We the cow belt hindus should think twice and avoid the issues of non-hindi regions be it RW or LW

हम गौ पट्टी हिंदूओं को दो बार सोचना चाहिए और गैर-हिंदी क्षेत्रों के मुद्दों पर अपने विचार टालना चाहिए, चाहे वह RW हो या LW हो।  


चादर जितनी लम्बी हो पैर उतना ही पसारा जाना चाहिए। पर बात यह गलत हो जाती है जब हम उप, बिहार, झारखण्ड आदि क्षेत्रों के लोग पूरा भारत अपनी चादर समझ लेते हैं।  यह एक बड़ी गलती है।

हमें पता है की क्षेत्रवाद भारत में है और इसका असर दीखता है भारतीय राजनीति पर। जब कोई हिंदी भाषी या हिंदी व्यक्ति केरल, तमिल नाडु, बंगाल के बारे में अपने विचार रखता है तो उसे मलयाली या बंगाली गाली देते हुए कहता है की “ए गाय के गोबर, अपने गाय पट्टी को देखो पहले” “ये तेरा गाय पट्टी नहीं है” “यह केरल/बंगाल आदि है न की गंवार उत्तर भारतीय गाय गोबर पट्टी” वैसे तो इनसे भी ज्यादा अभद्र भाषा में गालियां दी जाती है दोनों तरफ से लेकिन गौ पट्टी वाला ‘मेरा भारत’ ‘मेरा देश’ राष्ट्रवाद आदि करता रह जाता है। सच तो वह है की हमें अभी अहसास नहीं हुआ की हम किसी गौ पट्टी के हैं। हम स्वयं को भारतीय ही ज्यादा समझते हैं, गलती करते हैं सम्पूर्ण भारत को अपना मान कर। यह वास्तविकता नहीं है। हमें अब अपना मुख अपनी तरफ करना होगा। हमारे क्षेत्रीय मुद्दों पर ही अपने विचार प्रकट करने होंगे, अपने ही लोगो से। सर्वविद्य है की अपने यहाँ मुद्दों की कमी नहीं है।

फिर यह सोच कर की यह तो केवल ऑनलाइन मूर्खता है तो फिर गलती कर रहे हो। क्या महाराष्ट्र, पंजाब आदि में भाइयों का अपमान नहीं होता? भाई अपने भैया लोग हैं ही ऐसे, माना, फिर उन दूसरे लोगो के पचड़े में हम क्यों पड़े? चाहे वो मराठा हो या द्रविड़नाडु, खालिस्तान या बंगाल, हमें कोई जरुरत नहीं उनपर कोई विचार प्रकट करने की। क्या गाली खाना हमारा शौक हो गया है?

रही बात राष्ट्रहित के चिंतन की, भाई ये जो हमें गाली देते हैं वो कम्युनिस्ट हैं, सेपरटिस्ट हैं, अलगाववादी हैं।  तो हम फिर गलती कर रहें हैं। जब किसी लिबरल को ये गैर हिंदी हिंदूवादी राष्ट्रवादी गाली देते हैं तो इनमें और उन अलगाववादियों के शब्दों में भी अंतर नहीं होता। जब कोई देहाती बच्चा अपना पक्ष रखता है तो जैसे लिबरल “गंवार, अनपढ़, बलात्कारी” बोलते हैं वैसे हिंदूवादी हमें “मुसलमानों द्वारा बलत्कृत माओं के वंसज” बोलते हैं। अगर द्रविड़नाडु अलगाववादी हमसे इसलिए नफरत करते हैं की “हमरी भाषा आर्य है जो संस्कृत से निकली है” तो वहीँ द्रविड़ हिन्दू इसलिए की “हमारी भाषा में अरबी, फारसी शब्द हैं” हमारे पूर्वजों की तरह हमारा संस्कृति, लोक मान्यताएं, बोली भाषा भी बलत्कृत है। वस्तुतः हम ही बहुत बड़ी गलती कर रहें हैं और लायक हैं इस दुत्कार के जब हम दूसरों के मसले में टांग अडा देते हैं। हम में लाख गलतियां हैं, एक सुधार ये हो की हम केवल अपने बारे में बोले, विचार करें और अपनी स्थिति बेहतर करें। जब तक हमारी आर्थिक सामाजिक स्थिति बेहतर न हो, जब तक हम दूसरे देशों में मार खाने न जाए। हमें ज्यादा तर्क और समय नहीं देना चाहिए न पंजाब न सिंध न गुजरात न मराठा न द्रविड़ न उत्कल न बंग पर। मेरी बातें अगर बुरी लगेंगी, क्षमा।

क्या समलेंगिकता अपराध है?

क्या समलेंगिकता अपराध है?

लोगों की अनभिग्यता पर हँसी और घिन आती है! बात सिर्फ समलैगिकता को जायज या नाजायज समझने की नहीं अपितु अपने मोजूदा कानून को तोड़ कर एक हवा बनाने की है! कानून ने समलैगिकता को नहीं बल्कि कुछ किस्म के मैथून को अपराध की श्रेणी मै रक्खा है जैसे गुदा मैथून एवं मुख मैथून (anal and oral sex)! फिर चाहे स्त्री-पुरुष आपसी सहमति से सम्भोगरत हों! ये कानून विषमलिंगियों पर भी लागू होता है!

रही बात प्रकृतिक एवं अप्राकृतिक की तो, हाथ कंगन को आरसी क्या?, शायद इसमे जिस तन लागे वो तन जाने वाली बात सार्थक होती है। जो प्रत्यक्ष है वो अप्राकृतिक कैसे? विकृति एव प्रकृति! क्या विमान मै जाना, कार चलना, जंगल कट बिल्डिंग्स बनाना और चंद पे जाना प्रकृतिक है?

रही बात संस्कृति की तो, जिस प्रकार हमारी 'ठेका देसी शराब' हमारी परंपरिक सुरा, मदिरा, मंदाकिनी, मयूरी आदि की बजाय पौआ और घटिया बदबूदार हानिकारक तत्व बेचते है वैसे ही ये 'ठेका देसी संस्कृति' वाले अपनी मनघरन्त संस्कृतिक मूल्यो का रोना रोने लगते है. आखिर वो किस संस्कृति की बात करते हैं?

किन्नर, एवं हिजिरा भारत मे एक प्रत्यक्ष समाज है। क्या ये कानून उनको नपुंसको की तरह ही रहने देगा?

प्राचीन भारत मे तो ऐसा ना था| ना ही मुस्ल्लिमो के राज्य में! और जो पास्च्यातिकरण को रोते है वही मध्यकालीन, एवं विक्टोरियन युगिय पास्चात्यीकरण के मानसिक गुलाम है! ये कानून भी हमारे great white masters की ही देन है! धर्मशाष्त्रो से लेकर कामशाष्त्रो तक इसके विरुध कुछ नहीं कहा गया | और रही धर्म की बात तो फिर क्यों ना हम सती प्रथा भी पुनः शुरु कर दे?

रही प्रकृति कि बात तो क्या चोरी करना, झूठ बोलना नहीं है? बलात्कार को आप किस श्रेणी में डालेंगे?

वस्तुतः  अप्राकृतिक किसी भी चीज के सही गलत का प्रमाण नहीं हो सकता। रही संस्कृति कि बात तो दहेज़ प्रथा भी हमारी ही संस्कृति है कि नहीं? फिर कानून की बात करूंगा, ये कानून समलैंगिको को अपराधी नहीं करार करता बल्कि सिर्फ गुदा, मुख और हस्ता मैथून को अपराधिक श्रेणी मे करता है| फिर कोन अपराधी नहीं है? एक और बात है, नैतिकता की बात करने वालो को कहूंगा "आन को लोमड़ शगुन बतावे आपण कुत्तवन से नुचवावे"

Is RSS more liberal than BJP on section 377 of IPC?

Whether homosexuality should remain a criminal offense under Section 377 IPC,  RSS Joint General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale had said that sexual preferences are a personal matter and the organization doesn’t hold any view on it.“I don’t think homosexuality should be considered a criminal offense”.
“sexual preferences are private and personal. Why should RSS express its views in a public forum? RSS has no view on that. It is for people to have their way. Personal preference of sex is not discussed in RSS and we don’t even want to discuss that.”  Dattatreya Hosabale
Ram Madhav also reiterated this belief,  “As for Section 377, let us see what stand the government takes on this issue. But I can say this - the penalizing and criminalisation aspects need to be looked into. Whether to call homosexuality a crime and treat it as one in this day and age is questionable.”
But unlike vocal RSS, the Bhartiya Janta Party has maintained his noble silent on this issue, although many in BJP like Arun Jaitley support decriminalization many don’t which is not unlike other parties. Sashi Tharoor was shushed not just by BJP but his own party members.
Does BJP lack any cohesive ideology? What is Integral humanism in BJP anyway?

Is homosexuality objectively and scientifically natural?

"Nature had created sexual organs merely for reproduction and hence naturally they should be used merely for reproduction" I believed that I've grown immune to this sentence, years ago when I started writing about homosexuality I would often get these type of comments from conservatives. I would get agitated easily and ask them to tell, what is so natural about airplane technology and so on (read my earlier ranting here)
Recently I was given the same reason, but the difference was that the person who stated this was pro-LGBT. Needless to say, that person agreed that airplane technology is unnatural but acceptable nonetheless.
The argument put forward was that homosexuality should be accepted because of the free will of individual rather than it being a natural thing. The purpose of sex is the reproduction and homosexual relationship doesn't fulfill this purpose, we have to look into the matter in an objective and scientific way without getting emotional on the issue. Masturbation and contraception are equally unnatural and even though it is unnatural it is accepted as a person is exercising the free will of an individual.
But I have several problems with this stand which I would like to point out here,
Firstly, the argument of homosexuality being unnatural historically is put not to explain the sexual behavior of human under scientific curiosity and there is hardly a question of objectivity but more about that later. That 'Homosexuality is unnatural' was put to dehumanize and demean homosexuals as Deviant or sick people. Using the word 'unnatural' today would still have a negative impact and would not generate acceptance in society.
On the other hand, saying one have free will and one becomes deviant is an ideology that is appropriate for church.
The god does not like homosexuality but gave us free will and due to satanic temptations, some come to like it and hence they are evil is the Christian theology. Homosexuality is a sin, we don't hate sinner who having free will have fallen to Satan's plan but hate the sin which is satanic' this is an age old logic put forward by the conservative.
When the western world became disillusioned with the church, the state and church were separated and so was the people approach to look at things, but it couldn't be said that it cut the chord that instant with the culture, which the church governed and imposed its ideology upon for centuries. They desperately needed a new vocabulary to justify their innate homophobia and invented words like unnatural, Deviant etc. homosexual were not sinner now but diseased and homosexuality was not satanic but sickness. The conservative felt validated by these scientific 'findings"' and quickly adapted to this rational sounding argument.
What was it, if not a mere change of words?
Somehow a person could still accept the homosexual as equal healthy being just because they have free will within this unnatural framework is very surprising, I must congratulate the person, but I doubt many would be able to do the same.
Secondly, In terms of being objective in our approach to discover what is the purpose of sex, I must say this is a futile work. Nature being inanimate, it could not validate any objective reason for purpose of sex which then is given to it by the human being without its consultation subject to human understanding.
Even so within human understanding, an objective approach would want for evidence which would not support the theory that the sex is essentially for reproduction. Throughout history sex has been used for several purposes, expression of love, fulfilling the marital duty, a manipulating tool, an intimidating threat, reproduction, sexual gratification, violence and harassment, spiritual awakening, religious rituals and even as a currency are few examples among many others. Choosing one as the real purpose of sex is oversimplifying the complex nature.
Another way to look into it is to ask whether anything is unnatural at all? The human psyche itself is the product of nature. If natural selection has not eliminated homosexuality should we question the "naturality" of the way human beings are evolved? A better approach to it would be to try to understand how homosexuality has a part to play in human existence which may make us realize it is not the only reproduction that is responsible for our species continuous existence.
A homosexual relationship is real, in terms of existence, I will go back to my original stand if it exists it is natural just because it does not fulfill the expected notion of the purpose of relationship in direct way would not mean it serves no purpose at all. A Scientific approach would mean to look for evidence, and the existence of heterosexual relationship could not discredit the existence of homosexuality. They both exist, they both must have a purpose, in strictly scientific terms of course.
Should homosexual accept the label unnatural even when many negative connotations are involved in it? Do you think there would ever be an objective and scientific response of what is the purpose of sex? Is free will? and individual freedom enough to grant rights to an individual? Let me know what readers responses are to these questions.

Why I'm against gay marriage

The best thing about gay sambandham is that it is not recognized marriage in India. Why do people want to invite state in their bedroom with gay marriage thing (even when the sex is punishable)? Samlaingik sambandh has rendered these sanskriti ke thekedar and rights and liberty ke chowkidar redundant. The feminist can not take a side, the conservative were never there. As far as domestic violence is concerned, then no violence in any relationship should be tolerated by the state, be it romantic, friendly or blood.

As far as those homosexual men are concerned, who leave their libertarian stand and took up feminism or religion, they have become an enemy to their own cause, fighting the same enemy.

Asking a government to be deciding factor in individual life even onto your own bed is not saner than inviting religious authority to do the same. It was the feminist who first went hambistar with sarkar. Before that, it was the religion which was a continuously watching pervert. 

A state or religion should not interfere with individual personal space, not in the market, not even in so-called public sector services.

It should be kept at a minimal level, and better than asking for recognition of gay marriage one should ask for sticking down any state sponsored marriages. Give the government minimum job that it can perform better, why make it a priest, maulvi, pundit, vyapari, vyabhichari, and even a dildo.

Note: Sodomy is illegal under Article 377 while such law like Defense of marriage act exists, many Hindu couples can marry under present Hindu marriage act due to some weird loophole please refer Ruth Vanita's Love's Rite.

Sabda Pramana for Science - The Nyayikas and Mimamsaks of Modern Day Science

For a layman, how can science be authoritative?

Few people today are in a position to investigate into the true nature of science. A layman is always a layman and most of them like to remain so. The question also arises when a scientist of different stream investigates about other streams (say a linguist about biology). What should he believe or better, whom should he believe? 

A better question would be, ‘is science based on verbal testimony?’ 

It eventually comes to verbal testimony, the first introduction to science comes to us by books and established courses of universities and schools. We cannot be much skeptical about them in our initial stage of learning. Afterward, this kind of learned verbal testimony takes a part of axioms which Mimasak would call ‘svatah pramanit’ or self-valid. ‘A point has no dimension’, ‘two parallel lines intersect at infinity’ etc. one cannot escape from verbal testimony, a better thing to do is to find trustworthy verbal testimony.

A scientist would never agree, for him science is empirical truths or facts discovered by a scientist and rendered into formulas. This is reminiscing of the claim that Veda is the compendium of empirical truths or facts seen by sages and rendered into mantras, again a Mimamsa viewpoint.

But there is another view, to explain their position on Shabda Paraman, Nyaya formulated the theory of ‘Word of Apta person’ or the words of a trustworthy person in the particular field in question. We often find the same argument with ‘scientific’ devotees. The cult of Tesla or of Einstein often takes up the monotheistic flavor just like the Nyayikas who eventually became a theistic Hindu school.

The mimasaka are not into human or superhuman. They never were. From the very beginning of prose part of Veda, the Hindu orthodoxy took up a very anti-theistic position. The Veda are eternal and just like the world are not created by some monster. Sabda Praman is not because of the character of Einstein et al which because of their human nature could be doubted but because of the theories itself.

Mimamsak Scientist would say, “Natural laws of science are eternal, the scientist just discovered them. The eternal laws could equally have manifested in mind of any john dick or harry. Such laws are then tested and validated by scrutiny. Unless falsified there is no reason to doubt the Sabda testimony of science.”

Nyayik Scientist would say, “Science can be learned from the appropriate person. The validity of the testimony of science rest on the validity of the scientist.”

What do you think is the better reason to believe in the verbal testimony of science?

Superstitionisation of Tradition

This is not even a word, superstitionisation, but it is happening. Let me give you an example.

Q. Why do we touch elder's feet?

A. When we touch elder's feet and he touches our head. This completes a circuit and positive energy flows from touched to toucher.

What is this? It is superstitionization of Indian tradition, in which a simple mark of Honor or respect, the touching of elder's feet is explained in scientific jargons having no proper scientific validity. So it changes a simple tradition of showing respect to a pseudo-science and is debunked in due time.

Why not a more traditional way of explaining it, saying it is just the way we do it. Why do we need to explain our Namaste, Pranam etc in such ridiculous way?

It would be difficult to debunk things which are done just for the sake of doing it. How would you debunk handshake or adab? But once it is explained away with neo-science it becomes falsifiable.

Naive Indians fall for that, filled with the inferiority complex. Not realizing that this way any tradition could be finished off easily.

What do you have to say about this?