The old chicken - egg question

I have talked a lot about agnosticism before but today I feel like doing a case by case analysis. So there are n no of religion, with each saying that their God, Bhagwan, Allah etc is the creator of everything etc.

Now let us hypothetically assume it to be true - so that one or more gods either separately or jointly created the universe and humans and everything. Or perhaps there is only one true god and maker and the rest are imagination. Now the question for all people agreeing to this is who made this hypothetical God or Gods. I mean is there a hierarchy God makes man and Earth, God's God makes Gods and heaven. So where does it end? Now there can be no meaningful end to this side of the discussion.

Then comes the idea that there was no God. Well ok then how did we come into being ? Scientists talk of a Big Bang theory, but that hardly is an argument that applies here. How did the matter to go through this Big bang come from. There is no valid argument in either case. I saw this side of no sides a while back and that was the day I became a peaceful agnostic, I respect the problem and have no shame in accepting that  I am not upto finding a solution for this.

P.S. This is basically the same reason I am never afraid in air travel - reason tells me that if there ever be a problem mid air it is only the pilot who can do anything about it and my worrying over something that I have no control over is not going to help in any way.

Pakistan .. why is it what it is ?

We all have been watching from the fence as Pakistan is being ripped apart by a monster of it's own making. But how did it come to this.. at the time of the partition Pakistan tried hard to get a lot of territories to accede to them but they were defeated largely - in the name of leadership they had just Jinnah while India on the other had Patel, Nehru and Gandhi to contribute in different ways. While Patel was the action guy, Nehru was the public face and Gandhi was the mass leader .. Jinnah had to do all these roles by himself. So while Jinnah could hardly match Patel's acumen and planning he also was definitely way behind as the loved leader of the masses - Gandhi was after all 'the father of the nation'. Also due to the tendency to align with the stronger side, most rulers wanted to accede to the seemingly more moderate/considerate Indian leadership and at the same time wherever public opinion counted Hindus (the majority) didn't think of going to Pakistan. There were two critical states that created all the mess that is here today. While Hyderabad had a Hindu majority with a Muslim ruler, Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a predominantly Muslim population. Now these were vital and India could not afford to lose either while Pakistan was dying to get them. Patel eventually outsmarted Jinnah and wrested both of them out of his hands. Given this humiliating defeat, Pakistan was never bent upon being a friendly neighbour. Also with India's pivotal role in the Independence of Bangladesh - animosity between the neighbours was sealed. Now while India and Pakistan were both in poor shape in terms of technology, finance and defence while India took help from the erstwhile USSR to build itself to what it is today Pakistan for some reason sought to be under the umbrella of USA and never tried to build its own factories, infrastructure or technology etc.. It's leadership was more bent upon wresting over Kashmir from India. Even if they were successful  or are in the coming future - what is the result of it all going to be. Is it going to help even a single person on either side of the border or even in Kashmir? Not really... 
But regardless of basic logic Pakistan continued to fund insurgency and foment terrorist elements in the name of 'liberation of Kashmir'. Well it forgot one basic thing - terrorist are not patriots .. they are professionals. Just as any other professional they want to be employed and they would gladly turn back on their own master rather than be jobless. So now with Pakistan trying to be good and helping USA in the fight against al-Qaeda etc.. the taliban has nothing else to do but turn their AK-47 and bombs to Pakistani cities. I wish I could say 'As you  sow, so shall you reap' but such is not true in case of countries, for leaders mess up and the poor public suffers. 

What's wrong with India

India has over the years proved itself the best place for corruption, inefficiency and incompetence to thrive. Why is it that the law in the country seems so decorative and perhaps even a tool for the rich to wield against their enemies and not one for justice? Numerous events in the current news have made me realise that the worst thing and the root of all the problems in India is none other than the lax judiciary in India. Like a parent that spoils a child and never punishes the brat for mischiefs, so are the officials in every department in India. Just yesterday the pitch for a cricket match was made so poorly that the match had to be abandoned. How is this possible in a country that invests so much in the sport and is a world leader in it? How is it possible for a stadium in New Delhi to fuck up when even countries like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh can manage well every time? And if it is not acceptable why are we seeing just a blame game, possibly an enquiry and no heads on the table ! And the funny and sad thing is that the people are satisfied with just shouting (pelting bottles on the ground in this case) and then going home to crib more on the state of affairs. There is no interest in the public to see the culprits / incompetent officials punished.
The Ruchika case under so much media hype is another sad example of the same. The attention is on why was the accused given so mild a punishment, there is no focus on why did it take 19 years and when there are public statements proving a motley of politicians and civil servants involved in shielding the accused, there is no move to prosecute them. At least suspend them for the time being !!
Such is the sick state of affairs that there is no sense of pride anymore in living in what we call 'Saare Jahan Se Achcha'. This seems to have acquired a sarcastic tinge in such circumstances for me at least ! All I can say is that I will still say 'Saare Jahan Se Achcha Hindustan humara' but without conviction and with a hope that it someday becomes true.

Preconceived notions and discrimination

We may try and say that we do not discriminate, but we know that we actually do have some pre-conceived notions and may at times discriminate. First of all what is discriminating - nothing but unfair treatment to a fellow based on our prejudices and obviously this includes rascism, casteism, sexism etc. I don't think there can be a valid argument towards any kind of discrimination as it comes out of neither logical nor compassion. What, on the other hand does having preconceived notion mean. It is a lukewarm feeling towards a thing you are not very sure about. As I see it, it is nothing but applying probabilities. If you have been many-times lied to by a person, you will have the notion and natural instinct to not readily believe that which this person says. This is very much understandable and this behaviour comes out as a natural defence mechanism and seems to come from logic. But there is a certain blur, a muddiness in the meaning of preconceived notions. This does not include that you act on those notions - notions are just a means of putting you up on your guard. To have doubts about the certain facts/people etc.. and not to have a negative opinion. It is this blurriness which make people act more as discriminators than they really are. So the idea is simple doubt from past experiences/statistics, but verify and then believe

Holocaust - The greatest tragedy ever ?

The topic is pretty vast and disputed and needs some background. I am afarid I will digress quite a lot. First of all what is the holocaust - it basically refers to the genocide of around 5 million people of Jewish religion by Germany led by the Nazi leader Hitler in the early 1940s. Then another important thing is the creation of the state of Israel. Since biblical times Jewish were promised a state of their own called the 'Promised land' and Moses led them from their enslavers in Egypt to this land through a horrendous and painful journey over vast deserts. In modern times the Jews, being tradesmen, had immigrated and spread around everywhere specially europe. Now with Hitler coming after them baying for their blood in such a way as he did, made fleeing the only option for the ones that managed to escape the gas chambers. Some fled to the American continent and others saw this as an opportunity to return to their 'Promised land' which is now Israel. At the time Jews were being turned away by almost everyone. The european countries did not want the refugees to return to their homes and Palestine - the site of the 'promised land',  which was ruled by British at the time did not like the million odd Jew refugees settling there. They finally managed to establish an independent state carved from within Palestine and called it by the name of Israel and thus ended their suffering - well at least temporarily.

Now what did the holocaust actually mean. The number of Jewish deaths is a huge figure and the intolerable Nazi cruelty make this period of time one of the most shameful in the annals of mankind. But does that mean that it be a bargaining chip for all future generations of Jews? There are now elements in the Jewish society just exploiting the holocaust memories to get away with just about anything. Now it is a well known fact that USA is one of the strongest allies of Israel and has been strengthening its arms by fair and unfair means and even looking the other way as Israel continues to wreck havoc on Palestine. I can't pass a ruling as to which side is right/just and which is not, but Israel is definitely the stronger one; and it has time and again used it to do some cruel acts on the relatively weaker Palestinian state. Now what is the reason that USA, which is the self acclaimed messiah of all the world, has not tried to set things right and does in fact support a strong nuclear armed state? The obvious reason is that the diaspora of Israel is one of the most powerful sections of the american community. In fact it is more powerful than the majority christian community I would say. Money lending was a traditional Jewish occupation since long back and even now the majority of banking families are Jewish. The Rockfellers, Rothschilds and many others who run the financial institutions, banks and media worldwide are Jews. So their influence is definitely worth quite a bit. Now there is a lot of noise in the conspiracy community that these Jew banking families have a plan to enslave the world etc etc.. I do not subscribe to that in the face of no definite proof - but still the fact remains that there is an imbalance of power and power is not something that humans have been build to absorb without causing a lot of collateral damage around them.

So the overall fact is that with the backing of the powerful financial strength and using the memories of holocaust as an excuse and baraining chip Jews have done whatever they wished to and gained power in all forms. There are I would guess anything from 5-10 movies made on the holocaust and there seems to be a concerted effort to never let this awful piece of history to fade away into distant memories and to make the Christian community sorry for their 'atrocities'. I fail to understand why are other such horrible tragedies not as bright in the spotlight of our memories? The US bombing of the two Japanese cities for example though not equal is number is an equally brutal crime - both the genocides targetted the innocent civilian population yet the Japanese tradegy is a distant memory now. The Armenian massacre of  1915 left more than a million dead. As I see it the idea is to keep this very much alive and project the wrongs on their society to enable them to do wrongs of their own. Holocaust may or may not be the biggest tradedy of human making but it certainly is the most appaling misuse of a tragedy.

Bumps

Bumps in life, by this I mean the bad times that come ever so often in small measures. I won't say we should enjoy them - that will sound like a lie because I myself never did enjoy my bad times. As I see it life is a very complex thing and there are too many things and people intersecting in it. Our goal/aim is of course to make life better for us (and the ones we love) but then as it is such a complex thing it is not always possible. There are times when we just can't make a difference. Like for example - if I am in a plane that might possibly crash, I would not cry and fret over it - not that I hate my life, but I know I can't do anything about it. But here lies the beauty of life - we may not be able to make a change in the world at times, but we can always see life in a differnt shade - from a different perspective. This freedom that life affords us makes things so much better. So instead of choosing to see those bumps as disturbances, see them as variety in life - basically something desirable or at least less odious. If we can we should make a difference or an effort to that effect, but if that is not possible I would rather than suffer and cry over 'fate' see it as a reason to be better in the future. To make sure that there is no repeat of what happened this time.

I hate using trites but this is very apt - they say a hero is a hero only because there is a villain. So basically a villain's existence is important in order to appreciate a hero. So transposing this to our point of discussion - bumps are but villains and the smooth sailing life ( and everything to be happy about) is the equivalent of a hero. So in order to appreciate the good in life bad is required. Well I would personally don't mind if the bad was just mythical but if I have no hand in deciding it, I would see it as something good, something helping me appreciate the past good times. Well if life doesn't give you reasons enough to be happy - who is better than yourself to go and find some (reasons to be happy)!

Simplicity, an excuse to non achievement?

Firstly I need to acknowledge - this is not coming from my insight, but that of someone else. That should suffice to absolve me of my sins of plagiarism. So simplicity.. seen by most people a quality, a model way of behavior that some of the most selfless and pure amongst us have. But perhaps it is not all that good - for there are fakes amongst them as everywhere else. These counterfiet people obviously reduce the value of the other genuine ones. There are very few people who are genuinely simple with no other reason for being so, than their strong belief that it is the most sensible and honest way of being in existence. There are a lot of incentives towards appearing simple, you get a lot of leeway to excusing yourself and non-achievement and of course admiration/respect of a lot of people. People following the idea of - 'I can do this but I don't want to' are hard to differentiate from a person who actually cannot do anything. The reason being that this can be explicitly tested only in the time of a need and till then everyone looks the same (on the outside at least). So the need to differentiate the fakely simplistic people and the really simple minded people is important. One are the weakest members of our society and the other perhaps the most mature and sensible ones.

Also, perhaps we, as men, being so egoistic creatures, tend to give ourselves too much air. We make ourselves believe that we can do a lot, just that we are being modest/simple in not doing everything. Sub-consciously we tend to take our weakness to the other side and count them as a show of restraint. It always feels good to cross off a missing part in you. So there is a need to be self evaluating on a regular basis, so as to not give ourselves false airs and know ourselves and our true capabilities. This should in no ways diminish our self confidence, you rather reiterate it and instill a sense of conviction in it.

Not only that, there are many who are capable enough to do a lot but would rather choose to rest on this knowledge, and do nothing. For them their ego is a dreamy bed for them and their talents. They are so lazy that they are happy achieving nothing and choose to find excuses for this instead, simplicity is just one of them. If ever it is possible to make these people realize this and make them stand on their feet again, they could do a lot of good work in this world - just the motivation needs to be found for doing that.

Lying

Lying, finally something we all can identify with. There is perhaps no single being who doesn't ever lie. I hate lying in general, but there are times when I myself lie. Some people do it more often, for them it is not a big deal and they can lie just for the heck of it. So there is a major difference in liars - the intent to refrain from lying. As I see it, if you are lying to a person not as a defense, but just for fun or well just because you can - you are showing the most disrepect to him/her that you can. You show that you don't really care a bit for the person and have a trust in his/her lack of intelligence - so that you can lie away without the other person knowing it.

But who do we lie to. A person who doesn't really want to lie, still has to lie to people he is dependent upon, the people of authority in his life - like your parents perhaps, your boss etc. This well though avoidable needs a lot of courage and willpower, for the consequences of being truthful can be, at times, drastic. Then there are occasions on which we lie just to be polite, we don't want to say "Your house looks aweful" or "No, I don't think you can really get this job". Those are what I believe somewhat harmless lies and well they can't be avoided at some times. Where do love and lying meet. Well when you love someone respect is paramount, and that means there is no room for casual lying. Of course you need to do those "Hey, you are looking amazing" compliments even when your partner has had the worst day and looking like aweful.

There are some special people in your life that you feel like not lying to - to put yourself open in front of them and show them what you really are. With those people there is no reason to lie even for defense. You know that they will understand whatever it is that made you do what you did - they accept you as a whole - like you do them. Having such special people in your life is a rare thing and not all have such people. As naive as I am, I believe your lover should be one of these people.

Vengeance with a Debt

We have all had a hand pull us up on occasions when we fall. The hand is something we grow to love. And of course we tend to ignore it's faults. But sometimes there comes a time when you realize that it isn't just working out. What to do then. Here is what I think:

Good deeds done in the past,
do not bound me forever,
my heart they do not deserve,
a heart felt thanks is all they get.

Heart Break

Each time a heart is broken, it survives for survival is the only option. But to survive a part of it dies and even after taking a long time to recover, it never recovers fully. It can love less each time, a part of it is still with the one who broke it and there is less to give to the next one if there ever is one. So what is the answer to this, should you instead not give your heart to someone and just stay oblivious to the world - just a face with no heart, a body without a soul? Not really, but perhaps being more cautious about choosing the people before you care for them enough to give them the power to hurt you.