Kartikey Sehgal

(In coffee shops, restaurants and elsewhere, a selection from conversations on India and its ancient culture. The author has connected the various thoughts as a story. Written in conversational style and the author addresses the reader at some places.)

How old are we (the ‘youth for new culture’ variety) to demand that we do not want the India of the past because we cannot connect to it. And hence we start movements and labels groups as superstitious and backward because we don’t want their thought to prevail. Because you cannot connect to the culture does not mean that the culture must not prevail or a new culture must be born.
(Culture, during the conversations, was understood as vedas, upanishads and ‘the old stuff’.)
If you cannot connect then it’s your problem. If I cannot connect then it’s my problem. Leave the nation and live among those whom you accept. You cannot live in a country and try to change its ideas to suit your ideas. I don’t, as a rule, worship snakes. I may even attempt to kill them. But if the inhabitants worship snakes then I don’t look down upon them. Should I have a problem with their snake worshiping or other aspects of their culture then I will leave this nation and relocate to a place where the people will join me in laughing at the snake worshippers. Or I will stay here and not bother them—and this is the grandness of India. I may not accept and yet be accepted. I can be an atheist and live easily among the believers—I will not join the snake worshipping clan. If snakes are being killed because of the worship then I will explain to the people ill-effects of forcing snakes to drink milk.

The people of this nation have every right to be themselves. Since they didn’t bother other nations with their ideologies, the other nations or cultures have no business trying to change this nation. Change is good but change within the culture, change to better the culture.

If tribal societies prepare their teen girls for healthy sexual affairs then I will tell them about HIV and give them condoms. I will not destroy or mock their culture or make them change. If I am not comfortable then I will refuse their invitation to join them. But in no way can I ask them or force them to change and then expect that they not get violent with me.

Similarly, you cannot look down upon the customs and traditions of the Indian people and expect that they treat you well. If you don’t like their Gods and songs then leave them alone. Don’t try to ‘correct’ them or convert them. They will hate it. They never converted or forced anybody into becoming like them and they don’t want you to do that to them.

We have people who want to disregard the ancient Indian culture and be modern so that women lead better lives. How exactly this modernity helps women they are not able to explain. But they put in feminism and corrective patriarchy. Tell them about Indian women in the past, that the Rig Veda had women authors and they bring to you female infanticide. Tell them that is not a product of following the Vedas and the conversation goes nowhere, because, they don’t give a damn about India as such. They are influenced by philosophies. Not Indian. They think that following Indian philosophy would mean the purdah system for women. It would mean that women would not work or study. Then tell them again about the Rig Veda and the women authors and it’s a cycle.

So what’s the solution to the pathetic state of women. Leave culture altogether or go back to culture. If there has to be a decision then it must be in favour of those who see Indian culture as a potent force. The proponents of this include M K Gandhi, Veer Savarkar, Swami Vivekananda who saw Indian civilization as a civilization. If Ambedkar believed that we must leave the cruel practices of Hinduism and adopt new religions, then Gandhi said that the cruelties in the first place were never a part of the Hindu fold and it would be wise to go back to what you were denied by the invasions.

Let me stop this. Let me first be clear if you actually know what you are talking. If your ideas about India come from biases or what someone has told you then it is useless to talk. You will forever believe that sati is sanctioned by the Indian system. Actually, even if it is, then you are not obliged to follow the order. You are free to reject. It’s not some dictum. But this would be far-fetched for you if you think that infanticide is a Hindu custom that needs to be eradicated and as such we should have a nation of Indians and the Hinduism part must be subsided. Unfortunately, this is what I was told, that the Hindu idea must be broken and we must have a nation that is not Hindu. We must celebrate the festivals because it’s fun but, like, not really be into them. As if Hindus are a dangerous world conquering race. Would the religions and other communities, in this new un-Hindu India, leave behind their religion and ideas?

The answer to this was absurd and none of the talkers could talk about it.

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

She lit the Diya. It lit her. (Anooradha Patel)

Two short songs sung on Diwali day by Seema Anil Sehgal during the pooja hosted by Anooradha Patel and Kanwaljit Singh. Listen here.

First Song.

a. Namo Namo Durge Sukh karani,
Namo Namo Ambe Dukh harani.
b. Nirakar hai jyoti tumhari,
Teen lok pheli ujayari.

Translated as: (source)

a. Salutations and Salutations to Durga, the giver of pleasure,
Salutations and salutations to the remover of Sorrow.
b. Your radiance is unparalleled,
And you shed light on the three worlds.

Second Song.

a. Jai Ganesh Bolo,
Bolo,
Jai Dev Bolo…
Paap Hriday Ke Dholo.

b. Bhakti Bhaav se Jo Bhi Aaye
Uske Dukkh Nivare,
Sab Devon main Ek Dev Hain
Rama Chandra Hamare,
Rama Chandra Hamare.

Translated as:

a. Say Jai Ganesh,
Say Jai ___ (insert deity name)
And wash the sins of the heart. (As we remember Lord Ganesh or any other deity, leave behind your sins and be honest now as you take the name of the deity)

b. Whoever comes with devotion   
He frees them from sorrows,
One deity among all the deities,
That’s our Rama Chandra,
That’s our Rama Chandra. (Among the many deities we have is one Mr. Rama Chandra who frees us from our sorrows when we remember him, i.e., the example (qualities)of his life.)

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

[October 13 is voting day (State Assembly Elections) for Maharashtra, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh]

The voting day for Mumbai, Maharashtra, and wherever that scary phenomenon called elections is occurring is a dry day. Meaning no alcohol. People could have voted when drunk. That chance is lost.

The phenomenon is scary because apparently, if you don’t vote, you are a monster and directly responsible for the country’s misery. You see, before you stopped voting, the country was very rich and prosperous and gold would flow out of many homes.

So what promise would you be voting for for this time. Would you be voting for yourself or the farmer in Vidarbha who is ever ready to commit suicide. Will you vote because that road in your gully, mohalla, or wherever you stay has a pucca road. Does that make you happy. Roads of the real variety have been in existence for at least two to three decades. You should want more from your money that you pay to the government. Let’s hear this conversation between an Indian voter and his/her friend:

Change, no matter how little, is finally happening. Let me be a part of this change by taking part in elections. Hmm… whom should I vote for? This one has two corruption cases lesser than this other one. But then he was involved in a molestation case… but it was alleged and so that makes him look a bit better. My phone’s ringing… my friend from the developed world…it’s been long.

Friend: Hi there, just wanted to tell you that you must vote.

Voter: Of course, I am voting. But help me out, between a guy under whom sale of girls for prostitution has flourished and another one who is involved in abduction and forceful conversion whom should you choose?

Friend: Come on, no riddles now. Think of these things later, after voting. Anyway, I’ll have to ask my dad for such questions.

Voter: Let it be. What’s your plan for now. Having fun?

Friend: I think I’ll use the sidewalk to any of the several gardens or hit any of the numerous public libraries and vent my anger on the government. We are the same, right? We share the same fruits of democracy!

Voter: Umm… okay.

Friend: You too will go to a public garden? Or a library? I hope at least your government has enough public drinking water sources… we feel we are at least 2-3 less in our area.

Voter: …

Friend: Do you like to take rides in local trains? Just for fun, just to see the city around you?… click…

I must keep the phone down now. I’ll tell her that the network was bad.

……

Voting is an easy way to abdicate responsibility. ‘I did my bit. Ho gaya.’ It is like a forced duty. Not good for the soul. The will to vote should be a self will. It’s okay if you are quality conscious and don’t vote.

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

The author writes that, “‘Indian culture’ is a cover-up for religious enforcements. Most colleges that enforce codes to ‘protect’ culture are protecting the religion. If Indian culture was so dear to them, then the study of Indian philosophy would be an important, if not a compulsory part of the curriculum.”

A popular college in South Bombay (Mumbai) had, some years ago, and much to the dismay of the students, banned the prom night. Nobody called it a fascist (oppressive, dictatorial) move. Mind you, the ‘night’ was absolutely banned and it was not to exist in any form or variation. The students were not taken into consensus and the decision was described as cultural. Something on the lines of ‘It is against Indian culture…’. It was either a sad decision or an unfortunate one, but it was not fascist; it was not described as fascist by the society. 

Near to this South Mumbai (Bombay) college is another college of note; it allows shorts and skirts and other such things that are disallowed by the other college. Are we to believe then that this college, that allows the students their choice of attire, is against Indian culture? Or do we conveniently use terms to get through uneasy explanations? Perhaps ‘Indian Culture’ is an excuse to justify restrictions. ‘All that I consider good and moral must be accepted since I use the trump card of ‘Indian Culture’.

Clearly, one of the above colleges is not cultural. One of them believes that shorts are not conducive to education but the other one does not feel so.

Restrictive colleges are not called fascist and there is no movement to fight the restrictions. At the most they are called conservative. The conservative tag does not apply to political parties that stop youngsters from candooling on the beach side. That is called fascism. The party does the same job as the teachers in the college; it stops ‘moral degradation’. But the college is termed as conservative and the party as fascist. It may be argued that the party forces its moral dictums on the youth and at times uses physical violence but then the college doesn’t even give space for dissent. ‘Inappropriate’ clothing is banned outright. You are not allowed to enter the premises if you are dressed ‘loose’’. If you have a problem with the ‘rules and regulations’ then leave the college and find another college. Who, then, is more fascist?

‘Indian culture’ is a cover-up for religious enforcements. Most colleges that enforce codes to ‘protect’ culture are protecting the religion. If Indian culture was so dear to them, then the study of Indian philosophy would be an important, if not a compulsory part of the curriculum. The culture tag is used to hide the religion tag to avoid problems. Once the culture tag is used, no questions are expected to be asked. To differentiate themselves from the political parties and organisations, the educational institutions use the term ‘fascist’. They are fascist, we are not, we may be conservative. But observe that these educational institutions come across as stricter and harsher than the so called rightist and fascist organisations whom they curse.

Hold a girl’s hand and walk in the college premises. And wait for the teacher’s halting orders. Be prepared for rustication orders should you not abide by the law. Any questions on reasoning are ultimately met by the ‘Indian Culture’ response. If you know about your Indian culture then be prepared to hear the merits of non-distracting dressing. The result is singular; listen or be expelled.

(Bear in mind that conservatism may or may not be good for education but this story is not about the righteousness of dressing.)

Now wear a skirt and walk on the road and ensure that the top is sleeveless. The rightist/fascist people will not always (at least in the cities) stop you and ask you to leave the mohalla/ country if you don’t abide by their dressing rule. If they trouble you then you can approach the police/media/passersby and bring an end to your trouble. You can argue with people that the midis and minis can be graceful if the woman can carry them off with grace.

Try arguing in the college. Tell the Principal that you have been brought up well, that you know your body and that you are confident and aware of your womanhood. Tell him that you believe that conservatism should apply to women who are confused and not ready to make decisions or don’t understand the meaning of decisions and who are charmed by factors other than self-will. Tell him that you are aware and confident of dealing with stares from men and women who have been brought up on the wrong dosage of Indian culture and should you encounter cat-calls and whistles or teasing, then you are capable of conversations and tactfulness. Convince him that you are the quintessential Indian woman who loves her saris and ghagra cholis and festivals and who knows the importance of conservative dressing as a means to entice men and who alters between politeness and nakhras to play biologically sanctioned mating games with the opposite gender. Then, if you want, sing a song for the principal; do anything you like.

He won’t budge. He won’t make exceptions or listen to your reasoning because religion demands obedience. Maybe he’ll smile at you and express regret, ‘”Sorry daughter, I wish I could listen to you but the culture does not permit”.

He is sure that you know nothing about Indian philosophy. It is not taught in schools and colleges and parents don’t bother about it. If you do know about it then go ahead and argue with him and let me know about the results. Chances are that he won’t make exceptions for you.

Educational institutions based on religion maintain religion and use ‘culture’ to prevent any problems from the organisations they call rightist/fascist. If they don’t agree with you, then they are conservative, if you don’t agree with them, then you know what you may be.

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

(The author states that, “You may dream of aeons of bliss for mankind but your nature will stop you from achieving your goal for a reason as simple (when compared to world saving) as gardening. Tend to the rose plant, planet-tending can wait".)

It has been a long week. I have many things to say and I have had the time to pen them down. But I resisted. I didn’t fight my self. The mind agrees to write and the heart stops it but it is not a fight. They work for my betterment. My duality. I am one, yet I am made up of many parts and every part is one.

My mind decides to express it’s understanding on the nature of pain. The heart stops it. Don’t write. Now that stage has passed. The heart and the mind are one. However, I know the reasons for the conflict. The heart wants me to read and write beyond the scope of this website. I have been neglecting this nature of my self. In the pursuit of an arena to assemble my talents, I have been avoiding the talents. But the self exists despite recognition from the collective. And so do the talents exist despite the relevance of the outside.

In the absence of any positive impetus from the outside, we may be given to subside our talents. An individual develops his talent for the world and when the world doesn’t respond enthusiastically, the individual stops catering to the talent. This causes agitation. Agitation, then, is not solely a result of society’s indifference to talent.

Since the last story, I have talked about the standing of the Aryan Invasion Theory to a few individuals. I have written a few lines on the meaning of pain and outlined an education plan with a focus on regional languages and Indian Philosophy. None of these ideas came through because… ‘The Heart Wants What It Wants’. You may dream of aeons of bliss for mankind but your nature will stop you from achieving your goal for a reason as simple (when compared to world saving) as gardening. Tend to the rose plant, planet-tending can wait.
Hence the conflict. The terror of listening to the self.
Do I, a future world leader, do I have to really really go out and blow bubbles? Yes Sir, you have to. You also have to be able to make your own bubbles before extrapolating on Syria-Lebanon affairs.

You have to give the heart what it wants or else the body will be upset and you will not know the reasons you are restless and agitated. The world is made up of people who don’t blow their bubbles and so you feel scared what they would make out of you blowing your bubbles. At a certain age, certain tasks appear childish to the society and hence the spiritual gurus have a field run. They advocate the very same things that the society frowns upon and you feel happy doing them because they have been advocated by a spiritual master. Anyway, do what you like. If you are a lawyer who wants to splash water on people in the rains, then do it and be prepared to run and hide. If you don’t listen to the body, then it will work irrespective but it would be tense, unhappy and you would feel agitated. Similarly, you would carry on with your mega world plans but you won’t do them well. Not as well as you want to.

Despite being different, the body and I are one

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

“These born-in-India-but-actually-alien intellectuals don’t want to be identified with Gods and snakes. Meaning they feel good that they belong to the culture, helps in party circles to tell stories about the exoticism of the nation and surprise women with unbelievable tales and how they have come out of that backwardness…”

Intellectualism does not seem to be an Indian concept although Indians are considered smart and intellectual. The trend is to move away from the Indian philosophy and adapt your thoughts to western ideas. For instance, I would consider it an Indian way to talk to children about Indian literature and ask them to formulate thoughts on the same. Instead, what we are provided with is a measured dosage of Indian history and epics. It’s like the past is dead; Indian civilization has been destroyed and it is enough to have a superficial understanding of the same. Indian civilization is not seen as a continuum. Indians are not told to be like Kalidasa and Bhasa.

What is intellectualism. Erase all definitions that you may know; the term has its basis in thought and thinking. It must be different from knowledge. It must be different form information. ‘Anger is useless for the soul’—your grandfather tells you so. But if he can reason this statement with you, then he may be called an intellectual. Note that this is different from ‘Anger is useless for the soul because Mr. so and so said it’. If he can give you thoughts and reasons as to why anger is useless, then he may be called an intellectual. Through his intellect he can live better. Of course, some individuals may believe that intellectualism is something tough or even obtuse. An economist or a writer can be an intellectual but not my grandfather who is a simple man. If he is an intellectual then why didn’t he become rich and successful? More than success—which is subjective as a carpenter can be successful—the leaning is towards the big bucks, the money. Or it’s associates like power and fame. An intellectual must have lots of money or power. It’s okay if he is poor as long as he has supporters (fame). But a simple grandfather cannot be an intellectual. Perhaps the ‘simple’ part of the grandfather is because of intellect?

The problem lies in our training as observers of society. Our educators, role-models look up to the rich-successful combination as imperative for an intellectual. Why! They don’t think of themselves an intellectuals except perhaps in their private chambers. Intellectualism has come to be associated with something big and hence it is seen as tough to accomplish. The very educated people must have made it a tough art so that they can distinguish themselves from the ‘everybody else’.

Indian intellectualism is often used to tell the world that ‘I am not that regular Indian’.
‘Don’t confuse me as one of those people you talk about in your books as deprived and, well, weird. I may have been born there but look at me now! I have come out of that society and to prove this to you, I will agree with you by becoming one of you. You wrote of how the Indians are backward and weird and I will further your cause by giving you specific examples’.

And an intellectual is born. Who can carry forward the sword of slavery; gentle slavery. Only this time not forced by the sword… A product of hundreds of years of servitude. You see, it is simpler to be critical of the caste system than to devise methods to cure it of its ills. To be critical, you have to know about the ills and write about them in different styles. A solution may arise out of the criticism, but the thrust is to shock the world with the ills of Indian society with little credence to the possibility that the nation may revert to its previous glory; that the nation may be cultural again and see woman as durga and stop infanticides. Such a thing seems impossible for the intellectual because he knows no glory about the nation. He has either not given importance to the nation’s heritage or he doesn’t want to do so. Probably, he in not intellectual enough to realise the nation’s philosophy. Hence it is easier to join those who defile it. It’s like a support system. I scratch your back and you scratch my back. Even better, I praise your book and you praise my book.

So an intellectual is born and teachers will talk to students about him. ‘He has lived in India and he knows his country well…’ the children will not be asked to observe and investigate and do things that would do the brain proud. Instead… ‘look up to such individuals…’ Never mind that what bothers the individual is not the nation but acceptance as an intellectual.

These born-in-India-but-actually-alien intellectuals don’t want to be identified with Gods and snakes. Meaning they feel good that they belong to the culture, helps in party circles to tell stories about the exoticism of the nation and surprise women with unbelievable tales and how they have come out of that backwardness; well, he is here, he is talking among people like you, he is like you, speaks your language; what better proof of his civilization.
And intellectualism.

Therefore,

• ‘Balram was Krishna’s sidekick’… just like how the heroes have sidekicks in English movies. Makes it easier for them to relate to us.
• ‘Krishna was related to war, so how could Gandhi listen to Krishna over Arjun?’… what a thought. Surely Gandhi didn’t think of this.

Clinging to culture is anti-intellectual, and perhaps this line can best represent the crux of this story. So is writing praises on your culture. But dissection and criticism is good, it is intellectual or at least a road towards intellectualism. Former President A P J Abdul Kalam wanted positive stories to be published in newspapers. He knew that constant criticism of Indian culture is bad for the country. It didn’t mean that we stop reporting the ‘un-culture’ but we don’t glorify the same. Kalam is a gita-mouthing Veena-playing scientist who is lovingly mocked for his manners. And thus far he is in favour of Indian civilization. He doesn’t seem to fit the profile of an intellectual. Probably because he doesn’t go about criticizing the nation! But he is a scientist who works and creates. So does your grandfather, and chances are that he is an intellectual.

‘To think is not to badmouth’

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

(On the notion that India was never really a nation because of it’s pluralism.
The author writes that:
Pluralism is a human quality that transcends itself into the society. Our nation is criticized for being disunited against foreign aggression; ‘hence the concept of nationhood was weak’. Does this mean that aggression and cruelty are the hallmarks of a nation?) 

Physical reality and spiritual reality are inseparable. The mind and the decisions that probe the physical reality are worthy of worship. The scientist questions the worthiness of God without realising that he has surpassed his self in his work because he has never been so involved in questioning God. He has been sinless in his work; he has been God himself. God says that I am sinless, I am supreme, and then disappears, dies. Krishna died, Rama died. The Ramayana is seen as a tragedy. Rama is a God and yet not infallible. The epics are not dictums but lessons in righteousness, conduct and thought. Hence Rama is infallible. We (Indians who know their country) worship and question his traits till we realise that we are him. We claim superiority in actions and deeds, but know that nothing stays permanent forever, perhaps the universe, the Brahmand, but who knows?

The world did not come to being with any manual, though as humans, we are inclined to discover it and to read into its myriad forms. The mountain is a deity for a country but it is just a natural structure for another country. Sure, it finds its way across literature, in poems and plays and dreams. But one country worships the mountain and its trees and cows and another country eats cows and cuts trees and forcefully makes it way across to capture the other country. The will to explore is a constant in either case. The tyrant country wants to know about the people in the other country; what do they eat and how do they live and why are they different from us. The captured country too wants to know more about the earth and the world, but its interest has been a quest to question existence and understand the origin of the world and the genesis of language; it considered the ambitions of conquest as trivial when compared to the mysteries of nature and soul.
And within this quest lay many voices of dissent.

Cows were eaten and people differed in their interpretations of rightful conduct and living. The point being that the captured nation agreed to disagree. Debates were crucial and mistakes were important for growth. Criticisms may be levelled at the internal problems of the nation, but it never attacked or converted its neighbours to its philosophical beliefs. It was interested in the knowledge of ‘I’ and if the world is real; it thought that the sun is closer to the earth, and it researched to verify, disprove and reprove.

Why is it then that a pluralistic nation–that argued and fought over metaphysical interpretations—is considered a lesser nation than an aggressive nation. Is the propensity to argue not essentially a human quality? Don’t we teach children to think and argue and formulate? Or do we ask them to prepare for aggression, to take over something that doesn’t belong to them?

Pluralism is a human quality that transcends itself into the society. Our nation is criticized for being disunited against foreign aggression; ‘hence the concept of nationhood was weak’. Does this mean that aggression and cruelty are the hallmarks of a nation? Would that mean that India was the most progressive and modern nation, a world leader, since it could subside the property of aggression? Consider this. Which nation is not plural? Unless you suppress pluralism, the world is essentially a plural. In all probability, there are other earth like planets in the universe. It is the plural nation that would accept and embrace the differences between our earth and other earths because its philosophy is a quest to know the universe. We may interpret the scriptures differently in different regions. However, this should not be seen as drawback but as a complement to the human mind. And despite the differences, we would be the first to embrace the different earth like planets in the universe without bothering if they think of our Gods as the best and supreme. We would like to know what they think of the creation of the world. Do they have any signs, perhaps a sound (OM or AUM) that represents the consciousness of the universe.

The quest to know and think are human traits. Children of orthodox Vaishnavas study modern science; they read that the moon is closer to earth than the sun. The parents have read in the scriptures that the sun is closer to the earth. That doesn’t make the scriptures redundant because the scriptures were a quest to know; truth is not solely the information but the will to know. And when the child knows more, learns more, thinks more, then he is paying respect to the scriptures. The birthday of Krishna was celebrated in August this year. Some parts in South India celebrated his birthday on September 11. Different calculations, difference in calendars. But the same God. And the God himself is plural. He is one, but many.

I say pluralism is a human trait and we have an innate urge to be many. To spread. To think different. The differences in India are thus natural. And human. We know now that cultures (and people) who criticized India’s differences are struggling in differences. The religions have broken down; there are religious sects and though the sects worship the same God, they have had a very, very bloody history. India has not yet reached those bloodiness levels. Don’t confuse this with the partition riots, I am referring to violence within the religion. Misrepresentation of the caste system caused much problem to the lower castes in India. The people who point out the atrocities (still prevalent in some parts in India) do so with the purpose to break the nation and not to correct the problems. But the cruelty of the caste problem is not contemporary to the cruelty inflicted in other lands outside India. And there is another major difference, Indian philosophy is a self-correcting mission. Ram is a perfect God but he is not infallible and he teaches us many lessons. His wife Sita teaches us the power of dignity (a). Together they tell us about human nature and in this they are supreme. They are not supreme because they decided to be supreme and forced it upon the people; they had doubts and they felt pain.

The orthodox Vaishnava does not tell his son at night that “ no matter what you learn at school, remember that the sun is closer to earth than the moon”. If he does so, then another Vaishnava may refuse to share tea with him if he “indulges in fallacies”. People who refuse to see beyond Brahmin-Vaishya divide do not know about Indian philosophy; why would they? Do you read about the Upanishads in schools and colleges?

“It is not the language but the speaker that we want to understand.”

To such a nation, that abounds in pluralism, that is capable of self-correction and acceptance of multiple thoughts, to such a nation, you want to attribute the quality of weakness? As the world struggles with multiculturalism, they may like to see how navratri is celebrated in various styles across India.

a) Her jumping into fire is her return to her Laxmi avatar.

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

“I am talking about the poor people who are in touch with their country, their philosophy, Krishna and Ganapati; the people who told a model with half her chest exposed to cover it with a shawl so she could participate in the Ganapati festival freely. The ‘Slumdog’ variety wouldn’t do so; they would molest her”.

Are the men who celebrate Ganapati on the streets uncouth? Is there a system to civility? 

Rich people dance at discos and other city spots that attract money. Such places are enclosed and its activities are not for the poor man. The people attending these places may not dance on the streets during the Ganapati festival. Compare them with the economically poorer people. They can’t afford discos. But they see the same films as the rich people. They like the same songs; the same actors; music and dance. Festivals are an occasion for them to let their disco-desires out of the system and feel privileged.

You may call them uncouth and wild but despite the frequency of festivals in India, they don’t have as many night-outs as the richer people. The noise pollution, the immersion of clay and mud and plastic in water is not an year-round affair. The activists, or concerned citizens should not single them out for environment destruction.

Do uncouthness and incivility require a definition? You could set a benchmark. Do the poor people trouble or threaten the non-worshippers? The women? Do they treat you well? They do. And immediately let me inform you that they are not obliged to do so; this is not a one way examination. Should you show any disgust to their appearance, colour, language or dancing, then they are not obliged to be polite to you. You may have uncomfortable thoughts about the elephant-God or the people but remember that they are celebrating a culture, a system than has been prevalent in India since (at-least) 5 century A.D. If you indulge yourself in thoughts of ‘separateness’, then you must also bear in mind that you assume a secondary status to them. If you are separate/distinct, then they are the first citizens. You have the control of the English-media that makes you feel better or superior; that condemns water pollution during immersions, that wonders when we will steer towards quieter festivals, that asks if the festival dances are vulgar (night club dances are not?).

If the English-speaking individuals of the poorer sections start a newspaper then they may complain that:

• You don’t celebrate your festivals; you feel that ‘Indianness’ is loud.
• You are western-minded; you take western imitation as education.
• You see no vulgarity in English movies; you complain about street dances but feel comfortable in disco dance steps.
• Your feeling of being educated, separate, different, peace-minded is actually your subconscious condemnation of the local language and people.

Crime happens during festivals; crime is prevalent widely in the poorer areas of India; the towns that celebrate their festivals loudly. There is more crime in the 80 percent economically poorer India than in the 20 percent rich India. Maybe.
If (when) the rich come to majority—80 percent richer Indians and 20 percent poor Indians—then most crime will occur in the richer areas of the nation. Maybe.
Crime may be seen in relation to poverty and not the poor people. If eight out of ten people are poor then it is likely that the higher number of criminals would be from the eight people who are poor. The solution to this is not aversion to the chappal clad religious Indians. The solution is—you may have read it—giving them opportunities in education. And education doesn’t mean aversion to customs and traditions and philosophy but knowing the same in a new language. It means correcting your English-speaking friends when they talk of Indians as superstitious and backward.

“Festivals have been commercialized”, I was informed by a friend. The newspapers say that Indians don’t know the reason they immerse Ganapti idol into the sea. Yet, the media and the people won’t ask for the inclusion of Indian philosophy in schools. Sanskrit is not even an optional language and people make fun of Pundits in weddings. ‘What is he muttering?’ However, the poor people take greater care to ensure that their children are rooted to Indian philosophy through Gods.

Note that I am not talking about the ‘Slumdog’* kids. They didn’t have a family to keep them rooted. Those kids didn’t know anything about themselves or their country and they were exposed to crime and abuse; not a good combination. Such kids would also celebrate festivals but not out of any understanding or regard for their country. I am talking about the poor people who are in touch with their country, their philosophy, Krishna and Ganapati; the people who told a model with half her chest exposed to cover it with a shawl so she could participate in the Ganapati festival freely. The ‘Slumdog’ variety wouldn’t do so; they would molest her. The Indian poor people would assist her. I am talking about the Indian poor people and their children.

A five year old from a poor family is exposed to Hindi film songs and bhajans and geets pertaining to Krishna and other deities. It is important to note that he is also exposed to songs of Krishna and Ganapati along with other film and pop songs. However, many rich people are not exposed to philosophy, under the pretext of liberalism; ‘Indian scriptures are not for us’. So we shouldn’t complain that the people on the streets, the poor people, are dancing to Kambhakht Ishq or Bheege Honth Tere during festival celebrations.

You don’t appreciate them when they recite the Gayatri Mantra or the different devotional songs. You feel that those songs are somehow allowed or ‘okay’. You judge them and decide for them because you can speak the English language and feel that you are better placed to take decisions. So you pass them by the road and if they sing devotional songs then you walk on, without feeling any relation to them but if they sing and dance to film songs then you decide that the people are hypocrites or uncultured. If those poor people spoke in English then they would give you a fitting reply whenever you judged them. Why shouldn’t they stop you on the streets and ask you to join them or at least offer you some eatery? You are one with them and if anybody has moved away from the Indian way, it is you and not them.

I attended several pandals during the Ganapati celebrations. I was welcomed everywhere. They let me make photographs and they let me near the idol without asking me (or anybody) my religious affiliation (that doesn’t make sense in India; an example of ‘Hinduism’ as a ‘way of life). They knew that the two foreign girls were not Hindus. They would have seen the cross, a definite religious symbol. They welcomed and explained to them about the process of the celebrations. Perhaps they were happy to have two white skinned pretty girls among them but they didn’t do anything to discourage them or feel inferior about their self. I was stopped and given prasad when I folded my hands before any idol.

They were pleasant towards me because I didn’t find them disgusting, and I didn’t have to please them. Some day, I may argue with them. But not with the air of an English speaking cultured Indian.

*The children in the film ‘Slumdog Millionaire’

Share This Story

More »

Kartikey Sehgal

It was while protecting his mother and home from outsiders that child Ganapati lost his head in a battle with his father Shiva. Subsequently, on Shiva’s orders, the head of the animal which lay with its head facing the the northern direction was fitted to Ganesh’s body. And Indians worship Ganapati as the protector of homes. As a person/God/with form/formless who binds the family. When we praise the family structure in India, we praise Ganesha. That is why Hindu homes establish his place at the entrance. 

During a recent visit for Krishna Janmashtami celebrations, I found Ganapati at the entrance, decorated and adorned, and Krishna devotees bowed before him or joined their hands before entering the home. Gods are one; there is no competition between Gods in India. I mentioned to an acquaintance about my desire to attend Onam celebrations in Kerala. I picturise Onam with boat races in the backwaters in Kerala. I may forget the philosophical elements of the festival but I don’t forget the Snake Boat Races and the Kaikottikali dance. It is such a brilliant idea to invoke culture and art in a festival involving Gods.

Go Onam

I mention Onam because Kerala is currently enthralled in Onam celebrations. And because Ganapati celebrations also invoke art and culture; Ganesha is knows as the Lord of Beginnings and the Remover of Obstacles; he is the patron of arts and sciences; he signifies intellect and wisdom. Ganesha mantras are recited by students that are appearing for their examinations. Ganapati is smart, so he is also designed as:

Imagine. A God with an elephant face is the the patron of sciences. When a child leaves home for an examination, his mother tells him to remember Ganesha. A professor of science remembers him before working on his next experiment. My school teacher, a popular man, known for his wizardry in mathematics, and who would later be appointed as the school principal was (is) an ardent devotee of Ganesha. An acquaintance had informed me that my teacher would sit absorbed in concentration and chant mantras. And if you didn’t do your homework, then even Ganesha couldn’t help you.

Whilst free from your routine, absorbed in a beverage, with the horizon as your company, you may like to ponder if it is myth that presides over scientific minds. You may like to use the term ‘philosophy’ in place of ‘myth’. It is the philosophy of talent—that you are obliged to listen to yourself and to work in accordance with your elements— that inspires people to turn to Ganapati, so that they are praying to their own qualities while praying to Him. As a devotee, you are attending to your own army of talent; your ganas; and you are the boss of your talents, the pati (Lord) of your ganas (elements). Therefore, Ganapati brings out the best in you. And you remember him before you do your work, so you can be like him while doing your work. Therefore, while sipping your beverage and reflecting on science and philosophy, remember that they are related, at least in India. And that an elephant faced God inspires science and reminds you to be scientific.

The photo of the jacket-clad Ganapati (above) is from writer Atul Tiwari’s home, amidst his library. Perhaps he placed it there purposefully to identify himself with the Lord of Wisdom. A good choice.

This stained glass painting of Ganapati is the work of Subuhi Kaul, a medical student. It was presented to us to mark the beginning of a musical project. Gods are gifts; they are holy and they are gifts. As such there is no obstinacy or strictness observed in respect to their representation. An old lady who strictly observes her daily prayers will not curse you if you present to her a colourful Ganapati. I can expect her to marvel at the colours and the differently shaped body and eyes. Ganapati can also be:

This was found at a happy gathering of poets and writers. The food was well-cooked but the speeches were long. At the same function the Goddess Saraswati was invoked since she represents knowledge and arts. Of course, Gods are interchangeable. If the image of Saraswati is not available, then the image of Ganesha or Shiva or any other God can be used to begin the

ceremony. This easiness comes from an assurance that Indian Gods are broadminded; they are not out there to punish you; they are smart; they were celebrated during Aryabhatta, Asoka and Chandragupta. An alien might think aloud; “why must Gods be strict and cruel?”; the alien is not influenced by the human thoughts on God on earth. Similarly, to an Indian mind, having brought up being friendly with the Gods, hazardous Gods don’t make sense. An infant told to behave lest Ganesha punishes him grows up to realise the wisdom in the idol, so that the God is not relegated to an idol but occupies a mental space among the flux of modernity. It is the inclusiveness of Indian philosophy—to look within the self—that grants the Indian the ability to stay steadfast to his ideals despite conflicting and antithetical ideas. Therefore, the idea of inclusiveness, that I am I, and, I am important, makes me concentrate on my self. Therefore, I don’t put our home Ganapati idol in the sea. I don’t, my father doesn’t, my grandfather didn’t.

You are staying with me, dude

I don’t miss putting him into the sea and I have never felt insecure or uneasy about the same. Devotees put their idols in the water and ask Ganesha to return quickly; my Ganesha stays with me and the word ‘my’ functions as an adjective here. He has been with us for at least ten years (maybe fifteen). Here’s another Ganapati that won’t be hitting the waves.

Ganesha is used here for an organization. The onus would now be to ensure that the surroundings remain clean and that the people don’t litter the beach. It would be futile to leave the work to Ganapati. Fate is work; the fate of any organization or individual would depend on the work, and what better way to work than to work like the elephant? I quote Sri Sri Ravi Shankar:

The enormous head of the elephant signifies Wisdom and Knowledge. Elephants don’t walk around obstacles, neither do they stop at them. They just remove them and keep walking straight on – signifying effortlessness.

Ganapati is coloured black here. The images of other Gods; Durga, Kali, Sai Baba and Shiva are placed around Ganapati. You can also place Vishnu and Krishna and other idols of your choice. While singing Ganapati praises, you can also sing praises of Rama and Krishna and Durga. If you don’t want to buy a Ganapati idol, you can draw one on paper or on a rock and pray to him. All’s cool; no hang-ups. Ganapati won’t mind. You can also sit at home and remember him and that too is fine with this God. If you are rich, then you can have big Ganapati idols like:

Photo: Sqn Ldr Anil Sehgal

This Ganapati idol is from Singapore. He looks slim to me; his trunk is not fat and his face looks chiselled when compared to the Indian Ganapati idols. This one is treadmill Ganapati, conscious of his diet. If Ganapati is a symbol, a reminder, then he must be adaptable to different countries. Adaptable to the point that he doesn’t lose his significance. A child painting his version of Ganapati in black and blue is fun. In time he will learn that the narrow eyes mean that you must focus on the goal and the big ears function as a filter of words; sabki suno apni maano  (Listen to all, follow your heart/mind).

I stop here so I can publish this immediately. In the next story on Ganapati, I shall publish some photographs and a video of Ganapati celebrations.

Share This Story

More »