No liquor if you are below 25 years of age …

ü  But you can get married and produce children – i.e. take decisions on your family and issues related to the national population

ü  But you can vote – i.e. take decision as to who should run the government for the next five years (who when elected could tell you not to drink the same booze which they distributed to get where they are!)

ü  But you can start working and contributing to the national exchequer and also pay Income Tax to the same government who tells you to pay taxes but consume what they tell you to

Isn’t this ironic? The government the young adult elects is now telling him/her what to drink when – mild beer after 21, vodka, rum and whisky after 25! Isn’t this a classic case of moral policing of the medieval kind or is it the initial stage of moral talibanisation?

All this in the name of de-addiction policy!

Shouldn’t the great thinkers come up with a policy on –

·         De-addiction of corruption for the Politicians and Bureaucrats?

·         De-addiction of strikes for the governmental organization Air India?

·         De-addiction for the pathetic governance for the Government?

·         De-addiction of non-performance by the Municipal corporations?

Shouldn’t the great thinkers focus on shutting down the country-liquor production units? Shouldn’t they focus on shutting down bars and gutka shops near schools and educational institutes?  Shouldn’t they focus on educating the youth regarding the ills of drinking instead of banning the same?

With so much to do, what a way to waste the tax-payers (some of them being young adults) time and money?

Finally, may we ask the great thinkers of modern India, as to at what age did they start drinking?

Think of the plight of Mr. Mallya Jr. – liquor liquor everywhere, can’t take a sip! He can produce liquor, but can’t sip it for another year or so!!!

Importance of Asking Questions - Part 2

Yesterday, we discussed the subject matter with reference from Mahabharata. Today in the second and the concluding part, we will discuss the same subject with some other examples.

Let us take another example from Ramayan. When Lakshaman was lying wounded, Hanuman was entrusted with the task of getting sanjivani buti from the forests of the Himalayan range. Since Hanuman was not used to asking questions and that too in front of Ram, he left without asking for more details. If only he had asked questions about the kind of herb required, he wouldn’t have to bring the whole mountain for a small herb! But then some people never question, or rather, never ask questions! If only he had, the mountain eco-system would have been spared the massive displacement, besides saving much of his strength and energy for future!

From the Celtic Mythology, one of the most famous myths is that of Fisher King and the story of Sir Perceval. According to this myth, like all the Knights of King Arthur, Sir Perceval too was looking for the Holy Grail. During one such adventure of his, Perceval came across a castle in a strangely ruined land. Inside he sees an old man, who is ill, but invites Perceval to spend the night. The old man gives Perceval a special sword but says little else. After dinner, Perceval is witness to strange sights. A young man enters the hall with a white spear with a drop of blood on its tip. Then follow two more young men carrying candle holders. Finally enters a beautiful woman carrying a golden cup. Perceval is curious to know what was going on, but was too tongue-tied for the fear of offending his old host. The next morning Perceval wakes up to an empty castle. There was nothing and nobody. Perceval later learns during his journey that the blood on the tip of the spear was that of Jesus and the golden cup was the Holy Grail itself! If only he had asked, the old man would have been cured, who was Fisher King himself and the entire strange land could have been cured of a strange illness. Again, a classic example of not asking a question which could have solved his quest.

Finally, an example of not asking the right question; According to Greek mythology, Tithonus, the Prince of Troy was in love with the goddess Eos. Eos requested Zeus to bestow Tithonus immortality, but she forgot to ask for eternal youth for Tithonus. Thus in due course of time, Tithonus grew older and older till he shrivelled to nothing more than a voice. According to some, he turned into a cicada, which renews its skin every year! A case of asking not asking the right question.

In life we come across many a situation when we ought to have asked a question or better still, the right question. Never hesitate in asking a question as it is only a quest which leads you to solution. If Lord Buddha had not asked the basic question of what is life, would he have attained Enlightenment and left an entire world of knowledge and righteousness? If Sir Isaac Newton had not asked as to why the apple fell down, would he have discovered gravity? If Ferdinand Magellan, had not asked the basic question of what was beyond the horizon, would he have discovered that the earth was round contrary to the then prevailing notion of it being flat? All the questions asked were very simple and according to the times, extremely ‘fundamental’. But see what the rather fundamental and redundant questions have given the world.

To conclude, never shy from asking a question. I read an interesting quote which was something like this – a person is a fool for a few minutes for asking a question, but he is a fool for life for not asking a question. On a lighter note, imagine what would happen to the likes of Google, and other search engines, if we don’t have questions?

Importance of Asking Questions - Part 1

How many times have we felt – If only I had asked? The common thing about men not asking for directions and landing into trouble, children not asking questions in the class leading to not-understanding problems, and women waiting for men to ‘pop’ the question, and Executives not asking during official briefings, is all so very well-known with all the due complications and trouble.

Just what happens if one doesn’t ask questions? Besides remaining ignorant, it could also lead to a lot of trouble. Mythology is witness to this. Let us see how the course of mythical destiny might have changed, if only basic questions were asked.

The most classical case that comes to mind is from the epic Mahabharata. Have you ever wondered, what would have happened if only Kunti had asked – “What have you brought?” when her sons told her – “Look Mother, what we got”, while referring to Draupadi? Wouldn’t Mahabharata have been slightly (or a lot?) different if she had asked the basic question instead of saying “Share amongst yourselves, whatever you brothers have got”? Many might opine that probably the Pandavas might not have been as united as they were, or Arjuna might not have got to marry other ladies, which were the much-needed political alliances. Or just about nothing much would have happened! But definitely, a very sticky issue could have been avoided and Draupadi would have been spared many a humiliation which we get to see in the course of the epic.

Let us take another example from the same epic, and that is the case of Shahadev. It is said that Sahadev knew everything, including the outcome of the dice game. But he could not say anything without being asked! It is said that when Sahadev came to know about his divine capability, he rushed to tell everybody about it. On the way he met a stranger who advised him against doing that if he wanted God on his side. He further advised him that he should answer only when asked something, and not before. Some say, that Sahadev knew that the stranger was none other than Lord Krishna who was God himself, and so he did not go against the advice. Some versions say that he was warned that if he said anything without being asked, then his head would split into two. Sahadev went on to author many of the occult sciences and is also considered to be a great astrologer, who knew it all.   During the entire Mahabharata, nobody ever asked him his opinion on anything, and thus having known everything, including the outcome of every event, he could not help. Wouldn’t the outcome of the epic be a lot different if only someone had asked him some basic questions? Probably, Yudhishtir would not have played dice and lost everything, or even if he played, Sahadev could have warned Yudhishtir about Shakuni’s evil designs. But then nobody asked him!

Tomorrow we will conclude this article with a few more examples......

Libidous Liaison

A number of recent cases of rape and scandalous relationships by high profile men has come to light and are being put under the scanner. Dominique Strauss-Kahn and his alleged rape of a Hotel maid, Silvio Berlusconi and his notorious Bunga Bunga parties (which were nothing short of sexual orgies), Muammar Gaddafi, and his female Amazonian Bodyguards, supposedly 40 of them and all virgins. The list is endless.

So what is so special about these? What makes these cases noteworthy is that the culprits were all powerful and influential men and many old and doddering. Dominique is (now was) the chief of IMF, Berlusconi is the Italian Prime Minister & Gaddafi is the leader of Libya (who is fighting to retain his leadership).

History has enough references of men with such high libidos and many of them were well known to have harems. Numerous wives, amorous relationships and behind the veil sexual escapades, has been a part of the popular lore. The same has been heard about the rich Zamindars later.

Such things have been said about many mythological characters too. Puranic Indra was known for his weakness for beautiful women. His Indrasabha was known to be a great place where fun and frolic with wine and apsaras being a given. Apsaras like Menaka, Urvashi and Rambha were there to entertain the gods and seduce mere mortals as and when needed. Indra was also attracted to mortals and didn’t have any qualms in violating their chastity for his own lustful needs. So was the Greek god Zeus who was known for his numerous liaisons with both the goddesses as well as mortals. Zeus’s lustful advances didn’t spare men too! Some of his acts like the abduction and rape of Europa and his affairs with Alcmene, Callisto, Danae, Leda and Io were just a few of his adulterous and extra-marital relationships. Not for nothing was Zeus referred to as Zeus the Adulterer! Mythology is replete with such adulterous, amorous and scandalous bits where a woman’s chastity has been violated quite nonchalantly and without remorse.

Just what makes these men in power do the undoable? At the risk of losing it all that has made them so powerful, why do they get into such scandals? Is it marital discord? Or is it the right to enjoy and live it up? Or is it the age-old culprit, testosterone to be blamed? Sexologists feel that it is unfair to blame testosterone as it is a healthy hormone which is responsible for many a good thing in human development, besides virility. Reckless and bestial behavior has nothing to do with testosterone levels in the culprit. Further, a high level of testosterone does not lead to such lusty behavior.

Psychologist feel Power is the main reason to take things for granted. Rather it seems that a combination of power, arrogance, lust and a canine-like libido is what makes for a heady concoction which leads to such acts by men, many of who are technically senior citizens! A feeling of being above-board adds to this behaviour and a personal high with such (sexual) gratification leads to a sense of mental orgasm which is so intoxicating that the powerful individual does not realize that the so-called high is taking him down.

But just as Lord Indra was not spared for his amorous acts and Zeus was constantly under the secret supervision of his wife Hera, such people should not be allowed to scot free. If the institutions they represent care for their reputation and if the women-folk are to be respected, then crime must be punished and higher the position of the individual, greater should the punishment be. The spouses of such people should not stand by them, but rebel and stand by the victim instead. Else simply leave.

Spouses, you have nothing to lose in abandoning your lecherous husbands – rather you stand to gain huge alimonies……ask Mrs. Tiger Woods!!

Unsung Women of Ramayana

Though Ramayan is the story of Ram, the epic is also well knows for some of its female characterisations like that of Sita, Kaushalya and even Kaikeyi. But there have been some lesser known ladies who have not found much mention, even when characters like Manthara and Shabari find some mention and attention.



Let us discuss two of them here, Urmila, Lakshaman’s wife and Trijata. Did you say, Trijata who? Well then, let’s keep Trijata for later.

Lakshaman and Urmila from the
teleserial by Ramanand Sagar

Urmila is considered to be the most tragic characters in the epic. What might not be known to many is that Urmila was the daughter of King Janak and was thus the sister of Sita. Why this has not been mentioned often is not known. Urmila is tragic as she is supposed to have spent vanvaas (stay in the forests) without going to the van (forest)! When Ram, Sita and Lakshaman were leaving for the forest, she too wanted to accompany her husband like Sita. But Lakshaman is supposed to have said that he is going to serve his brother and sister-in-law and likewise she should stay back to serve his parents. Urmila stayed back to serve her father-in-law (who died soon) and three mother-in-laws. While all the brothers (Ram, Bharat and Shatrughan) had their wives with them, she was the only one who did not have her husband by her side for fourteen long years. Some versions mention that she did not step out of her room for fourteen years and some say, that she slept for fourteen long years. This seclusion is viewed by many as leading a life of extreme deprivation of worldly life in the absence of her husband.  A number of scholars have attributed small episodes to her, but they all depict her as a person whose existence was to follow instructions and not opine.  She probably lived like a nun, a life of servitude in solitude at the peak of her youth.

The famous Hindi poet, Maithili Sharan Gupta was so disappointed with Valmiki’s treatment of Urmila, that he wrote his own epic by the name of Saket, based it on Ramayana, whose heroine was not Sita, but Urmila! The Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore too is supposed to have lamented this treatment (or mistreatment) of Urmila by Valmiki. According to Tagore, Valmiki had shown Lakshaman as the ideal brother, but completely forgot Urmila who was left all alone in Ayodhya for fourteen long years. Truly an unsung heroine of the epic.

Sita and Trijata from the teleserial by
Ramanand Sagar

Trijata was one of the demoness who were guarding Sita after Ravan kidnapped her to Lanka. However, that is not Trijata’s only introduction. She was also Vibhishan’s daughter and thus Ravan’s niece and was blessed with the power of foresight. She was the only one who was sympathetic to Sita during her plight and while the others were coaxing Sita to give in to Ravan, she was the only one who kept consoling Sita about Ram’s definite visit to Lanka to save her. Her faith in Ram’s victory in the battle was reinforced after she had a dream where she sees Ravan on a donkey, his head shaved off and his face blackened heading southwards (the direction was associated with doom and/or death).  She was a good hearted demoness and would scold the others whenever the others harassed Sita. She is supposed to have warned even Ravan against the war as she could foresee that he would lose, but Ravan obviously did not listen to her. It is said, that she soon became a confidante and a shoulder to cry upon for Sita. During the battle between Ram and Ravan, with her powers, she used to relate the events of the battle to Sita (something similar to what Sanjay was supposed to have done for Dhritarashtra during the war of Kurukshetra in Mahabharata).

Popular depiction of Trijata is an ugly ogress; however, Vibhishan is not shown as a demon. This is probably because not many are even aware of this relationship. Also, as mentioned earlier the depiction of rakshasa and rakshashi was always dark, red-eyes, disheveled hair, horns, et al. The same depiction has stayed on with Trijata too, though Vibhishana is never shown as one. Again this can be attributed    to popular perceptions.

Finally, why were characters like Urmila and even Mandodari (Ravan’s wife) not given their due attention? Many a times it has been seen that at the beginning of the plot, a number of characters are drawn which gives it a feel of an epic. Like in all epics, besides the main plot, there are sub-plots and many side-plots. This is like the tributaries of a main river, all converging into the main river. Though the author sets these characters with a set of ideas, in due course, ends up focusing only on the main characters or future characters and leaves a few by the side. This leads to some well-begun but half-baked characterisations in due course of time. Urmila was definitely one of them.

Another reason could be that these epics belonged to an oral tradition, where the stories were related orally over generations. As it happens many a times, the narrator ends up focusing on some and at times neglecting some characters, till they end up being part of the cast with no major contribution in the epic. The narrators perceptions take precedence.

However, Urmila’s contribution in terms of her ‘sacrifice’ (a virtue in Indian culture) is of epic-proportion and thus warranted a discussion. As far as Trijata is concerned, she is mentioned for her strong characterization (remember she warned Ravan about the impending disaster) and her staunch belief that Ram would come to save his wife and her interpretation of her dreams. She was also a strong support-system to Sita during her most trying times in the epic.