Does having an orthodox outlook towards culture hamper India?

The term 'orthodox' in itself is very ambiguous. It can mean different things to different people. For some, who believe in scriptural orthodoxy, it is sticking to what is written in the scriptures. For others, it is just following the established and tested path. However, an orthodox approach is mostly linked to religion and India, being the haven of almost all the religions of the planet, will always have orthodox people forming the majority. But, is this approach righteous because after all, the scriptures are written by mortals only? Those people were also influenced by the constrained imagination of their times and society. So can we really afford to follow that approach in modern times?

India is a young country. Our median age will be 29 by the year 2020. This will account for nearly half of our total population. We can't afford to follow the orthodoxy that our earlier generations used to follow. But at the same time, we need to be careful in this transformation. We conveniently adopt things from West, imitating only what we want, without any steady education to keep pace with this change. Consider for example, we want freedom in the way we dress, but we don't have enough gender sensitization which will allow a girl wearing mini skirt to roam freely. We are ready to eat the fruit but not ready to pay the price of it.

Bringing forth the issue of Article 377, can we say that only orthodox approach is responsible for this? If yes, then how can we explain the fact that even a liberal country like US considered homosexuality a criminal offence until a court overturned a ruling in 2003? We can't blame our reluctance to change to an ambiguous term like 'orthodox approach'. Article 377 criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" but who has decided that order of nature? Is it our culture which gives us ample examples in form of "Ardhanarishvara" (Lord Shiva whose half is woman) or "Shikhandi" who was born as girl while raised and lived as a man? Even KamaSutra describes sex between all kinds of sentient beings. With so many examples from past, how can we blame this reluctance to change on "orthodox approach".

We have examples of Rishi Vishravas marrying Kaikasi, a Rakshasa and Bhima marrying Hidembe. Are they not enough to justify inter-caste marriages?

I believe that we are using "orthodox outlook" just as a fancy term to cover all our sins that we commit in the name of religions and customs. If we need to grow then we need to stop behaving cowardly and welcome the change. But at the same time, we need to learn from our past because it also is equally important. As pointed out earlier in this article, we need to learn new things from West but also keep our ethics and values intact. After all the nation will grow only if people from every group will grow.

Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.

What is Fiction? Going by the dictionary meaning, it is something that is invented or untrue, or something that describes imaginary events and people. Imagination is whatever someone thinks in one's mind or something that one dreams of. On the other hand, Truth is nothing but the reality or factual representation of a thing or an event. On a superficial level, we may put these two terms as antonyms for each other. However, the bigger question is, how do we differentiate between what is truth and what is fiction?

According to our infinite number of holy books and scriptures, we believe that everything is unreal except for our soul and God. If we go by this rule, then all our life is nothing but fiction. We are just imaginary characters created in the dream of a supreme being. So what I understand from this is that for Him, we are fiction, while for us, our life is a truth.

Let us look at this from a different perspective. We can only dream of things that we have experienced either directly or vicariously. So basically, our dream will have only those characters which we think may be possible. A play school kid will not dream of landing up a job at a big tech firm. Only things he will dream of will be ice-cream, a fluffy toy etc. In his world, only those things are possible. However, what he will face the next day is truth. He may not have even thought about it. He will have to face it whether it is what he expected or not. So truth has nothing to do with what possibilities mean for a person.

Fiction is based on use of learning from past to draw a certain future. For instance, Jules Verne's novel “From The Earth To The Moon” was proven possible in 1969, when Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. However it is different matter altogether that whether Moon was similar to what was described in the novel. What Armstrong faced on that time was truth and not fiction.

Fiction may seem to be unrestrained, but is actually not. But truth is unpredictable and when it has already happened, it is blatantly factual.

India, China and an Inevitable Cold war.

Some three decades ago when the Cold War era ended, no one would have imagined such a topic would ever be discussed but, such has been the economic growth of two Asian giants - India and China, that world has taken notice of both probable superpowers. Interestingly, both the countries have so much of a history that a mutual harmonious co-existence can hardly be imagined and a sort of cold war is always on the cards. Both have been involved in a plethora of disputes ranging from territorial issues to energy issues and military aggression issues.

China is the world's second largest and Asia's largest Economy. On the other hand, India is also gaining its position in the same list. Both the nations are among top five consumers of energy as well. China is believed to have replaced United States as the largest consumer of energy by a report published by BP. India is also expected to be the second largest energy consumer by 2025.

In order to satiate this humungous hunger, both the countries have been looking for new energy sources and more than often have found themselves in conflict with each other. Kazakhstan oil blocks have been fresh example of this where India was denied to buy a share in US energy major, Conoco Phillip, and instead was given to China national Power Company through Government of Kazakhstan. Similarly, we have been involved in this competitive bidding in African nations also. The African continent holds many minerals along with oil and gas. China has already outplayed India in the race of trade here by over three times. However, India is trying to catch up in the continent by gaining the goodwill of local people and African governments.

Energy consumption is not the only reason which may lead to a cold war, but the growing distrust between both countries is also playing its part. Just some time ago, India was wary of the new Air defence zone set up by China in its South China sea. Similarly, India has opposed China's interference in POK, where it is building infrastructure along with Pakistan. On the other hand, China is not happy with India's oil exploration in Vietnam oil blocks, which it believes, falls under its territory.

No Doubt, that both the countries are trying to actively indulge in dialogue to improve trade and bilateral ties in other sectors, but the element of doubt is still there because of the scarred history. Engaging in an active war may seem to be impossible in this century but inner envy of both will definitely bring forth a cold war era.

Might is Right?

The modern day international society is not a just, rule based society but a society where might has the right. The stronger nations have always flouted international laws or more often, maneuvered those to their own benefits. The use of veto powers in United Nations Security Council can be seen as an example of this. Whenever there's something against the interest of a bigger nation, they bail themselves out by using the veto power vested in them.

The two big powers of 21st century have set so many wrong precedents in this case by not signing international treaties. For instance, US hasn't signed important conventions like UN Convention on Law of Sea, UN Convention on Law of Non Navigational use of International Watercourses and International Criminal Court Statute. China has avoided such treaties as well. These states show unilateral stand on internal rule of law. This unilateral stand can be described as using international laws against weaker states and not complying with these themselves.

Unilateralism has been the underlying theme in US Foreign Policy regardless of the changing governments. Barack Obama even bypassed Congress when US militarily intervened in Libya leading to regime change and chaos. The chaos has converted the country into a breeding ground for terrorist groups. This is just one of many other invasions carried out and justified by US in recent past.

On similar grounds China has also started muscle flexing in Asian region by recently announcing its Air Defence Identification Zone in South China Sea. This ADIZ covers even those parts of the sea which aren't under China's control. This also conflicts with ADIZ of Japan and South Korea. China has also claimed its control over some islands which were under control of Philippines. Philippines has lodged a complaint against Beijing at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Beijing however has refused to attend the proceedings and will surely veto any jurisdiction that comes against it in UN Security Council as has been the case with US many times over.

Now considering the case of Indian Diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, who has been charged with cases of Visa fraud and underpaying domestic help. She was arrested, Strip-searched and cavity searched, despite the fact that she enjoys limited diplomatic immunity. No doubt that the diplomatic immunity only covers diplomatic and not personal acts, but still the actions were nowhere close to being justifiable. Can a minor issue as this be labeled as grave offence which warrants such level of punishment to a diplomat. How would US react if one of its diplomat is meted out such punishment? The reply can be guessed from the actions taken by them when one Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor, shot two men in Lahore. Obama defended Davis by calling him a Diplomat from US.

No matter how much we try to convince ourselves that the present international law provides a level playing field for all, the fact remains that might is always right.