Inferences drawn from 'Har-Har Modi' issue

As the election campaign for Narendra Modi moved forward with cries of 'Har Har Modi, Ghar Ghar Modi', a controversy too followed. Many devout Hindus and 'Secular' Congress leaders took objection on the use of this slogan, but it was Shankaracharya Shri Swaroopanand Saraswati of Jyotirpeeth who strongly condemned the use of 'Har Har Modi' slogan. Modi promptly requested his supporters to do the same. While the slogan has been MODIfied as 'Har dil Modi, Ghar ghar Modi', there are few interesting things to note about this whole incidence.

It was a pleasant surprise to see Congress for once talking about Hindu sentiments. Yes, we are talking about the same Congress that in its arrogance had even put a question mark on existence of Raam! Recently a Congress Leader, P. Shankar Rao, was in news for constructing a temple dedicated to Sonia Gandhi. Even in past, Sonia Gandhi has been portrayed as Goddess Durga in posters. 



The sycophants do not only exist in Congress, but in every party. A good example is the case of BJP's Hemant Bohra from Jodhpur, Rajasthan, who printed a poster depicting Vasundhra Raje as Goddess Annapoorna. 

Why limit ourselves to Politics?

Sport Personalities like 

Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni too were found in similar controversy. 

While Hindu Saints have been demanding a ban on Cow slaughter, India becomes leader in Beef exports. No heed was payed to their cries when they marched to Delhi to save river Yamuna. Swami Nigamanand died after fasting for 73 days to save holy river Ganga, but no one seemed to care. I have immense respect for Shankaracharya Shri Swaroopanand Saraswati as religious scholar, and eagerly want to know his views on all the above mentioned incidences. I would love to know why he only chose to speak on 'Har Har Modi', and not on any other issue? But I doubt, these questions will ever be answered. 

In any case, whats interesting is that Modi supporters stopped using the slogan after Modi's request, and not because of Shankaracharya's criticism. Usually labelled 'Communal', Hindu masses rejected a Religious Head's views for a leader who talks about development. I try to compare this with Shahi Imam's recent visit to Sonia Gandhi and his endorsement of Mamata Banerjee. Azam Khan addresses a conference of Madrassa managers and Principals to secure his party's Muslim vote bank. This only hints that these religious heads hold a good influence over a huge Muslim population. what inference do I draw from this?  

I'm sure any sane mind will agree with me when I say Religion should not be allowed to control politics of a Nation. While the Majority seems to have learnt this lesson, the Minority yet seems to be in need of time to accept this fact. 

In light of these facts, let us now argue the definition of 'Communalism'. 

Elections 2014 : a lesson from Mahabharat for indecisive minds

As we draw closer to the Lok Sabha Elections 2014, a lot of people still seem to be confused as to who deserves their vote. A new party raises its voice against corruption and enters into politics claiming itself to be honest, but soon loses its credibility. The ruling party tries to appear Honest, secular and pro-development but its track record speaks otherwise. The opposition's PM candidate though has a track record that speaks for itself, the party also has few members that face corruption charges. Other parties that aspire to rule the Nation as 3rd front, have their own closets full of skeletons. In short, no party is spotless. 

Those who plan to vote based on religion and caste, or for some other personal gains, have little confusion. Ignorance is bliss, right? And equally true is the corollary - 'He who increases knowledge, increases sorrows.'  The ones that know the true value of their vote and are aware of every party's blots are left disillusioned. The desire to find an 'ideal' party, with spotless track record and that can solve people's problems immediately, turns this disillusionment into utter confusion. Such 'aware' individuals are thus not able to pick a side. And even when they do, they don't let their choice spare anyone from their criticism. Blindly following any party is dangerous and Criticism is good...BUT timing is crucial. Most of such individuals fail to realise this.

This predicament reminds me of a story from Mahabharat -

The most powerful of all the warriors present at the beginning of the great war was Barbareek (बरबरीक). Barbareek, Grandson of Bheem and Son of Ghatotkach, after completing his education, had Promised his Guru that he would only fight for the weaker side in a battle, and so, in the beginning, he joined the Pandavas. Pandavas rejoiced while Kauravas were alarmed. But it was only Shree Krishna who was able to see what this really could lead to, and hence Barbareek was prevented from joining any side. Why was the most powerful warrior present at that time, who could have finished the war in matter of minutes, not allowed to join the war? because his promise to his Guru would not let him remain on one side. He would join the weaker side and kill warriors of the other side till the stronger side is now reduced to the weaker one. And so, he would again switch sides, till all are killed and only he remains. 

Powerful enough to change the course of the war, but too confused to pick a side and stick with it - Barbareek represents today's aware, disillusioned and confused individuals. Such enlightened minds are excellent when it comes to constructive criticism. But is this the right time for such discussions? 

Pick a side and join the battle.