#5

This post is gonna be serious, in answer to Kaushik's question about my stand regarding 'secularism' in our country.

Nowadays, there's a lot of talk going around about certain parties exhibiting "pseudo-secularism". This talk mainly stems from the religious fundamentalist right wing parties. I think, that its better to be "pseudo-secular"(PS) than to be downright fundamentalist. This is because, if you're PS, you have certain responsibilities to ensure that your false image does not get busted. Whereas if you're a right wing fundamentalist ****er, any responsibility that you could have, vanishes into empty space. So, right wing fundamentalist's, in my opinion, have no right to call anyone else pseudo secular or anything else for that matter, because they don't have the guts to assume any responsibility themselves.

And as for the existence of secularism in our country, I think secularism has always existed in our society, its only natural considering the existence of so many different races in it. At least, a majority of our society is secular. There are still those people, stewing at home everyday, spewing out trash about how people from other religions are retarted,or hateful, or criminals, or untrustworthy, or (insert heinous character disorder here) . If it weren't for these people, where would our right-wing be? And now let me come to the very basis of right wing philosophy, as I understand it.

You hit me, I hit you back.

Fine enough, if you look at it from a simple, shallow point of view. But,when you're dealing with the lives of thousands of people, a little reconsideration might be in order.Questions have to be asked,for instance, why did you hit me? Was it something I did? Here comes the part where you asess the reason the other person hit you in the first place, and eventually this boils down to accepting the fact that you are wrong some of the time, which is so hard for our right wing brethren to do.
Now let us delve a little deeper,look into the future,another thing our right wing cousins abhorr.

You hit me, I hit you back.
Ok, now if you're the person who has been 'hit back' so to speak, whats to stop you from repeating the whole cycle and going:

You hit me back, I hit you back for hitting me back.
?? Where will this end?
Another point I'd like to make.

You hit me.I hit you back.

Ok.Hit me back. But. Don't hit everyone who lives in my neighbourhood back because they live in my neighbourhood.In other contexts, neighbourhood may be substituted with religion,caste,creed or any other supposed 'point of distinction'.

Now I'd like to bring you all back to a very basic point, which has been raised countless number of times, but never seems to invoke a response.
Heres futile attempt at invoking a response no.1326453 :
WHY must people be separated based on anything?Actually, I should use the word 'discriminated' instead, because 'separated' can also have positive connotations. I think I know the answer to that question. If there were no discriminations, where would our right wing chums find an outlet to their hatred? It would all just get dissolved in the vast mass of humanity that is our society. Now what a waste that would be!! So, in order to make optimum use of pent up hatred, there have to make discriminations in society. Its that simple.

You hit me. I hit you back.

I don't know about you, but something strikes me as odd about that statement. That's what pops into my head when I first think about being hit. But, among the small bits of experience that I have collected over the years, theres one bit that says "the first thought that pops into your head is mostly wrong". I'd like to point out an example,to append this axiom of mine:

Everybody who has their dear ones killed or injured will most definitely feel like killing the person responsible once news of the incident is reached. Think about that, if everybody went around doing that, there'd be blood all over the streets with people burning and stabbing each other all the time(oh wait, thats what happened in the Gujarat riots). Thats why we have law, to prevent that. Yet, our right wing pals preach exactly that: tit for tat, an eye for an eye,so on and so forth.

There are many more examples to prove this, which I'm sure you can think of yourself. This only applies to those reactions which involve hurt to the initiating party,physical or mental. And now to the point, right wing fundamentalists live off the exhibition of base emotions, the ones still remaining from our days as single celled organisms. So, I think, that the time has come for us to stop listening to these base emotions and deplete the lag between our physical and mental evolution.