-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
- Voltaire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of what we believe, is correct? Is what laid down in our sacred texts and books of history authentic? Isn't there a possibility that the knowledge imparted by our elders (parents, teachers ...) is untrue? Over the past few months, there are a few things that I've come across, which made me restless to some extent.
- § Several rumours, which actually were not true, have served as a fuel during the Gujarat riots, finally leaving behind human loss, monetary loss, psychological torment and distress, and a terrified image (Source: The Indians by Sudhir Kakar and Katharina Kakar). Let us, for a second, overlook on this case, since these are the acts of (during) disturbance (Just to be clear, "being in shock" does not justify the horrible acts of violence). But, what about the following cases?
- § Let me put aside, the cynical mind of mine and consider that Bhagavad-Gita was indeed sung by the Lord Krishna during the mighty war; about 30 to 40 percent of the latest Song of the Lord is a later addition, according to the linguists and other expert analysts, whose criteria of evaluation is the choice of words, phrases, analysis of the script and the language, etc ... (Forgot the source to this piece of information).
- § Even a below-averaged, drunk, 5th standard boy (or girl, whatever) would be able to point out the anomalies, contradictions, and horrendous rules that had to be followed during the Vedic and post-Vedic era, as per the Manavadharmashastra, popular as the Manusmriti. More that 50 percent (54.786 to be precise) of the verses, i.e., 1471 of 2685 verses are later additions and modifications (Source: Wikipedia, The Laws of Manu), some of them being appended almost as late as the 11th or 12th C.E.
- § The 1998-99 victorious BJP government comes up with the ingenious initiative of "Inventing the Past" (Source: The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen). This NCERT-BJP joint venture was responsible for modification (in some cases, hiding vital information, which is even more horrible) of some of the key facts in history, just because they were in conflict the Hindu belief-system. The government however apologized for its 'mistakes' and promised to correct them immediately (of course, after the intervention of some of the historians).
- § And finally, coming to the point which started all of this in my mind – Everyone is aware of the three monkeys of the Mahatma and what they signify (I’ve been told by my parents and teachers that they meant – chedu choododdu, chedu vinoddu, chedu maatlaadoddu). Well, it was not until my B. Tech 3rd year that I knew where the origin of the “four” monkeys was from and what they actually meant. Let me first describe the four monkeys to get a clear picture. The first monkey covers its eyes, the second covering its ears, the third its mouth and the last one covering its genitals. This symbol was created by a Zen monk (sometime around the 5th or 6th C.E, I think) to explain his students of the postulate – “One MUST have in his control of his sight, of what he listens, of what he speaks and finally, of his sexual energy". It has been, very conveniently vandalized, and put in front of us, the Indians, by none other that what we worship as the Mahatma. The difference in what they originally mean and what they do now is that of the earth and the sky (what we Hyderabadis call, Zameen-Aasmaan kaa pharak). Another interesting point to be noticed here is the disappearance of the fourth monkey. I don’t know why Gandhi decided to leave the fourth one; but, according to some interpreters, Gandhi might’ve dropped it purposely to avoid mass hysteria and fearing that people might not accept the symbols with their heart (This is an irony considering that this is the same man who prophesized that sex should be condoned and condemned, except of course, for procreation).
Having said all this, the questions that arise in my mind are:
- What about the other 50% of Manusmriti or 60-70% of Bhagavad-Gita? How correct and reliable is it?
- Is there a way to evaluate or assess the accuracy and correctness of the information we get from our 'reliable' sources? If so, how accurate is that estimate?
- What can be constituted as a reliable source?
- Can we just put the burden entirely on the elements like Faith, Trust, Belief, Hope ... and be done with it?
- Shouldn’t the people be able to decide what to choose and what not to choose, what to prefer and what not to prefer, and finally what to ignore and what to consider. Isn't why it is called the Democracy?
