in the family had come to home and they were chatting. Suddenly we found the peaceful evening interrupted by a big argument broken between them. It came out that the younger brother was saying that India’s new-generation Hindus would become very intolerant because of government’s minority appeasement policies. While the elder brother shrugged him off saying, “Who has the time to think about religions?”

Today, the elder brother is well settled abroad and didn’t even invite his parents when he married there. Younger one had his own learning curve and after much struggle and a personal disaster, he survived all and is now well settled and lives in peace.

Should we think about religion then?

The recent attack on Churches in Orissa and then Karnataka should not be seen in isolation. First, taking law in hands and attacking any place of worship is wrong – not tolerable by any means. But it would be madness if we try to douse the fire cause by electrical short-circuit by throwing water over it. We would get hit in return and fire will spread more…

At one time I was that innocent kid who used to think that Christian Missionaries were like Mother Teresa – helping the poor, educating them and in turn doing a service to our society. And then, I grew up. Diverse non-political literature tells the tales of how Christian missionaries lured the poor unsatisfied Hindus by showing them dreams and then booking them in their rolls…

Whenever I go visit the Siddhivinayak Temple in the evenings, I reach there taking a shortcut. The temple is mostly crowded, where people compete with each other to take a glimpse of the idol, to touch the idol for maximum number of times and this competition gets frustrating in peak hours. On the way back, I get to see a small gathering around a small temple-like structure. That structure is made on a land encroached from a playground – looks very much like the small temple that people make in order to grab government lands. People gather there, mostly ladies in sarees and they all pray as if they were singing aartis. They also burn incense sticks. The whole atmosphere looks exactly like as if happening in a Hindu temple, except that the idol is of Jesus Christ and not of Lord Krishna. This is just a small example.

The level to which the original practices of Christianity have been altered and customised to suit the local needs of India is amusing. It is said that at one point the missionaries were very frustrated, because there were no parallel to the Indian and Hindu mythology in their original religion. Indians grow up learning moral lessons from Ram and Krishna. From Hanuman to Goddess Kali – the diversification and the scope – the ambit and the touch points – of Hinduism are totally unparalleled. And when they realised this, then started the customisation of Christianity for India.

And hence on one hand, articles were written how Jesus may be an Avatar just like Krishna was, and on the other hand, attempts were made to prove to the younger generation that Hindu symbols and icons were nothing but pieces of fiction. The religion and philosophy which won the world over – by just one man – Swami Vivekananda – was shown as if it was confusing and not cultured enough. The younger generation, which is anyway going the Western way of life, has started seeing the world from a different angle. And hence, when asked to imagine a wedding – it is highly likely that a kid will think of “now you may kiss the bride” kind of ceremony. Kissing is cool, saat-phere is not so! Anyways ladies have started not using sindoor – lady Clinton never applies that! Innumerable websites have propped up – with conflicting views on Hinduism – with a hidden agendum of creating confusions among the younger generations.

On the other hand, the business is still business. So, all the missionaries will always work in states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa – where the untapped recruits lie. The argument is that – the adivasis don’t practice Hinduism formally anyway, so when they would accept Christianity, it won’t be called conversion! So, the record books get filled up.

In order to make the numbers they don’t focus on ‘quality’ – and hence there is a separate section called ‘Dalit Christians’ made up from the discriminated castes from Hindus. I won’t quote many articles here, but a small article will tell you the status: [Link]:

============

As churchgoers dwindle in Europe—according to pollster Gallup International, attendance declined from 60-65% in 1980 to 20% in 2000—countries such as India with its enormous potential for conversion have become more important for the Vatican.

In the district of Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh, P.B Lomiyo, editor of the magazine, Christian Restoration, says, “The clergy raise funds for schools for Dalits, but don’t give admission to them. When Dalits demand their rights, they react and encourage the parish to boycott the Dalits.”

R.L. Francis, president of the Poor Christian Liberation Movement says that it is because the Vatican has one lone interest in India: conversion. “They have only set up a business enterprise here,” he said, “... solely for promoting conversions, none for Dalit upliftment. We are asking the Vatican to stop all conversion in India for the next 100 years and spend the money on healing those who have already come to the faith.”

============

The exact way in which petro-dollars are funding the global terrorist activities in the name of Islamic Jihad, the funds raised in the Western countries are spent in India in the name of carrying out the business of conversions.

And then there is also a growing breed of Christians in India who say that the Hindus who convert to Christianity shouldn’t be allowed into the faith because: when they couldn’t stick to their religion to birth, they won’t do great in the new religion also. First, this mentality is the same mentality where some of us close the door when we get inside the train. Second, it again is a sort of casteism, frowning at that poor adivasi becoming the same Christian that the learned professor is. And third, such persons forget that somewhere, one of their own ancestors had converted into Christianity! Jesus was neither born into India, nor did the Indian soil need him to be born here! A foreign religion brought in and spread with pounds and guns – is a ‘push’ process rather than ‘pull’ one.

Coming back to the incidents of attacks on Churches in India, given the historical background, there is much mess within the surface, as much blood flows over it. Unrestricted conversions don’t only change the religions and places of worship, but also changes attitudes, creates group formations, sows seeds of disharmony in the village system, and results in hatred on both sides: nothing that Jesus wanted.

It is historically proven that India has suffered whenever the Hindus have become weak from inside. Attacks on Somnath were not only because the invaders Muslims had better ammunitions – it was also because the Hindus were not united and had become too custom-oriented. I wonder if today, the same case is being repeated: this time the invaders are not outsiders: it is our own elected governments who would act in great loss to the country by not acting up.

Our governments have proven that unless people protest and do violence, they won’t hear them. This happened recently in Jammu when young Hindu men committed suicides and families spent days on the roads protesting, and then only the government listened to their demands. This sets a bad example and it is sad that we are all loving towards that direction.

Today, we all remember the religious riots in Gujarat as attacks on Muslims – and we don’t remember how it all started – Hindus being burnt alive enclosed in a train. Why? Because it makes us better ‘intellectuals’ if we speak like ‘true’ seculars. Even our scriptures told us: "satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam"! So we all choose to speak the lovely truth. And we keep the bitter truths in the closet. And then one day the closet gets opened and such incidents happen...

Orissa violence started when a Hindu saint was murdered whose influence on the tribal people was causing resistance to the conversion drives of Christian missionaries. What happened afterwards was sad. No one has the right to burn any place of worship. The government should act fast and stop all the violence that is going on: no one can justify the violence against Christians or burning of the Churches.

But even then, some one will have to take bold steps to stop this business of conversions.

But even after all said and done, one brother will shrug it off and go settle abroad – may be he will also become a ‘true’ Christian one day…

Politics, religion and protests

A very good article by Salil Tripathi:

Admiring a flawed Gandhi

I am glad many Indians whose pride trumps their sense of humour don’t read advertisements for Danish newspapers. Otherwise they’d be out protesting an ad of the daily Morgenavisen Jyllands Posten. That newspaper became famous for publishing controversial cartoons of Mohammed in September 2005. Its recent campaign reminds us of what makes it unique.

The ad says: Life is easier, if you don’t speak up. The ads show the Dalai Lama admiring the Himalayas while preparing to ski down a slope; Nelson Mandela relaxing on a beach, carrying a surf board; and Mohandas Gandhi, smiling with a beer bottle in one hand, with the other, he is barbecuing sausages, empty beer bottles at his feet.

This is admirable chutzpah, for these ads are meant to make us think. They challenge the self-righteous among us — South Africans (and others who opposed apartheid), Tibetans (and their global supporters), and Indians (and Gandhi fans worldwide), telling them not to rush to judgement, but to reflect on the message. Far from ridiculing these exceptional men, the ads show how Mandela, the Dalai Lama and Gandhi could have led cushy, comfortable lives if they had not stood up for what they believed in.

The ads also challenge the world’s Muslims — and those who believe that one must treat Muslims, and Islam, as distinct from other faiths or cultures, needing special protection (because their reaction can turn violent). If Indians, Tibetans and South Africans don’t go berserk and demand apologies, bans, or attack Danish embassies, what lesson should the Muslims draw? That the others are cowards? Or that their visceral response is wrong?

We will learn soon, but I am not sanguine. The ads are already on the Internet — on Amit Varma’s blog, India Uncut, he has observed: “I suspect that if the Gandhi ad was seen in India, there would certainly be so-called Gandhians getting upset by such a portrayal and demanding an apology from Jyllands-Posten — thereby missing the point entirely.”

When Sir Richard Attenborough was filming Gandhi, some historians quibbled — rightly — over liberties taken with historical sequencing. But there were other protests against portraying Gandhi on screen, with one suggestion that Gandhi be shown as a shining light, or halo, instead. Sir Richard said his film wasn’t about Tinkerbell. I was a student then, and for our college magazine, with a classmate (now a distinguished banker), we interviewed noted Gandhian Usha Mehta at Mani Bhavan, Gandhi’s home on Laburnum Road in Bombay. She said: “We are not prepared to give our Gandhi to anyone.” To her credit, after the film was released, she praised it, agreeing it would introduce Gandhi to a new generation. She was right.

But there was a halo around him, something a Telecom Italia ad reaffirmed in the mid-1990s, showing people using different communication gadgets, listening transfixed as Gandhi spoke.

That was a legitimate concern about Sir Richard’s film: It made Gandhi into a saint, and in so doing, it made Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and Muhammad Ali Jinnah seem inadequate. Subhash Chandra Bose, who challenged Gandhian notions of non-violence, did not even feature.

Indian directors responded in a fascinating way. Jabbar Patel showed us what made Babasaheb Ambedkar unique, Ketan Mehta highlighted Patel by focusing on his South African years, Shyam Benegal showed us what made Gandhi mahatma, and he later turned to Bose’s life. More recently, Feroze Khan’s Gandhi, My Father explores Gandhi’s role within his family. In his play, Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy (It is me, Nathuram Godse speaking) Pradip Dalvi gave voice to Gandhi’s assassin. (For years, Godse’s defence statement in courts was not accessible in India, because it justified the assassination). When Ashok Row Kavi made critical remarks about Gandhi tangentially, the cable network had to end that popular show following widespread protests. I’m not suggesting that those comments were right, or that I approve Godse’s statement, or his foul deed.

But we understand our leaders more if we explore them in all dimensions. That is why Rajmohan Gandhi’s biography, Gandhi: The Man, His People and the Empire, matters. It shows Gandhi without the halo, and we learn why we admire him more without getting blindsighted by the floodlights. The Dalai Lama is imperfect, too: Pico Iyer’s thoughtful The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama shows us the limits of his activism. While Mandela has championed progressive causes before and after his presidency, when he ruled South Africa, he often acquiesced with others’ tyranny.

The flaws don’t diminish these men, they make them more interesting, revealing their complexities. Ignoring that and seeing them only as icons is our flaw. That turns men into idols — ironically, that’s the effect of Muslim protests against the cartoons.

The Jyllands-Posten ads make us think differently. That’s the point: remember Apple’s remarkable campaign, Think Different, from the 1990s, a take-off on IBM’s slogan, Think. One of the memorable posters in that campaign showed — Gandhi.

Mint article: [Link]

Majority Minority

Hearing from the horse’s mouth always helps. Therefore I believed it when my professor said: “Judges in the Supreme Court are no fools. They know very well which cases to delay and for how long. For example, the Ayodhya's Babri dispute will never be solved; because a verdict on either side will result in riots.” Being a practicing lawyer in the HC, he would know…

Now, take the stark contrast in the case of Ram Setu. Here, the government doesn’t think twice before saying that Ram didn’t exist, or that Ram himself destroyed the Setu, and goes on passing the verdict that it can’t be a national monument. Why? Because there won’t be communal riots against these statements?

When I read civics in school days, I wondered how the democratic setup of ‘rule by majority’ would be able to safeguard the interests of the minorities. Now I know. Big doesn’t mean strong.

It is much easier to mobilize the minority votes either in favor or against one political party. But to woo the majority is very difficult. Therefore, parties take shortcuts. One of my close friends who is a Christian, avoided any conflict and argument at any cost; he would just run away. It took me much time to understand his psychology. It may not be politically right to connect this to the fact that he hates the BJP and respects Sonia Gandhi, but this is what I could understand. Every minority group has a 'fear psychology'; it is in our basic nature. No government, however just can ever erase that fear by 100%. But to exploit it or not remains an ethical question that the parties have to face.

I was in Chhattisgarh for 2 years and saw one very good example of good administration. Very near to Raipur bus stand, stood an old Hanuman temple right in the middle of a big Chowk. They had widened the roads and the area had become very spacious and beautiful: but the temple was causing traffic jams. The government quickly built a beautiful temple at nearest safe distance, picked up the idol by a crane, established it with all the rituals and funfair: with all its humble respect. Troublemakers would still have cried and made that an issue: how could you touch my idol? But they didn’t. Why? Because the government treated their faith and feelings with respect and sincerity.

In the case of Ram Setu, the government doesn't have to worry about anything when it opens its mouth Ram. On Ayodhya’s Babri dispute, the same government won’t open its mouth. Irony? No. Politics.

In the short run, keeping the silence and not addressing the fundamental problems may sound like a good policy. It does manage to manage the peace. But it gives incentives to those who start believing that to be able to be heard, you have to make a riot. It is a fact that more number of innocent deaths have happened inside India due to terrorism than due to wars. The end line: the choice is not ours. At present, the state of politics in India seems to be going dumps.

Wait for the renaissance.