Social Consciousness - lack of it

Do Indians lack Social consciousness – when it comes to cleanliness, charity, animal welfare, and treatment of fellow humans?

Recently, I came across an article that was posted by my dad about India’s drive to get toilets for its citizens who don’t have the access to one (link to the article). I also suggest reading the comments left by the readers of this article. Why I want to delve on this topic? I find the tone of the article not so offensive because overall the article is saying that toilets are put in operation but still lots of work that needs to be done. I don't want to digress too much, but lately (since Modi has become PM) lots of negative articles about India have appeared in US media. Only place where positive articles appear about India on US media seems to be on the Business weeklies, web, and newspapers. I might not believe in conspiracies in general but I do believe this has to do mostly with a Nationalist and economic reformer is at the helm in India. And the PM taking pride in him Hindu and Kaffir is also annoying. Here is the link to someone's analysis of New York Times reporting on India (the tilt). My argument is that Indians don't lack social consciousness as a group but do lack an infrastructure that should have been provided by a responsible government. Why just blame people? Do we support Republicans here is US when they say that poor are poor because of themselves? Most of us don't because we know things are more complex. Then why blame Indians for things that we don't face here because being a wealthy nation but expect them to do better when the support and infrastructure is lacking?

Like I mentioned, I didn't find the article out right offensive. I agree with article's author that more work needs to be done and also appreciate author's reporting on how people feel about cleanliness drive initiated by the Prime Minster. There are some general mocking, as it has come to be expected from the media, on anything India related. My reason to delve into India is lack of social consciousness is because the comments posting on the topic by my relatives. They have said that individuals, if they take responsibility, the mess wouldn't be there. Many Amens later and one crude joke later, the conclusion drawn from all the commenting is that India is in this situation because of Indians lack social consciousness and perhaps even civic responsibility.

I wonder how much of this is accurate. Is this accurate in present state or is this the truth about Indians in general. Because if this is true in general then I say Churchill (hero in the west) is right about Indians when he said "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." When a non-Indian make that statement, most likely he will be labeled a racist or a bigot but when an Indian says that about Indians something similar to this - to me that is mostly self flagellation and some-what laying the blame at the wrong place. Criticism is healthy but self flagellation serves no purpose. Most of the problems faced by Indians today in India has to do with mismanagement of resources and lack of leadership.

Mismanagement of resources by misrule of a dynastic party. Corruption, a sad fact that is part of everyday Indian living is not caused by the people on themselves but by the people in power. Living in India is not easy compare to where we live now in the "first" world. People in India have many struggles on daily basis but their basic necessities are similar to people in the first world. In first world, people have access to clean water (on most parts), public toilets, garbage pickups, and good sewage system. All mentioned previously is an infrastructure set up so that people can meet the basic needs to live filth free. Did Indian govt. try to or continually try to provide this to its growing population. Maybe they did but have been total failure. My argument is that Indians are in the situation where filth is everywhere because of total breakdown in the responsibilities of those in power - due to corruption. England and the British themselves lived in filth for a long time until the wealth transfer occurred. They looted the wealth from India mainly and were able to create infrastructure needed for its citizenry. Churchill and many of those with White Man burden complex didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing but did blame all the misery they created on the colonized population as their own fault. Even today, the British have hard time coming to terms on what they have done. They come up with excuses and the Indians who have migrated to England sometimes come up with excuses for them. Here is in an example. I guess British are not into Self Flagellating. When someone is raped, the worst thing to say to the victim is that they called it upon themselves to be raped for dressing provocatively or by being out late at night. India is raped by many and now it is not ok to call the situation they are in and say it is because they lack social consciousness. Indians want cleanliness like any other nation.

As far as cruelty to animals. India has lived with animals better than the people in the west. Meat consumption on daily basis supported by Animal farming is totally west's gift to humanity. In the process it is destroying the environment for the whole world. Following of that by Indians is mark of two things - inferiority complex and aping west. For that, social consciousness that Indians had for the animal is being taken away piece by piece by self flagellating Indians and outsiders with their disdain of anything grounded in dharmic traditions. Again goes back to inferiority complex. I am ok with people eating meat but to assume you are civilized because you can consume a flesh of animals is really stupid. I recommend "cowspiracy" on Netflix.

I want to go back to what is said about Indians lacking social consciousness. I disagree. I think leadership is lacking since independence; a leadership that got retarded by a dynasty. Modi has been at the helm for less than two years and according to Media in India and West, he should have fixed all the problems by now. The problems have been compounded over sixty years under misrule. India in the past had social consciousness when it believed and promoted the concept of peaceful co-existence not with other humans but with animals and nature. They had social consciousness when they produced Gurus in Punjab and Maratha warriors in the Deccan - they rose against tyrant. They had social consciousness when they fought for their independence from the British with non-violent movement. They also had leaders to lead. What India has lacked since Independence is great leadership. Modi might not be the guy either but he is trying more than some of the others who have held the office. Worst thing about this whole debate, we are not the solution to what is going on in India. We are just feel comfortable saying negative things about Indians because it is accepted in the west and while we live in the comfort of the west. Churchill's racist views are acceptable to Indians living here is only because the education in India has produced Macaluy Putras. They are comfortable in defecating on their own and then they expect Indians to be at higher standard. Maybe, I change my mind, it is right that Indians are the least socially conscious people on the planet. The sooner they perish sooner we can become what the white man wanted - civilized. Tweet

On being labeled a racist

To begin with, this is my point of view obviously and as such I should be able to defend my views. If I can't defend my views then it is just nonsense based on nothing. Now even if I defend my views, there has to be counter view which will also be supported by counter arguments. I am always willing to listen to counter arguments. Those counter arguments give you time and opportunity to reflect. Also, as humans we are given a power to think and reason. As humans, we can be individuals with individual thoughts or adopt thoughts of others as ours if we agree with them based on our own experience.

 Now getting back to being labeled racist, am I racist, openly racist? The answer to this question will be no. I will explain. If one looks up a definition, you will find something along this line "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another." Now does that make one with Inferiority complex (say like Uncle Tom) be racist? No, because Uncle Tom will believe that the oppressing race is superior to his own race. So here is another definition of a racist, a racist is "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." So am I racist based on this? I am not Uncle Tom and I don't believe any one race is better as a race than another. On the second definition, do I think Indians are better as race than any other race on this planet? No. I don't believe that is the case.

 Here is where I have been labeled racist. Perhaps because I called Arabs as scum. Also, according to FB friend, my posts are openly racist and anti-Muslims. Are Arabs scum? Well, I shouldn’t say all of them are, but the one treating immigrant labor as human slaves, those ones are scum. The one who are Arabs and are not bothered by the treatment that is meted out to immigrant labor, they are also scum. The one that are quiet on this whole issue, they are scum also. Nothing to do with their race being inferior but everything to do with them being cruel to fellow human beings who don't happen to be Arabs. Here is link to the article . The article is about Qatar's bid to host World cup and to create all the venues for the games, employing immigrant labor force to construct. Now anyone who is familiar with various Arab nation’s treatment of immigrant labor, they know the treatment is pretty bad (Amazingly, Libya and Iraq were two Arab nations that treated their immigrant labor force with some dignity). The laborer's passport is confiscated upon their arrival, they are forced to share living space in the worst conditions, his/her wages are kept for months, and medical treatment is not provided most of the times. Now in this case, Arabs are total scum. No apologies. This settlement (mentioned in the article) happened only because of the pressure was built on FIFA due to things (treatment of laborers) that came out in open and Arab Shiekhs had to take an action. Here is youtube video of Guardian documentary . Again, am I racist? I personally don't think that my race is better than Arabs, but I will say this if Arabs can't respect basic human rights of immigrants, then they are scum.

 Second point of my offended FB friend was that I am anti-Muslim. I am against ideology of hate. A religion truly is nothing more than ideology and that is more so with middle east based religions. If hate is permeating from an ideology that is labeled as religion by its followers, do I have to respect the feeling of its followers? The desert death cults are nothing but cancer to humanity. I will explain it this way. Nazis had this ideology that they are superior because they are Aryan. Everyone else is just beneath Aryans. Now Nazism was an ideology. An ideology can be argued for or against. Never is ideology protected because you will offend the followers. That is a right, mostly given, in United States. Other countries, the citizen’s rights are curbed when it comes to freedom of expression. Now Islam and Christianity, to a non-believer, is just an ideology. An ideology, like Nazism, promotes this belief that the believers are better than the non-believers. Also, these ideologies require their believers to take ideas presented on faith (blindly without question). Islam is, particularly, cruel to non-believer (kuffrs). History is filled with their cruelty towards non-believers. The religion works by threatening anyone who questions it with death threats. Do, as Kuffr, I have any obligation to defend this junk? Now if followers also believe that they are better because they are faithful, do I need to be nice so I don't hurt their feelings? When I am called a bigot, and anti-muslim, do the faithful call their religion for holding bigoted view to be a junk that needs to be discarded? A religion and ideology that itself is bigoted towards non-believers, for that ideology I have no obligation to say anything nice about them. I am labeled anti-Muslim but truly I am against the belief system that has supremacist ideas at its core. I am against the ideology and the believers and not against individuals. I don't treat people based on their beliefs but I do question and ridicule their belief. No one in their right mind will expect Jews to defend Nazis, but I am expected to be nice and to have no problem with a belief system that is equally bigoted when it comes to non-believers. When I am supposed to be a kuffr according to their books, I am the one who should act like a Dhimmi (Uncle Tom) and be nice.

 I left this person's comment on my Facebook. I didn't delete. I didn’t delete because even though I am a bigot against bigoted ideology, I am always open to criticism. A threat of un-friend from a friend never comes because they are willing to listen and argue. I don't need threats and I don't need a sermon about love and hate. I don't hate anyone based on skin, race, or even religion, but I do ridicule people who follow a religion that is expansionist in nature and stupid in content. I am against religion that divide people based same yolk theory. When you label non-believers as hell bound unless they believe the same fantasy as yourself, I don’t have to be respectful to your beliefs. Forcing a Lord of the ring fan to become an exclusive fan of Harry Porter is what “only true religion” is asking from non-believers. I find the whole thing silly as I hate most of the religions equally. Also, to end, and regarding my Facebook friend un-friending – shoot and scoot is hallmark of a coward. Please stay around and argue your point. Don’t label someone a racist and then run away. Tweet

PK - a movie for the asses that make up masses.

Everyone by now, the one who follow Indian popular cinema, has heard about the movie by Raju Hirani called "PK."  The movie created controversy, mostly post release, for being an Anti-Hindu movie.  For all its anti-hindu bias, the movie has become one of the major hit in hindi movies.  The box office collection of the movie has been a record breaking collection.  So is the movie at hit because of the controversy or is it a hit because of a great story telling that has connected with the masses.  I have seen the movie and I hope the second is not the reason for its success.

Here are my reasons.  First of all, the movie seems to be made for masses and as someone has put it - masses are asses.  Now I don't mean to say that masses, the ones who have gone and seen the movie, are asses.  Some probably just went to see the movie because of the controversy and probably because of the lead actor.  Luckily, like our great leader in Uttar Pardesh, I was able to see a copy of the movie on the internet without paying.  My disclaimer - I actually saw someone play the movie while I just stood behind them to watch the whole thing.  I don't condone piracy.

Alright, back to the merits of the movie.  The movie is terrible.  The direction is bad as is the acting by the leads and the script has holes as big as the spaceship that landed Pint Khan in the movie's opening scene.  In the words of a character in (unrelated movie) "Tropic Thunder" - "one should never go full retard" and Ammir Khan with his wide eyed look is pretty close to it.  And I guess that wide eye look is to convey the child-like innocence or how the alien will be bewildered with all the chaos on the planet. I digress.  

Say if you were to ever land a space ship on another planet, will you go there knowing the composition of the living organism on that planet.  Since on earth 99% of living organisms are made up of four elements (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen), will the living matter have similar composition on another planet?  Without knowing (because no probes were sent earlier) the environment you will be landing into, will it make sense to just come naked?  Say even if you are naked on the planet you lived on, will you not need special suit out in space.  Yes forget all the logic and think of it as an allegorical idea. As a child comes to this world naked, we have a child like alien who comes to this planet naked.  I get it, so deep at a very shallow level.  Past all that, the alien that is sent to earth comes doesn't come across as an explorer but comes across as a village idiot who is probably is sent to earth because they had enough of him at his home planet.  Again, no clothes are worn on alien's planet but it appears they like to hang technology on around a neck, not like a bracelet or a ring.  I guess so someone can snatch it and run away.  This appears to be all part of lazy writing.

Second, as soon as “PK” lands, he wants to make a contact with an earthling.  When you make a contact, even with animals or things that you never seen, you do it cautiously and not full blown frontal attack.  Not with this alien. This alien goes for full charge towards an unknown human.  Then his necklace gets snatched by his first contact on earth.  Alien chases him and in process he gets snatcher's radio (two in one type).  In India, do they still carry that around?  I doubt it but say because of the lazy writing that Indians do carry old two in one around, my question to the writer of the movie, why will an alien space ship drop its explorer in a desert?  Oh, because of not wanting to get caught with gazing eyes.  Aren't their other deserts that are more secluded or isolated?  This again appears to be lazy writing (wrong number).

Now coming back to first theme of the movie – don’t follow blindly.  It appears to me that the alien falls for same trap as most westerners fall for when they observe Hindu rituals and practices. And most likely, like missionaries, their whole agenda is to put down these practices.  So coming from a Hindu director and writer, this is not surprising.  One, Hindus over the period of time have developed inferiority complex when it comes to the other faiths (both of Indian Origin and from the outside).  They have been told many times that Idol worshiping is wrong.  Their love and respect for cows is silly.  The Hindus, of all the groups, appear to be least rigid when it comes to accepting different viewpoints.  For being accepting of various viewpoints, for that reason alone, it is also a religion, that to some appear to have most "andh vishwas" or blind faith.  Oh wait..two of the main religion on this planet work on blind faith or require absolute faith with no questioning - Islam and Christianity.  Do you think those two religion were ridiculed in the movie?  Nope.  Ok, to be fair, what they did try to ridicule for those to religion were not the religion itself but just some of the practices.  Shiite in Islam are already considered aberration by sunnis and so is that self flagellation procession that is shown in the movie.  About Christianity, two instances are shown, but they are not ridiculing the religion but mostly the ritual. One is the baptization (dipping into holy water) and the second is the Eucharist thing where the wine is given as blood of Christ.  Well that, and mention of original sin.  Islam is hardly criticized.  And coming back to the point of not following on "andh Vishwas", aren't Christianity and Islam asking for blind faith.  Why not ridicule the whole concept of these two faiths?  The two biggest religions in the world also operate like an organized crime syndicate.  They don't allow free criticism of their beliefs.

Let us continue with the second theme of the movie.  One of the other idea that movie wants to convey is that you don't need an intermediary between "GOD" and yourself.  In the movie, they are using this Godmen (Sai Baba) type guy as an intermediary who is taking advantage of people.  I have no problem with Raju Hirani ridiculing Sai Baba type con men taking advantage of gullible people.  My only issue, the two religion that actually are based on having an intermediary between god and human is Islam and Christianity but no criticism toward them.  Isn't the whole church organization just that - an intermediary between god and human being?

The movie is poorly scripted with agenda driven drivel.  The script is pretty much what you will see on a missionary pamphlet on why Hinduism is wrong.  I have heard the arguments that one should go to movie to enjoy and not necessarily to get some sorts of message.  Here though the director wants to convey a message and the movie itself is agenda driven.  A message about not following blindly and using your intellect is fine and a good message but I doubt this movie is doing that if it is leaving out the two biggest culprits of non-thinking and blind faith - Christianity and Islam.  I would rather have bunch of people believing in crap then having people who based on their religious faith will commit genocide.  I don't find Lord of the Rings followers to be harmful but I do find faithful like the ISIS types and the missionary types to be cancerous.  For that reason alone, I don't find the Hinduism to be as harmful as the other faith based, only truth type religions to be poisonous.  Though, I am not comparing Hinduism to LOTR.  Hinduism has much deeper meaning to the stories that are labeled myths.  I do find Hinduism less of a bane to humanity then the two Abhramic and expansionist religions

Final verdict, yes watch the movie if you must.  Try not to spend too much to see it.  Watch it for free if you can like Akhlesh Yadav.  The money you would have spent on the ticket price would be better spent if you gave it to genuine charity like Indian Development and Relief fund.  To combat the hypocrisy of the movie, do what it is asking its viewers - don't follow blindly.  Don't go see the movie at the theatre because bunch of sheeps have been bamboozled to watch the crap.  Watch the movie for free and then just like the movie ask to not waste money by donating at the temple, don't waste the money on the ticket price but spend that money for an honest charity.  Like the kitschy line of the movie - don't dial this "wrong number."

Tweet