Yesterday i was watching NDTV and the ongoing debate on We The people was about whether Vande Mataram should be made mandatory. One gentleman put forth the view that nationalism should not be forced, and children should be made to sing it only if the feeling of patriotism comes from within. Very well, but the thought that came to me was what about forced religion?
If we can support the ideology that nationalism should not be forced, what kind of discretion are we given to choose our religion? Why a child is necessarily labeled as a Hindu or Muslim or Sikh or Christian as soon as he or she is born? Why can't we let them be 18 and then decide which religion they wish to follow, if at all? Did Ram or Allah or Christ decree that every child inherit the religion of their parents? May be so, but may we ask, why? I am a Hindu because my parents are Hindu, they are Hindu, because their parents were Hindu, and so it has been for no one knows how many generations. Was everyone in the hierarchy an ardent Hindu? Am i a true Hindu? What do i do in my capacity as a Hindu?
When we have the freedom of thought, of choosing the kind of education and profession we want, the kind of people we wish to meet, why do we have to follow the religion that our forefathers chose? Do we listen to the same music that they listened to? Are our daily routines the same as theirs? Often, when a child asks his parents why a particular thing is being done the way it is being done, he gets the answer, 'shaastron mein aisa likha hai' or 'Humara mazhab ye kehta hai'. Well, were those texts written in today’s context? And have we decided on our own to follow that text? Sure enough, these texts are very rich and have wonderful teachings, lessons, examples and beliefs. And I believe a religion is never about any god, but about the set of beliefs it preaches, the gods merely symbolize and exemplify a set of values, and all these originate in certain texts. But today, majority of the people who are said to belong to a particular religion have not even read these texts. Had it not been for Ramanand Sagar and others who recreated the magic of holy epics vividly on screen, our knowledge about them would have been even more limited. That we still call ourselves belonging to that religion is not just a misnomer, but a blasphemy to the religion itself.
Sure enough one can argue that one has the freedom to convert if they are inclined towards another religion, but few take that path. Doesn't it still mean belittling the religion you were born in? And what if a person wants to be just religion less? Why is it necessary to have a religion at all? The way we are asked, 'do you read newspapers?' before being asked, 'which newspaper do you read?' may be we should ask a person, 'do you follow any religion?' before asking them 'which religion do you belong to?'
My main point remains that if it is a matter of choice to love the land where we were born, whose culture we adopt, whose institutions we study in; a matter of choice to respect the country from which we give and take so much, why is it not a matter of choice to belong to a particular religion, when people are fighting over it day in and day out, and the greatest contribution we have seen it make to our country is communal tension?
Does anyone remember a very old Hindi movie song... 'Na Hindu banega na musalmaan banega, insaan ki aulaad hai insaan banega'... I wish we imbibe this feeling in the young minds of India.
RSS Feed (xml)