Vanavasi Kalyan Parishad: Conventional methods of Charity: helping or harming vanvasis?

The volunteers of late Shri J.P. Narayan's Sarvoday movement used to regularly clean a particular slum area. One day when due to some unavoidable circumstances they were not able to do so, the slum dwellers were angry with them and started blaming them.

This is what happens with the conventional methods of charity like distributing food, clothes, blankets. We make the person in need permanently dependent on us for his basic needs. He does not try to work hard and be independent. Instead he expects us to provide him his basic needs. We always remain in the position of daata or giver and he remains in the position of the paata or receiver. Being the givers we always get the upper hand and the relationship of bhrata or brotherhood where both the parties are equal never develops. Though we get tremendous satisfaction that we helped an unprivileged, the fact is that we have harmed him.

We at Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad do not believe in the conventional methods of charity which make the vanvasis dependant on others for their basic needs. We believe that development comes with self-reliance. We ensure that the measures we take for the vanvasi help him become self-reliant and do not hurt his self-respect. We ensure that our measures have the desired effect of development and are not restricted to selfish motive of self-satisfaction. We strive for a brotherly relation with the vanvasis where both the sides are at par.

Thought provoking article on the ‘Vanavasi Kalyan Parishad’ website

http://vanvasikalyanparishad.org/q3.htm

Tamil Nadu: Karunanidhi's Anti-Hindu Rant

In our childhood, I got curious when I first learned the Hindi phrase, "Chand ke upar thookna". What is the meaning of that? The teacher said, "If you spit at the moon, looking above, the spit will fall onto you only". Yeah, I understood. But how come the Chief Minister of TN doesn't understand that? Which school has he attended?

Once in the classroom, teacher was talking about the false confidence level of different people. I said what about politicians? She brushed it off, and said she won't talk about the politicians; they are hardly humans. Her face expressed all.

What Karunanidhi said (quoting):

“Ram is as big a lie as the Himalayas and the Ganga are true.”

"Valmiki has called Rama a drunkard, who regularly used to drink intoxicants”

“Let Advani read Valmiki and come. I am prepared for a debate with him on this"

“Ramayana is just a fictitious story like the many I myself have written and Ram is purely a fictional character.”

After all my learning, of phrases in the school and faces in the college, if I take the trouble of writing about this, I would be naive. But one thing: those who feared that the changing demography and rampant religious conversions will corrupt India one day, are having the last laugh. And those who know the internal politics of TN, who understood the real intentions why Shankaracharya was tortured in the state on murder charges, who know the politics of reservations in the state from before the independence days, who know about the caste based riots that happened in the state, will not comment either. After all, they had warned us a long time before. Wait a minute, that Dilip Kumar also warned us once, "Ram Chandra kah gaye Siya se, aisa Kaliyug aayega".

News reference: War of words between Karunanidhi and BJP , Congress, BJP take on Karunanidhi over Ram row , It’s a “civil war” over Ram in UPA , BJP threatens legal action over Ram Setu affidavit

Divine Interventions

That day, I came to a conclusion: men look ugly when they cry. This has got nothing to do with male chauvinism. I was watching TV, a news channel to be precise. A man was shown weeping. He was claiming injustice, in between, when he was not weeping. But his expectation for justice was strange: "Give me one opportunity to talk to Sonia Ji, I know I will get justice". Under such circumstances, if I noticed just his weeping and came to that humble conclusion, then I would really be naive. There was much in between the lines… Who is the centre of ultimate power in India? Where do all bucks stop? Which is the embodiment of final verdict? Supreme Court? Parliament? Prime Minister? I won't say President. Any answers? I think you guessed it right; and another conclusion: Even crying men have stuff in their head.

I have read Godfather and also watched its bollywood version Sarkar. In the perfect mafia state, nothing is as it looks on the surface. Government runs, parliament debates and makes laws, courts give verdict, but the one who "takes decisions" is the Godfather! Are not we close to this situation?

Remember who one fine morning decided to reduce the petrol prices by 2 rupees last year? That is a very small example. Today, from the making travel plans of PM, to evaluating CMs, everything is decided by one person. What ever the decision the Governors take in their respective states are guided by one person. Examples: governments formation/debacles in Bihar, Jharkhand and Kerala. Now, no one wonders when that Quattrochi moves out free and CBI can't find proof against the likes of Sibu Soren and Lalu Yadav. It is more than visible that the power centre doesn't lie either in the Prime Minister's house, or around the Rastrapati Bhawan. It lies at the whims and fancy of only one person and the point is: that person was never authorized to take decisions by the citizens of India!

Within the party, those who have her blessings, will continue to ruin the nation by sleeping on their ministerial seats till they get a nature's call (heaven's call.. oops, it should be hell's call to be honest). The loyal guards of the family may do a thousand mistakes, but will continue to call the shots. And those who don't obey will go into oblivion.

Within the nation, whatever happens is with permission of one person. And you can bend a mountain but can't make that one person agree. People blame a week opposition for the present state of affairs; but as a matter of fact, the power centre is so meanly hard-headed that it is nearly impossible to get your point across. At the beginning of UPA's term, the NDA was, most of the time, boycotting the parliament sessions. There was hardly any other way! They won't listen! You keep shouting for hours, and the ministers will wake up at the end of the session and say "thank you" and go away! It has never been an equal game for ruling party and the opposition in India. This may not be dictatorship; this may not be mafia raaz, but I am sure about one thing: this is not the Indian democracy.

When those representing government made a mistake of blaspheming, everyone looked at one person. Tomorrow, if PM is to announce a relief package, the media persons will flock around her house, to confirm the figures. The day after, if there will be any matter of national importance, "she" will be the decision maker. She is the ultimate power: the divine intervener. Even the TIME magazine knows this, which is why they put her among world's most powerful women. How long will we take to realise this? But one thing, if we realise our true and unfortunate condition, men, please don't cry

India – Ram Bharose?

Nervous Govt now chants ‘Ram naam’ [Link]

A deeply embarrassed government has decided to withdraw from its affidavit in the Ram Setu case the portion which said there is no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or other characters of the Ramayana. The government will file a supplementary affidavit in the Supreme Court on Friday.

The top Congress leadership has also sought details on the movement of the file. It ostensibly emanated from the ASI and traveled via the ministry of culture, where it should have been studied by minister Ambika Soni (currently in Japan). Then it went to the law ministry headed by HR Bhardwaj. “Somebody has played mischief or has been grossly derelict,” said a source.

On Thursday, Bhardwaj told reporters, “Ram is an integral part of our history and culture. Ram ki vajah se saari duniya exist karti hai. It is an article of faith and cannot be made a matter of litigation.”

Bhardwaj quoted liberally from scriptures to negate the impression that his party is anti-Hindu as its adversaries would make it out to be.

But the minister sidestepped the twin questions of fixing responsibility for the mishap and whether Ram Setu was or wasn’t, as claimed by the original affidavit-a man-made structure. “I am not authorised to take action,” he said to the first query. As for the second, he said that it was for the Court to go into the merits of the case.

This is not the first time that the government has messed up things. It did so when it did not advise Sonia Gandhi on the office of profit issue when she became the National Advisory Council (NAC) chairperson.

It happened again when George Fernandes was given a clean chit on the defence deals scam. At that time, the Law Ministry claimed that it was not consulted when, sources said, it had in fact been consulted on the matter. An angry Pranab Mukherjee, then defence minister, reportedly even threatened to quit at the time.

Congress Govt's Blasphemy related to Sethusamudram project

The controversy:

Quoting TOI: "In the midst of a political controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana."

Opposition BJP blasted the Congress-led UPA government, accusing it of “blasphemy”. They mentioned that even Constitution of India contained images of Rama, Sita and Hanuman.

What is Blasphemy?

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of one or more Gods. In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the deity or deities of their established religions and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.

Blasphemy laws – nowadays often altered to include blasphemy regardless of religion – exist in several countries, such as in:

�        Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the penal code)

�        Denmark (Paragraph 140 of the penal code).

�        Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)

�        Germany (Article 166 of the penal code, see also the Manfred van H. case)

�        Greece

�        Islamic Republic of Iran

�        Ireland

�        Iceland

�        Italy

�        The Netherlands (Article 147 of the penal code)

�        New Zealand (Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961)

�        Norway (section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code never applied).

�        Spain (Article 525 of the penal code)

�        Switzerland (Article 261 of the penal code)

�        The United Kingdom

In the third book of the Old Testament, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy “shall surely be put to death”. Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of any other prophet mentioned in the Quran. The Quran also states that it is blasphemy to claim that there is more than one God or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017). Speaking ill of God is also blasphemy. In Islam, blasphemy is considered a sin.

What to infer from this case?

The point is, in order to prove that the Rama Setu had nothing to do with Rama, why did the government comment on Rama Himself? As a matter of fact, this government affidavit actually declares that:

- Sacred Hindu books like Ramayana have nothing in real, Hindu Gods are not real, and Hinduism is based on false stories. 

- All religions being practiced in India should request GOI and ASI to Certify themselves, whether they are based on historical proofs or not.

Why couldn't the government say, for example, "ASI is not able to find any proof", that the Rama Setu or Adam's Bridge "is connected to" Rama? Government it seems has not chosen the right words to say (or it has!).

The believers will say that the fact that ASI or any other organization has not been able to find a scientific proof behind something, doesn't make it "false". Plus, any government in a democratic country should respect the matters of faith.