What is the cause what is the effect?

This is just an attempt to think louder....This musing went in as i started thinking about a news that i read... I am poor in distinguishing people on the name of their religion or caste or region. My roomie for 2 years is a Muslim and i will be loving him for ever as one of my best buddies...and one of the best intellectuals i have ever been with...

To start with ...

I was really delighted when i came to know that Dr. Manmohan Singh who'm i admire most only next to P.V. Narasimha Rao commented in an NDC meeting that Muslims have the first right on every resource of this country. For those who are not aware, NDC stands for National Development Council which is an arena for Centre - State collaboration on Development. Every bit of word uttered over there goes into the MoM of the council. It's not a political arena or an election campaign. But, Still Dr. Singh made such a statement. Although i was happy that finally poor and backward Muslims got a voice in this doctorate in economics, he confused me with his statement. If poverty and backwardness of Muslims is the only reason for which he made such a comment, i started thinking who is the reason for that poverty and backwardness? I am still thinking if poverty has any religion, caste or region? I know some neo rich muslims who hate charities even if they are attached to shows. I see neo rich guys in my own caste who don't even care about their own parents or siblings who are poorer than them. I see neo rich guys in the region i live in who care a damn about their fellow regionals.

Everybody agrees that the poverty and backwardness of any family in general stems from population with limited means. This trend is particularly high in Muslims as evident from their dis proportionate swell of population in the last 60 years. This again emanates from the individual civil codes for each religion in this country that allowed that swell. Yes, Muslims' civil code allows them to marry upto 4 and thus obviously their population increased exponentially in the last 60 years from 3 to 20 Crores. Again who is responsible for this individual civil codes for each religion? It is these so called SECULAR parties. If anyone tries to talk on these civil codes they are being dubbed fanatic...

My dear friends, does any one of you know any other democracy where national interest is below religion or caste or regional interest? It is the case in INDIA.

It's interesting to understand from history of this country that secularism and corruption have always been part of indian politics way before 346 B.C.

Most people in and out of this country love calling it a Hindu Majority Country. I would say it is a secularist majority country. Yes...i feel proud to say that this country gave the value of SECULARISM to the rest of the world. The so called hindus today were known as "Sanathan Dharmiks". Sanathan Dharma is a way of living - Part of that way is respecting and peaceful co existence with a difference of opinion. So, one who cannot be secular cannot be a hindu in the first place. That is the reason why at 346 B.C. the government of this land preached and practiced secularism. That is how, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism emanated from so called Hinduism. Citizens of this land are free to practice their own faith in 346 B.C. Amazing...isn't it? After knowing this i tried to learn about some other civilizations that existed at that time. I could not find anywhere this right for the people. Thus i would say that SECULARISM is a value that is part of the DNA of majority of this country. That is why Christians, Muslims and Sikhs can become, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chief ministers in this country...That's the only reason i see for which a right wing party which is perceived as a hindu centric party never got even a simple majority in the indian parliament....just because of the perception that it is hindu centric. Also, Corruption is not a new issue in INDIA...at 346 B.C. Dhananad - the ruler of the mighteous Magadha empire was perceived as a very corrupt ruler...so does the rulers of  most of the Ganas (smaller kingdoms)... It is the same corruption and valueless ness among rulers that prompted Chanakya to oust these rulers and replace them all with a cowboy (chandra gupta maurya) - thus forming the first biggest empire....

Democracy is all about equality before the constitution, irrespective of people being majority or minority. But, today what's happening in this country in the name of secularism. People are being pushed to choose between corruption and (?)so called secularism and where is the end to this game? One major national party says the other one is an icon of intolerance and responsible for godhra and is totally corrupt - the other one retaliates saying - they were responsible for sikh mascacre when Indira was assassinated and lists out the scams all along....we have a couple of dozens of regional and local parties who are always ready to do business with either of these parties on a need to need basis... what can people expect of such a political system where individuals and their egos keep on clashing in place of constructive debates and wider social causes - where every single move is made keeping in view the mileage it will bring in a subsequent election rather than the broader interest it will bring to the society and nation in the long run?

Some one told that in any democracy - the system is a reflection of the society. If the system is so ugly in INDIA today, is it a reflection of our society? Who can make it better? What is the cause what is the effect?

What if a leader errs?

If an individual errs, the result of that mistake might be upto him...if the head of a group /family errs, the consequences might be limited to that group / family...but if a leader errs - more so if he is perceived to be the father of the nation? The consequences are fatal for generations...

There is always a second side to a coin... whether anyone would buy this story or not, he killed and died for what he believed in... He could have ran away... never appear in masses again... but, he choose not to do that... Although i could not support killing anyone for what so ever the reason might be...his testimony is thought provoking... particularly the last 2 paras...Even if the truth is different from what Godse perceives, Gandhi is still guilty of allowing such a perception to develop among Godse and his supporters....
I think Godse in an un guided missile ... If Godse is wise enuf, he could have started a "Satya graha (Fast unto death)" against Gandhi and his policies... that could have made him more acceptable and truly democratic... He says that Gandhi is autocratic...but, by choosing to murder him he proved himself fanatic... undoubtedly a patriot - Godse also erred by choosing to assasinate Gandhi...

His Testimony:
" On January 13, 1948, I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim Unity... But I and many others could easily see that the real motive... [was] to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government.... But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast. It was evident to my mind that the force of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings of Gandhiji favourable to Pakistan.
....In 1946 or thereabout, Muslim atrocities perpetrated on Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as 'Shaheed Saheb' - a martyr - even in his prayer meetings...
....Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogans of truth and non-violence which he ostentatiously paraded before the country... I could never conceive that an armed resistance to the aggressor is unjust...
... Ram killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight... Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness... In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as 'misguided patriots,' Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit... Gandhiji was, paradoxically, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and nonviolence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever...
....By 1919, Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavours to get the Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another... He backed the Khilafat movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy... very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity... There followed a huge slaughter of Hindus... The British Government, entirely unmoved by the rebellion, suppressed it in a few months and left to Gandhiji the joy of his Hindu-Muslim Unity... British Imperialism emerged stronger, the Muslims became more fanatical, and the consequences were visited on the Hindus...
The accumulating provocation of 32 years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end immediately... he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was the final judge of what was right or wrong... Either Congress had to surrender its will to him and play second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality... or it had to carry on without him... He was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement... The movement may succeed or fail; it may bring untold disasters and political reverses, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility... These childish inanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character, made Gandhiji formidable and irresistible... In a position of such absolute irresponsibility, Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder...
....The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sindh to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Karachi, Sukkur, Shikarpur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers...
....From August 1946 onwards, the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus... Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with mild reactions in the Deccan... The Interim government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them...
....The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us... This is what Gandhiji had achieved after 30 years of undisputed dictatorship, and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom'...
....One of the conditions imposed by Gandhiji for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan government...
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it... The people of this country were eager and vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people...
....I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred... if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time, I felt that Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan...
....I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus... There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book, and for this reason I fired those fatal shots...
....I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me... I did fire shots at Gandhiji in open daylight. I did not make any attempt to run away; in fact I never entertained any idea of running away. I did not try to shoot myself... for, it was my ardent desire to give vent to my thoughts in an open Court. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled of against it on all sides. I have no doubt, honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future. "

Asatoma Sadgamaya Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya

If you remember, the movie Matrix ends with a sanskrit prayer! It is actually the Hindu hymn of peace which goes as follows:
Hymn:
Asatoma Sadgamaya,
Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya,
Mrutyorma Amruthangamaya
Om Shanti Shanti Shaantihi
Meaning:
From untruth, lead us to truth;
From darkness, lead us to light;
From death, lead us to immortality.
Om peace, peace, peace.

This is called Shanti Mantra (hymn of peace). Though the origin of this hymn is from Rig Veda, the musical version of it can also be found in Sama Veda. Rig Veda is a collection of hymns and Sama Veda revises them adding musical aspect to them.
The term Hinduism, or rather Hindu is actually very new (probably around 200 years old), but the concepts existed from a long long time ago. It was just called Sanathana Dharma, which by the way means righteous living. 'Ananto Vai Vedaha', says elders (vedas are infinite) and they are also called 'Anaadi', which means they have no beginning with respect to time, as they are the breath of God for which you cannot add a time attribute. And vedas are also referred as 'Apourishayas', which means they are not from human origin. The best source to learn about vedas are vedas themselves.
So the concepts of vedas have been existing for a long time. But I guess from time to time, they needed to be told in such a way that a common man could grasp them. Buddha, Mahavir, Guru Nanak, Jourashtar and many others took several aspects of it and preached in their own way. And each and every one is perfectly true and correct.
The origin of Vedas is not human, but they were told by God himself and it is intended to be followed by humans. The earlier rishis heard them in their wake of their enlightenment from God. The Vedas are just a way of living righteously.
Many westerners today are getting interested to know about Vedas when most indians already lost their roots. In fact no one would be able to grasp them completely (one life time would not be sufficient to get to know them to the fullest extent). They would only learn a drop in an ocean and as long as that drop is pure, it serves its purpose...
One of the main principles of Vedas is 'Aham Brahmasmi', which means I am Brahma. Here Brahma means God, but more specifically Brahman refers to the qualities of God, which are Sat, Chit, and Ananda. Sat means eternity, Chit means knowledge and Ananda means bliss. So Vedas indeed say that we are all Brahman or God (in other words, all of us have these qualities). Upanishads are called vedantas, which means the end or essense of vedas. Upanishads contain the essense of Vedas in an easily understandable way.
There are several deities in hinduism. These deities are stepping stones in reaching the supreme one. It is usually difficult to meditate on formless God and these deities or idols help us overcome it and the ultimate goal is to move from the idol to formless God.
There is a subtle different between the almight creator (God) and His wonderful creation. We play the God (creator)'s role when we are giving birth to a child. God gave this immense responsibility to be creators, and some realize it and some don't. Those realized persons (who completely understand that they are indeed God) are blessed ones and we let them lead us to the path of spirituality which they have already realized. In hinduism, when somebody is raised to divine level, we are acknowledging the fact that they attained self-realization and we let them lead us to spirituality. And as long as we can benefit from their knowledge, they have served their purpose in life.
I'm not arguing that one religion is superior than the other, the point is that the essence is the same in everything and every one of them refers to the same one and only God, but in different ways/paths and we should appreciate it. We have to realize that the end goal of all the religions is the same:
Serve our fellow men and Service to mankind is Service to God.
Asatoma Sadgamaya,
Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya,
Mrutyorma Amruthangamaya
Om Shanti Shanti Shaantihi