Where I ramble about religion

The term "against our culture" puzzles me.

I'm not the most religious person around, but I grew up reading every single Amar Chitra Katha comic I could lay my hands on (including one memorable Delhi Book Fair where I spent my entire allowance on all the ACK comics at the first stall, and got them bound into three volumes), as well as C. Rajagopalachari's versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata, so I feel like I know something about the stories of Hindu mythology, if nothing else.

And the thing that always struck me about our mythology is how flawed our Gods are. You look at everything Indra did, sometimes for nothing other than pride. Krishna, Shiva, Rama - they've all done things that not everyone would say was the right thing to do. Sometimes they regretted and/or atoned for their actions, sometimes they didn't. But I feel like our Gods were a lot more tolerant than anyone gives them credit for.

I've also been to a few churches and attended a few sermons in my life - probably understood them a lot better than any puja I might have gone for too. And a common thread I've always heard in them is that it doesn't matter what you've done in your life, as long as you believe in God and accept Him in your life, you will be accepted by him into Heaven. Which always feels like a bit of a cop out to me, but also convinces me that if there is a God out there, or a gazillion of them, he/they is/are a lot more accepting and human than us mere mortals.

I've heard the phrase "against Indian culture" being countered by examples of sculptures and writings from ancient times. But for those who use religion as an argument to not accept something about a person, you need to go back and remember how accepting your religion really is.

Because our gods were flawed. And heck of a lot more tolerant than those who claim to follow them.

Christmas musings

We watched Mausam yesterday afternoon. I loved the first hour; it reminded me of movies from the 90s, when the hero would lead his suitably secular gang of friends (with the token fat guy always there to be made fun of), creating a ruckus as they roamed around town, then with the heroine making an appearance and stealing his heart away, and so on.

And then the movie went downhill. I liked the idea of the movie. Communication really wasn't that easy before we all got mobiles and access to the internet, but geez these people were stupid. I mean, why would you leave a letter for the man you love with a woman who loved him at one time, rather than Gulzari, who knows your family and his? Have you not heard what Congreve said about a woman scorn'd?

It was both interesting and overdone, the links to events in India and the world. Ayodhya, 1992. Mumbai, 1993. Kargil, 1999. Gujarat, 2002. I didn't see why 9/11 had to be brought in; that was both forced and unnecessary. The rest... well, they could have been done better.

What annoyed me most about the movie was the way it looked like it had been produced in the 90s too. Movies look very different today; the scene where Shahid Kapoor's plane is on fire looked like a poorly animated comic movie. Why?

And much as I like Shahid Kapoor, he disappointed me. He was fine as the happy-go-lucky village boy, but the grim, almost-angry Air Force pilot left a lot to be desired. I'm not sure if he was trying to channel Rajesh Khanna or Shah Rukh Khan, but he didn't do a very competent job of it. And Sonam Kapoor - well, I've realised she does a reasonable job if she has nothing more to do than alternating being cheerful and sad, and she did a very adequate job of both in this movie.

What struck me about this movie was how it kept bringing up incidents over the past almost two decades, incidents that never touched me when they happened, that happened in cities far away from me, and yet impacted the way I see religion and politics. How many times this country's burned, all in the name of religion, and for what?

************************

I went for a Christmas Eve service yesterday evening. I've gone for several in the past, in India; this was my first in the US. Not so different, truth be told. I loved it just as much. The same things appealed to me, and the same things turned me off.

What I always love about church services is how simple they make it for people to understand what they're telling us. I'm agnostic, technically, but the rituals of Durga Puja have always drawn me; every year, I go and give Anjali, and every year I'm frustrated that I have no idea what exactly we're saying or praying for when we repeat those mantras. And it's not just about English vs. Sanskrit; not enough priests in Hinduism make the effort to explain what the mantras mean, which I feel is sad. Church services on the other hand - at least, the ones I've been to - take what's in the Bible and interpret it for the followers in a way that can be understood and made a part of their lives.

What I don't like about church services is how they always say that the simplest way to go to heaven is simply to accept God as a part of your life. That it doesn't matter how much you sin; if you make the Saviour a part of your life, you will receive salvation. When the pastor said this yesterday, the first image I had in my head was of a fat Indian man praying in the morning and then going and either receiving or giving a bribe. Big deal, he's accepted God in his life, innit?

Maybe I'm oversimplifying what I heard, but it just seems like they're saying once you've accepted Jesus as your Saviour, a lot of the responsibility for being good is off your shoulders. You know what I like best about Hinduism? The fact that every single one of our gods is flawed. All of them. They all did something that made them imperfect, more human. And they all regretted it, and tried to make up for their sins. They owned up. And while I may not know, or even like, much about various religions, I like that about the one I was born into.

************************

I really shouldn't blog about religion. It makes me ramble more nonsense than usual. Or during cricket matches. No one's going to read this.

Merry Christmas.

Here vs. there

Some months back, I visited an incredibly beautiful place, which happens to house the Santa Maria de Montserrat cathedral. Mass was just ending, and a priest was handing out what seemed to be their equivalent of prasaad, so my colleague and I went up to him. He asked in Spanish if we were Christian, and when we said no, shook his head and turned away.

Yesterday, on Guru Purab, I visited a gurdwara after a long, long time. As I was leaving, the priest sitting near the door stopped me and sent me back inside, because I hadn't noticed that prasaad was being handed out inside.

And, no I'm not a Sikh either.

What a difference.

And yet, there are complete asses in this world who will say such things about their own country.

Yes, I know the two things probably aren't comparable. But still.

"Usko humne chir diya..."

In my first year of college, I had joined one of those compulsory societies where you have to complete a certain number of hours of social service over the year in order to get your clearance to give your final exams. Some time in September, the society organized a documentary screening, for which we would all get 5 hours' credit.

The documentary screened that day was about the Godhra riots. It had interviews with victims, talking about what they went through. There was a young boy interviewed, not more than 9 or 10 years old, who spoke in a dull voice about seeing his pregnant aunt's womb slit open with a sword. I came home that night and howled in front of my father.

Today, I read a transcript of Babu Bajrangi's description of how he did exactly what I had heard about all those years ago.

Five days ago, I started a blog entry about Durga Puja. Today, I feel almost ashamed to call myself a Hindu. The first thing almost any religion in the world teaches is peace and tolerance and love. Not this. Never this.

If you haven't read the current issue of Tehelka yet, do so here.

Good Lord

I think more than the actual ruling itself, I am far more startled by the comments in response to this article. Why do I seem to be the only one who seems unable to see the "secular" aspect of this ruling?

I'm a Hindu, yes. But no, I have never read the Bhagvad Gita. As a child, I religiously followed - pun completely unintended - Mahabharata every Sunday morning, except for when the Gita was going on. Which meant for at least six Sundays in a row, I could get up late.
I don't think I've ever even seen a copy of the Gita. Unless you count the Amar Chitra Katha comic version of it. And even that I just flipped through without ever reading the whole thing.

And you're talking of making this our national "dharam shastra"?

Come to think of it, what the devil does "dharam shastra" mean anyhow?

[Link courtesy India Uncut]