Tomichan Matheikal's blog

Dr Kiran Bedi has finally landed in the Emperor’s camp and that was expected.  It was clear from the days of India Against Corruption that her ultimate goal was political power.  When she understood that Arvind Kejriwal was not the kind who could sway the masses as effectively as Narendra Modi, she made the right choice.  Who can blame her?  Why blame at all? Was Kiran Bedi an epitome of moral values and any kind of principles at any time?  Yes, as a police officer she did make significant contributions particularly towards making the prison system in India more effective and productive.  She was a good police officer.  Was she above blame?  In 1992 she got her daughter admission for MBBS course in Delhi’s Hardinge College by manipulating the quota for the tribal students of the North-east.  Ms Bedi (not Dr at that time) offered many justifications for her act but nobody who knew the facts would have bought her explanations. Later her NGO came under the scanner for

Rekha found my blog inspiring and decided to honour me with an award.  I don’t want to be ungrateful.  So let me fulfil the obligations imposed by the honour. I am to state 7 things about myself and that’s one of the easiest things I can do since I have a fairly inflated ego.  1.      The biggest challenge I face day in and day out is to keep my ego under control.  It is like an elephant that loses its self-control for no fault of its own. 2.      I love to make friends but never succeed in the attempts because of my own personal limitations.  So I choose to be contented with virtual friends ranging from Dostoevsky to Mario Vargas Llosa as well as quite a few bloggers. 3.      I have very few prejudices in spite of the numerous allegations to the contrary (that I am a highly prejudiced person) and I cling to those prejudices tenaciously.  In spite of those prejudices, I am more broadminded and open to new ideas and possibilities than my well-wishers may be willing to

The Times of India reports today (13 Jan) that Mr Amit Shah is going to issue a show cause notice to Sakshi Maharaj for continuing to make noises that are inconvenient for the BJP though they are in tune with the theme of the party’s hidden agenda.  People like Sakshi Maharaj and Sadhvi Jyoti are the religious faces of the party, while Mr Modi and Mr Shah are the political faces.  For the former certain medieval beliefs and practices are the truths, while for the latter those beliefs and practices are mere ploys for attaining and retaining political power.  It is possible that those beliefs and practices have some value for Mr Modi and Mr Shah too since they seem to be harbouring a hidden agenda: creating a Hindu Rashtra in India.  But transforming a nation from one constitutional system to another is not very easy, they know.  Bringing about the transformation by force will engender violence and bloodshed.  Neither Mr Modi nor Mr Shah want a civil war in the country.  That is one

A madrasa in Mandsaur Courtesy The Hindu Hindus and Muslims still live together in India cooperating with each other.  Today’s Hindu newspaper carries a report on the front page with the headline ‘ Mandsaur’s inclusive madrasas .’  Mandsaur is a district in Madhya Pradesh which has 128 madrasas with a total of 5500 students.  In 78 of these madrasas, Hindu students outnumber their Muslim friends, says the report.  630 of the 865 teachers are Hindus.  Images of goddess Saraswati and Ajmer Sharif coexist in peace and harmony on the walls of the classrooms.  One must be thankful to The Hindu , I thought as I read the report, for highlighting such inclusiveness when far too many Indians are driven crazy by religious fundamentalism.  This blog post is my humble attempt to express my gratitude to the newspaper as much as for celebrating the inclusiveness. It is also an earnest plea. One of the questions I have raised time and again in the classroom as a teacher is how many o

The book which I am now reading is God is not great: How religion poisons everything by Christopher Hitchens.  In the very first chapter the author says: “Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable.  It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other.  For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could.” [emphasis in original] The author is an atheist.  His book is a serious philosophical critique of religion.  Yet he is generous enough to let religions be.  That is the spirit of all genuine atheists.  All genuine atheists I have come across so far display similar generosity and tolerance.  By genuine , I mean atheism chosen by an individual after due consideration, reflection and understanding.  Hitchens goes on to ask a question: But will the religious grant me the same indulgence?”  A few lines later, he says that religion is incapabl

Durga Vahini poster "Can I marry the person I love"? my daughter confronted me with the question. "Well," I fumbled.  What could I answer?  In the pre-Modi days I would have said something like, "Can I talk to him before I give an answer?  What kind of a person is he? Good enough to look after you?"  But in the Modi days I stand more confounded than Ann Frank's father was when Ann's nubile sister was asked to submit herself to the Nazis. "What well?" she demanded. This is the problem with today's generation.  They want immediate answers like instant coffee.  Or chai or instant conversions. I'm old.  I don't wear the bottoms of my trousers folded.  I don't dye my hair.  I don't shave my beard just like my Prime Minister. "Darling," I put on the best tone I could muster.  Not master, of course.  Only Mr Modi is the master now. "You have to get the permission from Durga Vahini, not me,"

The less we know, the easier it is to assume our identity.  It is much easier to perceive ourselves as Indian or Pakistani or Hindu or Muslim than to understand the complex range of crucibles and forges which gave shape to most people’s identities on the planet called the earth.  The more we know, the more ridiculous re-conversions and identity arrogations become. Who was an Indian before India became an independent republic?  How did the Indian become a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh, or whatever?  What about the increasing number of agnostics and atheists in the country?  What about other identities which may be more important to certain individuals such as feminists, environmentalists, or even Maoists?  If I travel back in time and see the entire history of my ancestors, what will my identity be?  Will I see myself as a person whose helpless ancestor was forced to convert (or re-convert) to some religion by an emperor or his/her given situation?  Why should any one particul