According to Hindu Law, Hindus are born, while some are made, by conversion. According to Wikipedia, Religion is a set of organised beliefs. So, a Hindu is a person who believes in Hindu principles. I fail to comprehend how a Hindu can be born. This would imply that a child, as soon as it is born, has full knowledge of all such beliefs and customs, and agrees to become a Hindu. I feel, every person is born amorphous, and then made into a follower. In India, where just about everyone is interested in knowing your religious affiliation, one must be careful of the consequences one will have to face after answering it. Born into a Hindu family, I am now 17 years old, and still don't know about the intricacies of Hinduism. If just being born into a Hindu family makes me Hindu, and there is no difference whether I concur with its beliefs or no, then I find this to be futile concept.
To understand it better, let's go back to the origin of Hinduism. During ancient history, Aryans used the term Hindus for people living East of the river Sindhu (now Indus). Then, under the Aryan rule, Hinduism referred to the Aryan Caste System (Varna Vyavastha) of Kshatriyas, Bramhins, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Then, comes the modern interpretations of Hinduism as a religion. So, Hinduism actually originated as sects of people divided based on the way they lived or the work they performed. If we extrapolate the same theory for a time 2000 years in the future, we will see teachers forming a separate religion, and likewise engineers, scientists, doctors, politicians, all forming separate religions. That will be a time when a doctor's child will be declared a doctor by birth, just as a Hindu's child is pronounced Hindu by birth. One easily accepts the latter, but not the former; Why? Can a small child know whether his body, mind, and conscience, will allow him to be a doctor, or a teacher, or just about anything at the time of birth? Doesn't the same analogy apply to religion?
Is the concept of religion valid in this modern generation of science and technology? We hear from all quarters about how one has to accept failure, face adversaries, and strive to progress. If religion supports coping with such pressures and getting accepted in the society, then it can be accepted with open arms, but in a society where religion has become the root cause of multiple problems, I believe it has to be shunned. Proper value education and an active conscience obviate the need for a religion to govern society. When virtues are the need of the hour, religion is not doing much help.
If we view it from a very broad perspective, a religious group is not very different from a social club, if not more evolved (not superior), pompous, and having a large following. You get to meet new people and have a good conversation starter, since both perform the same old rituals. But, this never guaranties meeting like-minded people. One gets to meet like-minded people in clubs of one's interest, be it a sports club, social club, recreational club, or professionals' club. Other than networking, religious groups readily offer people who can support you, in a fight. This is one of religious people's worst habits. Just because a person belongs to your religion, you mustn't blindly support him, unaware of any possible criminal motives that he may have. By any means, one can garner better support by being a good human being, and not by merely being part of an out-spoken sect.
I think, this division of people based on religions is an ingenious scientist's off-the-records genetic experiment. What better way could there be to segregate people living in the same neighborhood? One can easily study populations living in the same physical conditions, but reproductively isolated. If you think about it, it is one of the best way to observe human genes and their inheritance in action.
Forcibly performing rituals, talking to religiously equal people and ignoring others, and finding religions and non-existent castes and sub-castes to fill out application forms, will either induce inferiority complex or megalomania. Just as every person is given the opportunity to choose his occupation, hobbies, and lifestyle, I believe, every person, on reaching adulthood, should be given the opportunity to choose the religion he wishes to be affiliated to, or to none at all.
To understand it better, let's go back to the origin of Hinduism. During ancient history, Aryans used the term Hindus for people living East of the river Sindhu (now Indus). Then, under the Aryan rule, Hinduism referred to the Aryan Caste System (Varna Vyavastha) of Kshatriyas, Bramhins, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Then, comes the modern interpretations of Hinduism as a religion. So, Hinduism actually originated as sects of people divided based on the way they lived or the work they performed. If we extrapolate the same theory for a time 2000 years in the future, we will see teachers forming a separate religion, and likewise engineers, scientists, doctors, politicians, all forming separate religions. That will be a time when a doctor's child will be declared a doctor by birth, just as a Hindu's child is pronounced Hindu by birth. One easily accepts the latter, but not the former; Why? Can a small child know whether his body, mind, and conscience, will allow him to be a doctor, or a teacher, or just about anything at the time of birth? Doesn't the same analogy apply to religion?
Is the concept of religion valid in this modern generation of science and technology? We hear from all quarters about how one has to accept failure, face adversaries, and strive to progress. If religion supports coping with such pressures and getting accepted in the society, then it can be accepted with open arms, but in a society where religion has become the root cause of multiple problems, I believe it has to be shunned. Proper value education and an active conscience obviate the need for a religion to govern society. When virtues are the need of the hour, religion is not doing much help.
If we view it from a very broad perspective, a religious group is not very different from a social club, if not more evolved (not superior), pompous, and having a large following. You get to meet new people and have a good conversation starter, since both perform the same old rituals. But, this never guaranties meeting like-minded people. One gets to meet like-minded people in clubs of one's interest, be it a sports club, social club, recreational club, or professionals' club. Other than networking, religious groups readily offer people who can support you, in a fight. This is one of religious people's worst habits. Just because a person belongs to your religion, you mustn't blindly support him, unaware of any possible criminal motives that he may have. By any means, one can garner better support by being a good human being, and not by merely being part of an out-spoken sect.
I think, this division of people based on religions is an ingenious scientist's off-the-records genetic experiment. What better way could there be to segregate people living in the same neighborhood? One can easily study populations living in the same physical conditions, but reproductively isolated. If you think about it, it is one of the best way to observe human genes and their inheritance in action.
Forcibly performing rituals, talking to religiously equal people and ignoring others, and finding religions and non-existent castes and sub-castes to fill out application forms, will either induce inferiority complex or megalomania. Just as every person is given the opportunity to choose his occupation, hobbies, and lifestyle, I believe, every person, on reaching adulthood, should be given the opportunity to choose the religion he wishes to be affiliated to, or to none at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment