N A T I O N A L I S M

NATIONALISM

What India stands for?  What is secular? Are we unbiased? 
India showed the way to the whole mankind with Gupta’s Golden Age where men and  women could walk in late night without any fear and the people of different communities lived happily.   They were proud of their origin and universities of repute in Nalanda and a culture which gave them the ‘Saathveega’ as the tool in any endeavor and personal honesty maintained by individuals in thought, word and deed.  Gone are those days and atleast the survival of the fittest theory should not have been taken to a level where total u turn has been taken on individual honesty.  We have systematically destabilized everything in our hunger for status, power, recognition and the arrogance we display to prove what we think as right has reached the pinnacle of history.   So what India stood for has been totally destroyed.

The moment a trouble happens, which has become the order of the day, due to our ill advised pandits, hue and cry is made on who did first and who followed it?  When it happens to communities, we cry hoarse and start interpreting majority and minority, religion, caste and if possible, some more sub-divisions.  Even saner ones in the community who has the responsibility to condemn atrocities to whomever it may happen to, keep silent and become spectators.  The biased ones take upper hand and point fingers at perpetrators or assumed perpetrators as if they were waiting for the opportunity.  Sometimes persons or group happily claims they are responsible for the attrocity, violence and hundred people justify that.   We have no qualms in accepting various interpretations however dangerous to the interest of this ‘once great nation’.  We speak on who is secular and who is not? We have forgotten to call a spade a spade.  Who ever is behind a violent incident and whichever community to he or she or a group of people belong should be condemned by one and all.  That is, the thought of communities should disappear and in one voice condemnation should be made loud and clear.  Do the educated youth of the day think in these terms?   I feel the majority are not.  Majority belong to silent spectator group along with people who want silence to prevail in such circumstances.    Now a small minority makes a hue and cry not because they are affected but because of the helplessness of the silent majority.   Secular should be interpreted as Love for all and malice for none.  When crimes are committed in what names are they committed and how a person who would like to have love for all and malice for none to keep silent or selective in his condemnation.  So secular credentials can be given to any Indian, only when he or she or a group exhibit such a tendency to condemn and shun violence as a means to settle scores.   Two wrongs cannot make a right.  A secular person should condemn both.  Are we condemning violence as such and both the parties?   Have we condemned both the parties to call each one of us secular.  We coin new words to interpret secularism to conveniently escape from condemning whoever commits crimes in this society.   With this in view, the sathveega method of tolerance has to be exhibited and go all out to help the ones affected as we have no malice on anyone.  Look at the mirror and ask the question, are you secular?   A great role has to be played by the religious heads of various communities here in asking their men to raise above petty mindedness and show the way to world that they are the first to condemn violence as a whole from whichever quarter it comes to, even if it is from their own followers.  Why not the right thinking youth of this country insist on this?  Why you remain silent instead of taking up this matter with the religious heads who otherwise guide you on religious matters?   That much for secularism.

Thus comes the all important question “Are we Unbiased?”.   It appears most of us are biased.   We are selective in our condemnation because we have forgotten the traditions and cultures that we were into the “Gupta’s golden age”.  A peaceful society had existed and now it is not – whom are you to show the fingers?   We always show others and not towards us.   Personal honesty as advocated and as followed in those years, if you follow now, you will accept that you have not unequivocally condemned whenever crimes are committed in the society.  This tendency has also led to making heroes of people whom we like  and despise and condemn those whom we do not like.   We do not condemn and support only based on a particular issue but take up people as masters and think whatever they do as right and justify even their wrong doings.  

Thus we come to the caption Nationalism.   Nationalism is to display unhindered love to all sections of the society, condemn violence as a means to secure justice and support only good causes of leaders and show your opposition to when they are wrong and thus do not align yourself to any particular individual or party and select people on merit and personal honesty to represent you in the highest institutions of this land.
Jai Hind.

Post ordinance today the 24th September 2013.
It is the saddest day for Indian democracy that the party in power coming out with an ordinance to circumvent the orders of the Supreme Court to make convicted netas leaders to contest elections.  It all the more strengthens my view not to vote on party lines and vote only for the candidate without criminal records.  Will the main opposition party join hands with the ruling party to pass the bill that has to be brought and passed within 15 days of the starting of the next parliamentary session?  If they cannot even contest an election by not nominating candidates with criminal background where this national parties are leading us to?  Right thinking people should show no mercy to any party and force them to nominate candidates without criminal background and also resolve to vote irrespective of party lines.