Patriotism
You can trust the politicians and the religious heads to reliably generate controversies when there is no need for one. The Ulema and Deobandh could have done a lot better than upholding the fatwa against singing Vande Mataram in the same event in which the Home Minister was participating. The BJP, the self proclaimed guardians of the nation were not far behind and have proposed singing of the song as a test of patriotism. The Ulema would be doing a helluva good job for the faithful, if they concentrate more on urgent matters like lack of education, which seems to be the primary reason for the disproportionately wide spread poverty amongst the Muslim community, which in turn makes them to send their sons to the degrading working conditions in the middle eastern theocratic countries and thereby leaving them out of the economic prosperity that the middle class of other religions are experiencing. Then there is the perception part, in which to be a Muslim in today’s world is to be branded a backward, artifact of the feudal past and a terrorist sympathizer.
All said and done, the Ulema are religious scholars and they are within their rights to pass any decree for the faithful much like the leaders of Singur or Kanchi matt. You can always trust the BJP to enforce conditions which are not part of the constitution like ban on Valentine’s day celebrations, branding girls with boyfriends as prostitutes, creating a new test of patriotism etc. This is the same party which doesn’t consider orchestrating genocides, proved spineless in the face of Kandahar crisis, caught napping while Pakistan was sending mercenaries across LoC and had coalition with a party whose minister was getting kick backs in the coffins used for bringing the dead soldiers of Kargil War!
There is more to patriotism than singing anthems and song or supporting cricket teams. If the objective of patriotism is to strengthen the country, then patriotism is paying taxes, law abiding, promoting social harmony, following the Constitution and correcting it when necessary. Silly stuff will never come into the picture.
The BJP would do well to provide a decent alternative to the Congress – which lot of people like me support by virtue of being the lesser evil and the Communists by providing meaningful solution for the naxal problem, help integrate minorities – not just religious but regional (north east), reform public educational institutions, reduce energy dependency etc.
The Ulema would be more respected if they move on with the times and embrace the fact that this is the land that gave the opportunity to their forefathers and has the potential to do so to their descendants if they adapt rather than resisting modernization.
Death & Decline
It is strange how you get philosophical thoughts in the strangest of the places. The other day I was playing ping pong in office and I hit a smash which the opponent didn’t even spot. All that he knew was, I hit a smash and the ball landed on his side of the table but had no clue as to where it landed and how fast it went past him. Now if you are wondering what it has to do with philosophy read further. Even as late as an year back, such shots were common when I played (in fact, I used to smash all the five serves of some lesser players 
), but now due to the decline in my game, they are getting very rare.
I am no fool to think that I can hit blindingly fast smashes that can burn a hole in the wall forever. But the decline was too fast and too bad. It felt like death – was inevitable but never knew when it would strike. Death and decline are facts of life which somehow we don’t get prepared for. Yes, we take insurance and slowly reduce our physical activities but most of the time for most of us, the truth is much worser than what we think it is. I somehow find it amusing when people go for hair weaving, botox and all the other vanity stuff. How much ever we try, some day we all will be middle aged people thinking that the youth of the day don’t listen to elders and have very bad habits. Our faculties will decline and memory will play tricks and the fashion that we cherished the most will be out dated. Yet some check their beauty in mirror every 5 mins and fight aging by undergoing painful surgeries (you too Liv?).
The inevitability of death is beautifully illustrated by a Buddhist story.
During his travels, Buddha met a woman who was poor and her only child was bitten by a venomous snake and died. She was in tears and begged Buddha to use his magical powers to bring the child back to life. Buddha tried to console her that death is inevitable and we should learn to accept it. But it didn’t work and finally he decided to teach a practical lesson. He told the lady that he can help her if only she could get the necessary ingredients. Buddha informed the lady that if she could fetch 1-1/2 bowls of rice from a family that has not known death, he will be able to bring the child back to life.
The lady roamed the land for many days, knocked the doors of every house she saw – rich, poor in all the places – towns, villages, cities and kingdoms – big and small but couldn’t find a house that has not known death. Finally the truth dawned on her and she returned to Buddha and told that she couldn’t find a house which hasn’t had a death.
Freewill
Free will is one of the most intriguing concepts in multiple fields like Religion, Philosophy, Psychology and Justice. Our society is based on that. In a free society, you are free to choose your interests, our law and order is based on the fact that all our acts are committed based on the choices we make and hence the individual is punishable for the crimes etc.
So what exactly is free will?
1.) We must have two or more possibilities ‘genuinely open’ to us when we face a choice
2.) choice must not be ‘forced’.
Free Will and Biology:
Our acts are controlled by the choices that we make. Our choices are results of the thought process. Our thought process is believed to be controlled by the brain. Our brain is controlled by the chemical processes that take place. Hence our actions are controlled by chemical processes over which we have no control! This is the reason why crimes committed under influence (like alcohol and drugs) are not considered to be committed under free will. If our acts are a result of chemical processes occurring in our brain over which we have no control, then where is free will?
Free will in Theology & Philosophy:
Most religions state that God has knowledge of what happened, what is happening and what will happen. This essentially means that the choice people made, are making and will make were all known to him. So is it right to hold people responsible for their actions? When God controls every movement in the Universe and knows about the choices made by people, isn’t he orchestrating decision we take? Where is free will if we are playing the roles that God wants us to play?
Some argue that despite the knowledge of the future, He doesn’t influence us to make the decision. To understand this concept better, I’ll refer to the beautiful comparison to a time travel paradox from wikipedia :
“One analogy here is that of time travel. The time traveller, having returned from the future, knows in advance what x will do, but while he knows what x will do, that knowledge does not cause x to do so: x had free will, even while the time traveller had foreknowledge; see [5]. However, one objection raised against this analogy – and ibn Daud’s distinction – is that if x truly has free will, he may choose to act otherwise when the event in question comes to pass, and therefore the time traveller (or God) merely has knowledge of a possible event: even having seen the event, there is no way to know with certainty what x will do; see the view of Gersonides below. Further, the presence of the time traveller, may have had some chaotic effect on x’s circumstances and choice, absent when the event comes to pass in the present.”
Now how can the traveler not know the decision x is going to make but still be able to travel to past from future? That is possible only in case where parallel paths exist to the same point in future and our decisions take us through a different path which do not affect the future decisions (and in turn paths or events) that we make!
Free will and Linguistics:
How is our language designed to express free will? An interesting logical problem from the following site: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm
“If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has to have at least two children.”
The antecedent of this sentence expresses a true proposition. (Paul is my brother and he does have two sons and a daughter.) Thus according to the valid inference rule (known as “Modus Ponens”) which allows us to infer the consequent of any true conditional statement whose antecedent is true, we should be able to infer:
“Paul has to have at least two children.”
Something is clearly amiss. While it is true that Paul does (in fact) have at least two children (he has three), it is false that he has to have three. He doesn’t have to have any. He doesn’t have to have one. He doesn’t have to have two. He doesn’t have to have three. He doesn’t have to have four. Etc., etc. Put another way: There is no necessity in Paul’s having any children, let alone having three. There is no necessity for Paul (just as there is no necessity for anyone else) to have at least two children. There is something, then, seriously in error in the following argument (or inference):
If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has to have at least two children. Paul has two sons and a daughter.
Paul has to have at least two children.
The source of the logical error lies (as suggested above) in placing the strong modal term in the consequent, where it appears to ‘modify’ that proposition (the ‘then-clause’). However, the logical role of the strong modal term is to modify the relationship between the antecedent (the ‘if-clause’) and the consequent (the ‘then-clause’); its role is not to modify the consequent alone. Although the following sentences are not especially idiomatic (stylish), they do at least reveal, far better than the preceding three sentences, the correct underlying logic of the claims being made.
- “It has to be that (if Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has at least two children).”
- “It has to be that (if you have pneumonia, then you have fluid in at least one of your lungs).”
- “It must be that (if you have a fever, then your internal body temperature is greater than normal).”
I am not suggesting that we reform our sentences and learn to speak in this latter, stilted, fashion. What I am suggesting is that when we utter sentences of the form “If so-and-so, then it must be that such-and-such“, we understand their underlying logic (in most cases) to be: “It must be that (if so-and-so, then it is such-and-such).”
Free Will and Karma:
One of the most common questions about free will is about our existence. Did we choose to be born to our parents? Why were we born to our parents in this period of time and this place? I don’t remember being asked in which school I wanted to be educated and instead got educated in those schools my folks that was the best fit.
Hinduism explains this beautifully with the concept of Karma. The present is the result of the decisions we made with our free will in the past life and the decisions we make with our free will in our present life determines our future incarnations.
Free Will and Justice
Since my actions are influenced by the education I received, the society that I live in and the laws of the land, how can I ever make a decision out of “free will” devoid of influence from my environment? Is it correct to punish me alone for the actions when they are influenced by the environment as well?
Conclusion
Free will is like many other topics on which the more we understand, greater the confusion as a result. However, it is very crucial in our understanding of our existence and more important things like concept of justice and punishment etc.
Universal Truths
Universal Truths are statements which are true in all cases. For example, a birth ensures that there is a death. i.e any person who is born has to die. This is true for people of all religions, race, colour, caste, creed and nationality. So is the fact that fire produces heat and ice is cold. These facts are obvious and no one disputes their nature though their usefulness differs.
We are able to recognize truths intuitively if they are true under all circumstances. However, if there is something that is not true for all cases, disputes on its nature as truth arises. Is tax good for everyone? The opinion differs. Because it depends on the person.
So is religion/customs/culture etc. Every religion/sect claims that it is superior to others and those who don’t agree are sinners. However, despite such stern warnings, people disagree! If any particular discriminatory classification was true under all circumstances, we’d be able to realize it intuitively! By virtue of the fact that not everyone (for the sake of this argument, we’ll exclude folks considered insane) agrees to a statement, we can deduce that it is not true.
Religion masks this very cleverly by suggesting that truth is not obvious and is hidden behind a veil of falsities. In my opinion Universal truths would be obvious and since there is always disagreement regarding the superiority of a particular religion/culture/nation/sect over the rest there is no such thing as a superior religion/culture/nation/sect in every possible way!
