Tomichan Matheikal's blog

BJP minister Prakash Javadekar thinks that there is no difference between an anarchist and a terrorist . You are patently wrong, Mr Minister, as most your counterparts are these days. Is Prof Noam Chomsky a terrorist? Was Leo Tolstoy a terrorist? Both of them are self-proclaimed anarchists. There are a lot more like them who either declared themselves to be anarchists or are/were anarchists at heart. I am one too, though I belong to the humble sidelines.   An anarchist is one who upholds individual freedom. Anarchists have a vital role to play when governments become oppressive as is the case in India now. India now has a government whose ministers and prominent leaders keep on shooting their mouths off whenever they see a microphone or camera. They spew venom against certain sections of citizens. Their ulterior motive is to oppress certain communities or groups and render them impotent. Anarchists have the guts to question the oppression and the falsehood that upholds the opp

Prejudice is a universal human vice. Indispire Edition 310 raises the question whether ignorance is the mother of prejudice. To a large extent, ignorance is the mother of prejudice. Or father, let us say. When we use the word mother here, isn’t there a bias? Psychology defines prejudice as a negative attitude towards people based on their membership in a group. Prejudice prejudges people particularly on the basis of the group(s) to which they belong. For example, Muslims are communal: this is a very common prejudice today in many countries. Prejudice can often lead to violent conflicts, hate crimes and unfair treatment of people. Ignorance is the chief cause of prejudices. Ignorance makes us categorise people too easily. Categorisation is inevitable as it helps us to organise and simplify our world. I lived in North India and the Northeast for most part of my adult life and I was labelled as ‘Madrasi’ quite often. The fact is I had nothing to do with the city that was calle

Yesterday Maggie said, "Let's go to Arthunkal." Arthunkal is a Christian pilgrimage centre in Kerala, about 65 km from my home. "Okay," I said. It's quite some time since Maggie and I went on a long drive. That was the only reason as far as I was concerned. For Maggie, the visit meant much more than that.  Outside the church When we reached, the 9 o'clock Mass had just begun. Maggie chose to attend the Mass. Since that sort of prayer doesn't make sense to me, I decided to explore the church whose history goes back to the 16th century. It's then the Perpetual Adoration Chapel caught my attention. The chapel is a semicircular building whose door, the only one it has, remains closed. You enter and the door closes behind you. The atmosphere inside is cool and calm. When I entered there were just 4 or 5 devotees inside who were all praying silently. I sat down on a pew and closed my eyes.  The church Serenity surrounded me. Soon I was bathe

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on this day 72 years ago by a man who lacked the brains to understand profundity. The killer, Nathuram Godse, justified his pernicious deed in an eloquent speech in the court. I would like to pick out three of his prominent arguments and show why he was utterly wrong. 1. Folly of non-violence Godse’s first major argument is that the right answer to aggression is violence. “I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy [who uses force] by use of force.” He went on to argue that mankind is incapable of “scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles [of truth and non-violence] in its normal life from day to day.” Godse obviously failed to understand the very “loftiness” (to use his own term) of the Mahatma’s vision. Gandhi wished to elevate mankind to a higher level of consciousness. Gandhi’s was a messianic vision. He was not fighting merely for liberating India from the British but also

Image from shubhzquotes India is like a vehicle whose driver is always looking into the rear-view mirror. Our leaders and too many citizens are stuck in the past. They are always busy digging up gems from the past. It is nice to belong to a civilisation that has a great history. But to be buried in that history is quite insane. Either we are stuck with the glories of the past or we are picking the errors from the same place. Glories belong to the ancient past and the errors belong to rather recent past: that’s the only difference. The recent past stretches from Nehru and his ‘dynasty’ to the Mughals. While the ancient India knew everything from nuclear physics to the Internet, Nehru and his dynasty were an ignorant and vicious lot that ruined the great civilisation of the past. The degeneration began with the Mughals, of course. Whether the Mughals and his successors committed all the historical blunders is immaterial if progress is what we want. It’s no use looking back a

India has got a miserable 140 th place out of 156 nations surveyed by the World Happiness Report  for happiness levels. Finland continues to hold number one position, followed by Denmark, Norway and Iceland. The survey concludes that generosity and an environment which sustains mutual support keep people happy. The USA has the world’s highest GDP, the richest nation, but its rank in the happiness index is 19. Wealth doesn’t necessarily keep you happy. Happiness is a feeling created by people’s willingness to be of help to one another. The government plays a vital role too. People alone cannot determine the prevalent mood in the country. The Happiness Report suggests that countries which improve civic engagement by making their government more representative will be happier. India now has a government that has been promising us better days for about six years now. But the Report shows that we have dropped way behind Pakistan, China, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and even Bangla

Love is a kaleidoscopic phenomenon. It has infinite hues which can form endless permutations and combinations. Admiration can turn into romantic love which can change into murderous love as it happens in the case of Othello and Desdemona. “She loved me for the dangers I had passed,” says Othello, “And I loved her that she did pity them.” Their love transcended their races. It offended quite a lot of people. But theirs was genuine love, a love that went out of oneself to the other, a love that embraced the other in an elevated realm. Such love makes the lovers grow further as individuals. But there’s always an Iago hiding somewhere just like the serpent in the primeval Eden. Othello is a soldier by profession. The soldier in him militates against the lover in him because of the games that Iago plays with him. If he was more romantic than belligerent he would have probed more into the allegations against his wife. But that precisely is one of the most difficult problems of love: