The 'Nuclear' God

                                                   

                  The end of World War 2, with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stunned the human conscience. The ability of mass destruction gained by the superpowers gave whole new dimension to the idea of violence. 

                 I am reading THE COLD WAR by John Lewis Gaddis and I cannot stop myself from identifying with the terror generated by atomic bombs. But my terror is at the sight of violence by ISIS, the beef ban in different states of India, the idea of Love Jihad and the Dadri incidence near our capital, Delhi. I am terrified by the intolerant and irresponsible statements and behaviour of people who are in responsible positions. I am terrified when a few good people have to return their awards for the intolerance of majority. I am terrified by the murders of rationalists and thus the consequent end of rationalism in India.

                 The theory of basic human inclination for violence paired with this newly acquired nuclear weapon’s ability of destruction gave nightmares to the whole generations. But the wisdom of Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz prevailed. He warned that states resorting to unlimited violence could be consumed by it.

                 The shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki compelled human beings to go against their basic inclination for violence. It is a paradox that the result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was the future avoidance of wars. Still the weapons were upgraded from nuclear to hydrogen bombs with increased capability for destruction. These weapons destroyed targets without any discrimination. In hindsight, even the most destructive weapons known to humans had this positive quality of treating everyone equally and thereby terrifying everyone equally.

                  Whereas Religion as interpreted and spread by the fundamentalists is aiming at specific pin pointed destruction of targets i.e. Infidels, a feature not available even in nuclear bombs. Violence generated in the name of religion has ability to discriminate. Moreover, access to this weapon called religion is unlike the limited access to nuclear bombs.

                  Even during cold war, in between the maddening contest for possessing nuclear arsenal, the wisdom of world leaders to use these weapons only as a deterrent prevailed. President Harry S. Truman, the only individual in the history of mankind who ever ordered the use of nuclear weapons said,” machines are ahead of morals by some centuries.” This thought of Truman compels me to think about religion and what it is doing to our morals. As long as we are deriving our morality from religion, there is no hope for humanity.

                 Today the religions are bigger threat to humanity than the nuclear weapons. What ISIS is doing to the world is worse than what nuclear bombs did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

                 Back home, the minds whose most important source of information is social media are incapable of maintaining any restraint. On the contrary rationality and wisdom are enemies of this new weapon called religion. The recent Dadri incidence in India and the beef eating controversy bears testimony to it. The increasing intolerance and the contest between religions for such intolerance is a real threat to our existence and our future.

                  As the writer points out, nuclear weapons withstood the Clausewitzian standard that military operations must not destroy what they are meant to defend. Can any religion withstand this standard today? The new low ISIS has reached with its barbarity can do the same to religions that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did to nuclear bombs. The terrifying possibilities were exposed and that prohibited its use in future. 

                 I am not talking about being atheist or agnostic. We can just keep our religions to ourselves. It can remain a very intimate, private affair and guide us personally than mindlessly making us a part of herd and providing us with some illogical logic to kill our fellow human being. 

                 The universality of potential destruction by nuclear weapons gave hope for a peaceful future. Today, the fundamentalists are using their weapon discriminately. So is there any hope for restraint and peace? My personal belief is, If we continue thinking on religious lines, NO!

                 At first our God was in every live and dead on the earth. Our God resided even in our enemies. Then came the idea of My God vs. Your God. Subsequently My God became superior to Your God. Violence became inevitable at this point. Everyone opposing My God became my enemy. Then everyone not following My God the way I demand was supposed to die. In this process we have reduced our God from Universal to Nuclear. Alas! This Nuclear God is incompetent to make me a better human being.

                 As long as we don't accept the potential of this weapon called religion to dehumanise the humans, there is little hope for humanity. Let our morality rely on humanity, not religion. The end of world civilisations by nuclear bombs could be avoided because the wisdom of a few good men prevailed. 

                 We are at the crossroads again. Our morals have failed to catch up with technology. We can't afford to be defeated. Humanity needs to rise against all religions with all its might.

THE PUNCHING BAG

                            

                                                               THE PUNCHING BAG

                             Today in India, Police is the favorite punching bag for everyone for everything that goes wrong in society. Recently after clashes between people and police in Gujarat, one message was making rounds on social media. It is a dialogue from one of the Bollywood movies. It says every society gets the police, it deserves. This reminded me of an incidence.

                             Recently i had gone to Europe with my husband. We spent a fortnight in London. we had read so much about the tube and we really loved traveling by it. We started following the trends on Twitter and also were reading newspapers.  There was underground strike on 8^th and 9^th July, 2015. There was lot of talk and discussion going on about its impact, its righteousness and preparations to handle the consequences. At one point we thought they were overreacting to a mere 24 hour strike. More was to come my way.

                              We decided to be on road to experience it firsthand. As we started following the tweets, we came across links for maps of alternate bus routes for the day. The local administration had not only started additional buses but was prompt in informing about it in every possible way. Even the strikers were apologizing for the inconvenience caused. Signage were put at bus stops asking people to bear with bus drivers and cooperate as they were working extra hours and bus drivers were welcoming passengers with a smile. It was all perfectly orchestrated.

                              We decided to go for lunch on Thames and boarded a bus for Oxford circle. It was overcrowded as expected. We both were busy reading the tweets and marveling at the positive involvement of citizens and the healthy tone of discussions. Suddenly the bus came to a standstill at a stop. When it did not move for a long time, we went down to see what happened.

                              There were other passengers surrounding a person and requesting him to get down. What I learn t was the person was drunk and driver was going by the rule book. He told the passengers to board another bus (which was to arrive in 10 min.) He would not drive with the drunkard on board. Passengers were trapped because every bus was already overcrowded. Even in that situation, they knew, they could not argue with the driver because he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. They were also not threatening the drunkard but only requesting him to get down. One of the ladies who was getting late for work also proposed to pay him the bus fare he had paid. I was stunned by the order and civility of people. The final shock was when the drunkard gave his reason for not getting down in spite of so many requests. He simply said, “now that the driver has already called the cops, I have to wait.” Within few minutes two smartly dressed and well built cops arrived. They requested with a smile to the drunkard ‘gentleman’ to get down. The gentleman got down without uttering a word and our bus started. We both saw the cops talking very softly to the man. They were smiling.

                              I couldn’t stop imagining and reconstructing  in my mind the whole situation back in India and the consequent responses. 

                               First and foremost, the driver wouldn’t care for the rules. He would not get involved with a ‘bad guy’ by asking him to get down. If by any chance he asks, he would definitely not be polite. Most probably, he would physically assault him and throw him out.

                                The passengers who are getting late because of this one drunkard will beat him black and blue and push him out of bus. They would certainly not respect the person who is vulnerable.

The drunkard himself will run away if he comes to know that cops have been called.

                                The cops would come. If they are honest and rule abiding, they will register an offence against the drunkard, against the driver and passengers for rioting and assault. They will be hated by one and all for doing this. Before even reaching the police station, they will start getting phone calls for not registering the FIR, if that is inevitable then for at least not booking the influential passengers. If that is already done, then calls will follow to release them immediately. If that doesn’t work out, then requests will follow for providing facilities in lock up. The cops will be thought of as personal enemies for doing this lawful duty. The vengeance will be sought. When right opportunity shows up in future (as provided by recent agitation), they will be beaten taking advantage of the safety provided by the anonymity of the crowd. 

                                In the second scenario, if the cops are dishonest and with least concern for law, they will try for burking the cognizable offence that has come to their knowledge. In their enthusiasm to give instant justice and to suppress their own guilt, they would beat the drunkard. Our fellow passengers would appreciate them for doing so. (The dishonest cops will also make some money from the drunkard) This appreciation will compel the policemen to repeat the same behavior. In the process nobody will be bothered to talk about the assault by passengers and driver, the injury caused to the body of the drunkard and to his self respect.

                              This short term, quick justice won’t do any good to the image of cops or to the passengers with utter disregard for the law of the land. The main evil, as thought of by this society, the drunkard will never be rehabilitated as he will also lose his faith in any system. 

                              Whatever the cops do, in both the above scenarios, they will be hated. The problem is not just with the cops but equally with our society’s mentality to bypass the law. We don’t want to take responsibility for our behavior. We find safety in anonymity of the crowd. The demons within us surface when we are part of a crowd. We believe in preaching a path, we don’t have ability to walk on. We don’t introspect. We don’t think. We don’t analyze. We only expect others to play their part while we have utter disregard for our part. We expect the behavior of the London Police to deal with the barbarity of the brutal crowd without mind. Is it not too much to expect?

Yes, society gets the cops it deserves.