facebook discussion: Murti puja: sahi ya galat

मूर्ति पूजा में अच्छा या बुरा लगने वाली बात नहीं है. ये इस तरह है जैसे बचपन में हम चार लाइनों वाली कापी में लिखते थे और बड़े होकर बिना लाइनों वाली में. बचपन में हम हाथ पकड़ कर चलते थे आज बिना सहारे के.... हमारे विकास में लाइनों वाली कापी और हाथ पकड़ कर चलने की एक स्टेज के बाद जरूरत नहीं लगती मगर कभी ये बहुत जरूरी थे..... इनके महत्त्व को नकारा नहीं जा सकता...
इसी तरह मैं समझता हूँ कि हमारे अध्यात्मिक विकास में मूर्ती पूजा का भी एक महत्त्व है जिसे नज़रअंदाज़ नहीं किया जा सकता...
29 December 2011

Not only Hinduism, all major religions of the world have their symbols. The forms differ. The symbols are nothing but small tags which remind one of something. One sees photo
of a Crescent and star, a cross, a book, an idol etc etc and one is reminded of something based on one's beliefs and teachings.
Hinduism has a progressive approach to spiritualism. One progresses from one stage to another, from lower to higher. This idol worship is very important part of our religion but it is not the soul of Hinduism as many would have us believe. It is, like in those examples in my previous comment, aid at the very initial stage of one's spiritual life. One soon out grows it and needs these idols and symbols no more.
One saint once said, "on my first visit I saw temple and the idol, on second visit I saw idol and the lord and on my third visit I saw lord only." The temple was gone.... The idol was gone...
That's the system how it works. Those who say Hinduism is based on idol worship have seen the first visit only and made up their mind. They have not seen the second and third visits. They have not seen the evolution of spiritualism. It is like one visits the primary section of a school and then proclaims that the students of that school write with pencils on a four lined sheet of paper. He has not seen secondary class students using all types of pens and blank non-ruled sheets of paper. Though those senior students don't need pencils and ruled sheets, still they cant deny importance of these sheets in their evolution from primary class to middle and to higher classes. That's the role of idols in Hinduism.
29 December 2011

facebook discussion: Is it necessary to have education through English Medium school?

अंग्रेजी भाषा इतनी महत्वपूर्ण क्यों है? क्यों जरूरी लगता है अंग्रेजी भाषा का ज्ञान?
व्यापार के लिए? नहीं. व्यापार खुद ग्राहक की भाषा अपना लेता है.
तकनिकी व उच्च शिक्षा के लिए? नहीं. उच्च शिक्षा अगर अंग्रेजी के अलावा जापानी, चीनी, जर्मनी, फिन्निश, फ्रेंच, रूसी, इतालवी वगैरह वगैरह भाषाओँ में दी जा सकती है तो हिंदी, तमिल, बंगला, मलयालम आदि भाषाओं में भी दी जा सकती है.
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बातचीत और मेलमिलाप के लिए? असलियत में यहाँ भी नहीं. अमरीका और इंग्लैंड के आलावा अन्य यूरोपीय व अमरीकन देश के लोगों को अंग्रेजी भी फारसी ही लगती है. फिर भी अगर मान लें कि यह अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर जरूरी है तो कितनो के लिए.... क्या उस वजह से हर भारतीय को इसकी पढ़ाई जरूरी है?
ये व ऐसे ही अन्य कारण असली वजह नहीं हैं. असली वजह है कि अंग्रेजी आज भी भारतवर्ष की de-facto अकेली राजभाषा है. अंग्रेजी प्रशासन की मुख्य भाषा है. अंग्रेजी कानून की आधिकारिक भाषा है. आज भी राजपत्र (Gazette Notification) हिंदी और अंग्रेजी दोनों में छपते हैं पर वहां लिखा होता है की अनुवाद या interpretation में फर्क आने पर अंग्रेजी version को सही माना जाये.
दुर्भाग्य से सन १९४७ के बाद शासन व्यवस्था नहीं बदली. वही अंग्रेजों के जमाने के जेलर राज कर रहे हैं.
अंग्रेजी भाषा का महत्व आम लोगों की पसंद नहीं मजबूरी है.
यह व्यवस्था बदलनी चाहिए. हमारी मातृभाषा को सही सम्मान और गौरव मिलना चाहिए.
लेकिन जब तक यह व्यवस्था नहीं बदलती तो हमें इसे 'मास्टर' करना है. इंतज़ार में बैठ कर नहीं होगा... इस व्यवस्था से निबटने के लिए व प्रशासन व क़ानून में अपनी आवाज़ सुनाने के लिए आने वाली पीढ़ी को अंग्रेजी भाषा को भी अपनाना है तभी वे आज के समाज में अपनी जगह बना पायेंगे और अपनी मातृभाषा के अधिकारों के लिए पूरे जोर से लड़ पायेंगे. देश के जन-मानस का उद्धार मातृभाषा से ही होगा.
30 November 2011

आज का ही उदाहरण लें आप Microsoft के विज्ञापन हिंदी व अन्य भारतीय भाषाओं में छपे देख सकते हैं, McDonalds ने "McAloo Tikki" nikali hai, coca-cola aur pepsi ke ads bhi hindi va bhartiya bhashon mein aa rahe hain. Hindustan mein vyapar ke liye inhone hindi ko apnaya hai. japanese ya chinese products khareedne ke liye hame unki bhaasha nahin seekhni vo hamari bhaasha mein hamen samjhaenge.
East India Company ne bhi yahi kiya tha. Here is an extract from an article on East India Company:
"The establishment of the East India Company in 1600 led to increasing contacts between England and maritime Asia. From the start, the Company was aware of the multilingual nature of its enterprise and its hiring policy favoured those with linguistic skill and experience. The Company even planned and provided language training: young European boys were sent to "learn the language" at its trading posts throughout the East Indies, and Asian and African employees and slaves were trained in European languages at the trading posts. Thus the Company also had a vested interest in the publication of bilingual language manuals in England"
East India Company even started English scholarships on Asian languages during the seventeenth century.
English ka mahatva, unfortunately, anya kai vajah se hai vyapar kii vajah se nahin.
6 December 2011

facebook discussion: Creation of smaller states

The fears that creation of more states would lead to disintegration of the country seems to be unfounded. These states can not be compared with those princely states we had at the time of independence. At that time the question was of dominion.... with all those princely states having the right to accede to either the dominion of India or the dominion of Pakistan.
It is a different situation now. We are a Union, a Federal Republic having power distribution between Central and the State Governments.
Sardar Patel himself created this system and all those princely states were organised into various States accepting the sovereignty of India. So no one, including the Constitution of India and Indian citizen, is basically against 'States' within the Union.
The question is how many.
It depends on various factors including population, territorial, administrative, political and economical. We can discuss division of Uttar Pradesh on these issues but should not link it to disintegration equating it with princely states at the time of Independence.
And purely on the population front we can see that with 35 states and UTs for 120 crore people we have a government for every 3.5 crore of populaion on an average. However in case of UP it is one government for the whole of 17 crore people. Bahut nainsaafi hai ye...
Going by national average we can have 5 states in UP and a few more in other big states.
1 December 2011



I hope one is not advocating one country-one state theory. I mean we have to be clear whether we are against the concept of smaller manageable and viable States or against creation of states on regionalism or on the basis of specific groups.
These divisions on religious or linguistic basis are different issues not directly related to creation of a state. A Punjabi in Delhi, UP or even in Assam is still a Punjabi and on the other hand within Punjab itself we have other communities and regional divisions. Malwa, Majha and Doaba are very prominent sub-divisions of Punjab.
Smaller viable and manageable states are good for the people of that state as well as for the development of the country.
Maharashtra, once one of the most prosperous states, is also stagnating because of its size. With a population of 11 crore Maharashtra can also be divided into 2 or 3 manageable states.
1 December 2011


Jharkhand, rather the political mess in Jharkhand is very often cited as a bad example of smaller states. But in our enthusiasm to play down creation of new states we should not pick-up bad examples only. It would have been better if we had talked about Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand too with comparatively stable governments.
Moreover we may recall that between Jan 1990 and Dec 2001 Gujarat state has had as many as 9 different CMs belonging to 4 different parties. Madhav Singh Solanki, Chimanbhai Patel, Chhabildas Mehta, Keshubhai Patel, Suresh Mehta, Shankersinh Vaghela, Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Parikh, again Keshubhai Patel and then Narendra Modi belonging to INC, JD(G), RJP and BJP. Is it any better than the example of Jharkhand being quoted time and again? And what after this? After this Gujarat has known only one CM. It is simply not a criteria to be considered while discussing the concept of midsize viable States as compared to large unmanageable States. These are political games which can be played anywhere.
Secondly Prabhat Khabar group of newspapers had last year published "Jharkhand Development Report 2010". In this 163 page report it had observed that 'Jharkhand has come a long way from its inception'.
The highlights of this report are:
>Its Per Capita income- From Rs 10345 (1999-2000) to Rs 21465 (2008-09). Per Capita income for Bihar was Rs 12643 in 2008-09.
>Gross State Domestic Product up from 4244922 Cr (2003-04) to 6925332.
>Poverty down from 44% to 33.15% (2004-05)
>Law and Order-Considerable improvement- Police strength up from 8930 in 2002 to 29198 in 2007 whereas the figure came down for Bihar from 48968 to 45670 during this period.
>Length of railway lines increased by 7.43% (2001-07) against 0.29% for India and reduction in Bihar.
>Number of pre-college institutions/school increased by 15% between 2002 and 2007.
>Number of Engineering, Technical and Arch Insts tripled and medical colleges doubled while it remained stagnant for Bihar.
>Foodgrain yield up from 1199 kg per hectare in 2001-02 to 1588 kg/hect in 2007-08.

Besides it there is tremendous improvement in health and infrastructural development in the state. The state has got its own High Court now. Ranchi is a buzzing city. Infact you talk to any person from Jharkhand and you will not find a single negative for mid-sized states.

Another report from Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) had observed that 'Jharkhand and Orissa are growing at the fastest pace in terms of their per capita income'.
So I request all those opposed to the creation of viable states to look at the issue in entirety beyond any political or emotional considerations.
3 December 2011


We will find that bigger the state, more powerful the regional party and more its nuisance value. Secondly the focus should be on mid-sized, manageable and viable states, not merely 'smaller'. The relevance of very small states may also be reviewed if required.
As far as North-Eastern States are concerned, the size of these states is not the issue. Issue is bad politics and worst bureaucratic bungling.
And finally brother just think.असंतुलन कब है? जब हम कई 'mid-sized, manageable and viable states' बनाते हैं तब या जब हमारी तीन states 10-10 crore se jyada population wali hon aur 8 states 50-50 lakh se bhi kam. We are already imbalanced. Many a states are already unmanageable. We have to restore the balance.
5 December 2011

facebook discussion: इंसान धर्म बदल सकता है, जाति क्यों नहीं?

बहुत साधारण से लगने वाले इस सवाल पर जवाब???

क्या हम सच में धर्म बदल सकते हैं?
इसका जवाब निर्भर करता है कि धर्म से हमारा क्या अभिप्राय है. हिंदू, मुस्लिम, सिख, ईसाई... इत्यादि? या हमारी पौराणिक शिक्षा के आधार पर 'नियत कर्म'?

मेरा मानना है कि हमारा व्यक्तिगत धर्म, हमारा नियत कर्म जैसे हमारा पुत्र धर्म, पित्र धर्म, राज धर्म, मित्र धर्म, पति धर्म, पत्नी धर्म, भक्त धर्मं, इंसान धर्म..... इत्यादि वही रहते हैं चाहे हम किसी भी समुदाय, भाषा, देश या मत (हिंदू, मुस्लिम, सिख, ईसाई, शैव, वैष्णव... इत्यादि) से सम्बन्ध रखते हों. हमारे धर्म निभाने के तरीके बदल सकते हैं उनमें कुछ कमी रह सकती है पर धर्म, शायद नहीं बदल सकता.

और जाती?
जाती क्या है और कहाँ तक है? गुर्जर भी मेरी जाती है, क्षत्रिय भी जाती है और इंसान भी मेरी जाती है. जाती का आधार क्या है? कर्म पर आधारित जाती कर्म बदलने पर बदल भी जाती है. एक पंडित परिवार में जन्मा बच्चा अगर फौज में भरती होता है और पूरी तरह से फौज के रीती, रिवाज़, चाल चलन, रहन सहन अपना लेता है तो क्या वह फिर भी पंडित रह जाता है...या क्षत्रिय बन जाता है? ये अपने आप में एक चर्चा का विषय है.
30 November 2011