Good morning everyone,
Yesterday, it was wholesome experience during group discussion with the 2nd year DTDM batch students. It wasn't something new, but as always different from all others too! The group consisted of 20 boys and three decent girls. It was time for clash of the classes. Yes, it was! And I was voluminously speaking on myriad topics. From female education to communalism to the miserable state of Indian hockey to gender discrimination within a work place and so on.
The biggest challenge was to accommodate a small group of students that were adamant, arrogant, angry, abusive and under informed and wore a bad attitude too :( I gave them the right information, think in terms of progress and higher goals of the nation, life in person, unity, equality, democracy but no success.
The group was against women's sexual freedom, financial freedom and openly voiced support to communal riots citing the great example to the recent incidents in Kandhamal. The fear of losing dominance, sense of insecurity, threat to their work professional lives was clearly visible. And I am reminded of the exciting debate on 'The Lounge' probing if it's getting tougher for men? All of us would agree, the T.V series was regulated and arguments well channelled in order to avoid the necessary inconveniences of the clash of ideas. But I am in a class and there are no one to regulate but our own individual conscience. It gave an insight too to the actuality of Indian patriarchical minds, beliefs and rage. I will take both topics, in sequence.
Not very surprisingly, a part of the boys expressed their demand for their lost rights, by challenging feminine higher education. Few of them believed that, highly educated women tend to be more career oriented and hence often neglect family, which according to the patriarchal social norms is wrong and should and must be discouraged. I understand how hard it is to become a Man, for most men to fit in well enough into the role! It's a challenge women had been happily shouldering all this time. Wasn't THAT bold?
On the other hand women are giving in their financial, personal and sexual freedoms in exchange for a security, success and sustenance. They are smart and intelligent. But in the process, they may lose peace, health and eventually their free and happier life too. It looks difficult. But for some it's a price which they would willingly pay in order to gain a bit extra freedom.
But let me make things bit more clear again. Not all women sell sex in exchange of a better opportunity (some of them do to secure them a better career and few others are just falling into traps), but let alone I would say, only few unintelligent ones do and that too, alone to some of the most incompetent bosses, both of which are not going to stick around in the long run of organisational prosperity. We also have some very talented men and women working hard and winning at the same time, and yes, not at the cost of sex but true potential, intelligence and hard work too. The globalised market society believes in progress and progress alone, and chooses to weigh pure talent than any bias or discrimination. Cheers all! For we are all here, living in a free opportunistic world.
After years of struggle, women are securing themselves, political, economic and to some extent sexual freedom too. Why is it so unacceptable? You would, once you start viewing your female peers not as a mere woman, the usual conceptions carrying the connotations like the embodiment of purity, beauty and kindness but rather as actual human beings. Humane enough to be free in all spheres from all bondage, access equal opportunities, while sustaining life in a biasfree progressive world. Everyone has the right to be free, and access to equal opportunities and thereby, lead and destine a happy and free life for themselves.
In a small, quiet, peaceful state like Orissa, communal riots, terrorist and naxalite activities are rare and meagre in numbers and occurances, but one single instance is enough to shake the entire socio-political scenery. State communal party activities are also on the rise. Hartals, bandhs and strikes are becoming more frequent. But I can ensure, a major part of us still appreciate and endure, relish peace and successfully choose not to align or relate ourselves to any of these anti-secularist secessionist activities and groupings. Again, I would want to assert, the same does not and would never categorise any of us as anti religious!
All of us must understand and agree that communalism and religion are two different fields, while one is destructive, the other, constructive. Religion unites us while communalism disunites. The two must never be confused with one another. Religion is not equal to communalism. And religion is also not equal to science either. While religion and science are the two sides of the same coin, communalism becomes the colourless moisture that corrodes the coin.
Communalism results from the practicability of a communal ideology. To quote Bipin Chandra, ‘Communalism is an ideology based on the belief that the Indian society is divided into religious communities, whose economic, political, social and cultural interests diverge and are even hostile to each other because of their religious differences. As an ideology it is akin to racialism, anti-semitism and fascism and is considered as the Indian form of fascism. The basic thrust of communalism is the spread of communal ideas and modes of thought.’ It IS a religion of different kind, that preaches bloodshed and power acquisition at the cost of the innocent lives of a million and is basically designed to feed in the selfish motives of a small group of people, we recommend addressing as the fundamentalists! After all, Marx was justified enough to quote, ‘Religion is the opium of the masses!’ True!
Similarly, science and religion operate excellently in their own separate fields and must not be confused as one for the other. Science alone cannot guarantee development and neither can religion, single handedly. Each needs the other to fill in their lacunae and reach a common goal called development.
The question whether Science believes in God is wrong and cannot be answered in a mere yes and no. Science has proven the existence of the spirits though but must not do anything that challenges mass belief system in miracles, supernatural and supranatural existence. If science forms the body, religion becomes the soul. Clearlyt One is incomplete without the other or rather is dead and devoid of any life and hence, meaning. Atheists are disbelievers in God, not in religion and still uphold a certain unique belief of their own. Now we cannot regard all atheists as scientists. Can we? And their unique belief is their religion.
Science may not believe in God, but scientists do, because they are humane enough to align themselves to a particular set of belief, faith. Human beings are not dead robots, but walking, talking, merry making individuals too and would always seek faith in order for a happier, blissful, integrative and a holistic sustenance of their lives.
Best wishes, Dharitri
