The Change Of Guard

Recently, I had an interesting conversation with a few friends of mine. We were talking about those things that 20 year olds usually talk about when suddenly the talks turned sober. Someone from some corner had brought up the issue of paedophilia, and immediately, small political arguments began to pop up from around the table. While we were engrossed in it, Benjamin made a quirky comment when asked by Niaz if he was willing to start an awareness campaign in college about it. This is what he said: “I’m not worried man! Oprah Winfrey will take care of it. She is one of the most powerful women in the world, she’s not gonna sit quiet in her studio and let paedophilia take over!” Although all that he said was right, it was not enough. I began to wonder if this was the mentality we had all begun to assume, that of complacence in favour of letting the lobbyists take care of everything. Where is democracy today? People think that once they’ve voted, their job is done. It is not! Democracy has a meaning, a very fundamental underlying principle that makes it the most efficient way to rule a country. It gives power to the people, we the people, not only during the elections but also after it. How many of us know that in India there quite a few methods to impeach our own MLA when he is in power? I’m sure the US also has something along the same lines. How many of us actually realise that while all the ministers sit in their chambers of ‘power’ and discuss ‘national issues’, they can only discuss the questions we have asked? For if it is money they are after, no minister would bother to open his mouth once the elections are done with. Our government runs the country, but WE run the government itself! We forget that chain of command and drown in cheap self-pity, an emotion that ultimately cascades into surrendering to the ways of the corrupt. If you think the sewage dump stinks, it’s only because you’ve dumped your garbage there. If we think it’s too late to change anything, we’re wrong. It’s never too late but I agree that it’s easier said than done. Let’s make a change today. All we need is belief. All we need to change is the small things around us. We need to be able to believe that one day, things will be different.

I’m sure you would have heard all of this some thousand times, but have you ever wondered why people keep talking about it?  

Gay Marriages, Religion And The State: Individuality Over Identity?

First in line in the news should be the global economic recession, and then it could be Barrack Obama’s looming presidency, and then probably terrorism. But fourth in any case I’m sure will be ‘gay marriages’. After the dawn of the 21st century, there has been quite a flutter as to their legalisation by the state and acceptance within the society. Now, marriage is an institution that represents the willful agreement between two individuals to spend the rest of their lives together. As such, if you were to go by the definition, religion does not seem to play a role in it. But since the individuals live in a society safeguarded by the state, the state, in its turn, must recognise the existence of this bond and must do the needful so as to let them be represented that way. And therein comes religion. Today’s nations are forged through the integrity of their peoples, an integrity which stems from a belief in themselves. Since the option of a ‘God’ fosters that belief, a religion that encompasses the belief in that God becomes necessary to sustain the individual in his or her moral obligations, as it were. Therefore, when a nation is built from scratch, the individual passes on his or her beliefs and perceptions to the state to which he or she aspires to belong to. Creation is but a mirror of oneself.

But here is wherein I think the difference lies. In the establishment of a state, you may seek to pass on your values to the state as well, but the state is a collective that speaks for more than just one man, woman or child. It speaks for everyone around you, and everyone around you is not who you are. The individuality you represented in your oneness now stands dissolved in the face of a nation. This is the difference between individuality and identity. You now assume an identity, and identities only permit you individuality, they do not define it. The religion you embraced in order to give your morals some ground should not be passed on to the whole state in order to bind it rigidly. It then will no longer constitute representation. Those individuals who do not base their faith in godliness will fall outside the moral reaches of the state, and the establishment will then only represent a section of the population although all of them are citizens. The same thing applies to gays and gay marriages. Religion is the one factor that disallows them from joining in holy matrimony (medical issues can always be tackled with; religion is not as predictable as science is!). Just one more thing to finish my argument with. Think of marriage away from the state-recognition part of it all. An informed decision arrived at by two individuals based on some traits which they think are important. “… which no man or court may tear asunder”. What does that mean? Does it or does it not set apart the ‘institution’ from the state – which is not forming but recognising it – and the society – which is not allowing but partaking from it? The foundation for marriage is the trust between the two individuals. Therefore, what should matter is the individuality and not the identity. If the two are fine with it, so should be the state.