Essays
Disclaimer: I am publishing a collection of essays written between the years 2020-21. However, I would like to make it clear that I do not endorse the thoughts and opinions expressed in these essays anymore. As a result of my personal growth and experiences, my views have evolved and changed significantly. Most of my old ideas and beliefs now displease me, and I do not stand by them. These essays are being published for archival purposes only, and I hope readers will understand that my current views may differ significantly from those expressed in these essays.
I truly do immovably accept that you don't get to finish up what is perfect for an individual, etc, you don't get to conclude what is mortality, etc, I've said it generally and I'll say it again, your significance of moral quality isn't through and through, moral quality as a reasonability or vice is vast, people are and should be permitted to choose for themselves. Total moral policing is risky, today people and the state need to coordinate what others should watch inside their homes, which they are paying for from their own wallets, tomorrow, this method for managing nuisances will coordinate other regular activities, we have no clue about when will this stop and definitively where the strong state will stand firm. State control is naturally obscure and even from a skeptical stance, harakiri destruction of chance that we treasure. You could manage without the shows broadcasting on streaming stages? Do whatever it takes not to become involved with them. Leave them. In any case, you don't get to decide for myself and a large number of other people who have become involved with the organizations. In reality, I've no hankering to step on crude substance, in any case, I will go against the oversight.
As an unimportant, I solidly have confidence in the rule of individual opportunity and the option to go with decisions for oneself. The concentration that I have composed obviously underlines this point. I concur that it isn't the privilege of anybody to conclude what is positive or negative for a person. Every individual ought to have the independence to decide for themselves, and this incorporates their own decisions with respect to morals, ethical quality, and diversion.
The idea of profound quality is abstract and differs from one individual to another. What is ethically adequate for one individual may not be so for another. Thus, forcing a bunch of moral norms on others isn't moral. Nonetheless, do these completely philosophical ideas make a difference to a rotting society? For what reason mightn't profound quality at any point be dependent upon the impulses of time, and is there any good reason why morals must still be up in the air through a cauldron of fair treatment? What makes an individual up to this point gone as a significant territory against an aggregate that is gazing at its end? Didn't civilisation ascend through severity, assault, and loot, rather than one's soul, the clean conscience we discuss now? The clear mind as well, toward the day's end, got through the fair treatment of ruthless conflicts that raised civilisations. The state or some other authority shouldn't have the ability to direct what individuals watch or do inside the limits of their own homes. Controlling individual decisions in this manner is suggestive of extremist systems, and it isn't something that we ought to endure. When we permit the public authority or some other position to control our own decisions, it starts a risky trend that could ultimately prompt the limitation of different opportunities, in the event that causes hindrance to the social remaining of our general public, as it should be, otherwise not. The state's command over the substance that individuals watch on streaming stages is a dangerous slant that could prompt further limitations on different types of articulation or even regular exercises.
My contention for individual opportunity is especially critical with regards to diversion. It now has nothing to do with any other person to figure out what shows or films an individual decides to watch. In the event that an individual sees as the substance hostile or unpalatable, they have the choice to not watch it. Nonetheless, I really do state that it is just a little absurd to deny others the chance to partake in the substance that they decide to consume.
I accept that opportunity of decision is fundamental for self-improvement and advancement. It is through our encounters and our decisions that we learn and develop as a system. Along these lines, we genuinely must safeguard and guard this right. We should oppose any endeavors to restrict our own decisions and maintain our opportunity to settle on choices for ourselves. I really do comprehend that the idea of control can be disputable. Nonetheless, I accept that restriction can be essential in specific circumstances, particularly with regards to safeguarding the aggregate qualities and supernaturally appointed profound quality of society overall. Be that as it may, I don't wish to connect this supernaturally appointed profound quality with God, for I have, not yet, experienced such abilities as individuals attribute God to have. Ethical quality is a human origination, and it will work finely as lengthy the people need it, the rotting society needs it, individuals would like to hold harmony as far as might be feasible.
The nuisances could contend for individual opportunity and independence, however shouldn't something be said about the mischief that specific qualities can incur upon the bigger conscience? The facts confirm that profound quality is emotional, however as a general public, we have all in all settled specific qualities and convictions that are significant for our prosperity and the debauchery of our disintegrating reality. I don't wish for a superior world, be that as it may, I would rather not live in such a world by the same token either. Consequently, I accept that it is essential to control specific types of articulations that advances disturbance as a way of behaving, as it can have unfortunate results on society. The state has the obligation to maintain and authorize the aggregate values that have been laid out through long periods of social and evolutionary development.
Besides, the supernaturally appointed profound values that are inborn in numerous religions is in many cases refered to as support for restriction. Strict texts and convictions act as an ethical compass for some people and networks, and it is vital to note and safeguard these qualities. Certain types of media, like sexual degradation, can go against or sabotage these qualities and convictions, prompting moral corruption and the disintegration of the social texture and heart.
Furthermore, oversight can likewise act for the purpose of safeguarding weak citizenry, for example, children or those nuisances with psychological well-being issues. Openness to hurtful or upsetting substance can meaningfully affect these groups, and it is the singular's liability to safeguard them from such mischief.
Therefore, while individual opportunity is significant, it should be offset with the transformative values our society has developed for so long as we remember. Restriction, when finished fully intent on maintaining aggregate morals and divinely ordained values, can be important to safeguard the social texture and advance the prosperity of all citizenry. It is vital to find some kind of harmony between individual opportunity and collective collaboration, and restrictions can assume a part in accomplishing this equilibrium.
On Responsibility
I'm certain moderates, and conservatives, discuss equivalent open–doors, for everybody, regardless of anything they relate themselves to. Presently, expressing those things are off-base, not with the individual, but rather with his surrounding elements is disregarding some genuine, certifiable, issues which really emerge from the individual and not his surrounding factors. Nobody is compelling oneself to take tranquilizes, or do robbery, or some terribly insane thing, the singular himself choses to make it happen, indeed, outer powers do has some hand in it, however by the day's end the singular himself choses to make it happen. Any remaining things equivalent, ceteris paribus: in the event that individuals have same level of battleground, and certain individuals hustle, clear a path for them and stroll on it, however a few others neglects to make it happen, then, at that point, the individual really do have an explanation in his misfortunes, the surrounding elements were equivalent for everyone. Pinning it on others, as I said previously, is simply sluggishly disregarding the singular's liability and responsibility.
We can banter above contentions referenced by the progressives just when there are inconsistent environmental factors, inconsistent foundations, inconsistent lives and inconsistent opportunities, however for the people who have fairness of chance yet notwithstanding come up short and later pass on the fault on surrounding elements, like orientation, caste, and statement of faith, to, as I would see it, make themselves liberated from liability and responsibility.
Measurably, 77 of every 100 Americans accept, presumably, that when you really buckle down you succeed, just those nations are in predicament where there is extreme government mediation to make things equivalent, or where there is widespread discrimination, for instance, India. Once more, let me walk straight to the contention: orientation and caste in all actuality do influence your opportunities to succeed, however, that is negligible in a just society, which we surely don't occupy, as of now.
In the above section, I am contending that faulting one's unfortunate elements or outside powers for one's disappointments is many times a reason to keep away from moral obligation and responsibility. We recognize that there might be occurrences where imbalance and foundational segregation exist, yet contend that in situations where there is correspondence of chance, people who neglect to succeed shouldn't fault their environmental factors yet rather assume a sense of ownership with their own misfortunes.
This contention brings up significant issues about the connection between individual obligation and social setting. Scholars have long discussed the idea of obligation, with some contending that it is fundamentally a question of individual decision and others underscoring the job of outer factors like social designs and establishments.
From one viewpoint, the facts confirm that people simply decide the choices that shape their lives. Nobody can compel somebody to participate in criminal way of behaving or substance misuse. There is no such thing as simultaneously, in any case, people in a vacuum. Their decisions are molded by a scope of elements, including their childhood, instruction, social class, and social foundation.
In this sense, defining a sharp boundary between moral obligation and outer factors is troublesome. The two are profoundly interwoven. For instance, somebody who experiences childhood in neediness and goes to an underfunded school might not possess similar doors as somebody from a rich family who goes to a renowned tuition–based school. While the two people might have equivalent lawful privileges and open–doors on paper, their life conditions and social setting might put them on immensely various directions.
The issue of liability is a critical subject in political way of thinking, and it is frequently connected with moderate–thought. Obligation is the possibility that people are responsible for their activities and their results, and they ought to do whatever it takes to succeed. This article means to investigate the conservative attribute of liability and its suggestions.
The conservative perspective on obligation affirms that people are fundamentally answerable for their prosperity or disappointment throughout everyday life. This view underlines moral obligation and independence, recommending that people should try sincerely and pursue the ideal decisions to succeed. Moderates contend that this approach advances individual opportunity and self-assurance and is fundamental for a solid society.
Notwithstanding, the exposition I bring up is the issue of whether moral obligation is consistently adequate to guarantee a positive outcome. I contend that moderate reasoning will in general disregard outer elements that might affect individual results, like family, inconsistent open–doors, and separation. This issue is at the core of a more extensive discussion among moderate and liberal idea in regards to the job of the state in tending to social and financial disparity.
The moderate point of view by and large goes against broad state mediation in friendly and monetary undertakings. Moderates contend that inordinate government intercession makes reliance and subverts individual obligation. All things considered, they advocate for a more modest government that advances moral obligation, individual opportunity, and monetary development.
In any case, pundits contend that this approach neglects to represent primary imbalances that persevere in the public arena, like fundamental prejudice and neediness. They contend that these disparities limit people's chances and their capacity to completely practice moral obligation. Subsequently, they advocate for a greater job for the state in tending to these imbalances and guaranteeing equivalent open doors for all.
At last, obligation is a depressing issue that includes both individual exertion and outer variables. While traditionalists accentuate the significance of moral obligation and confidence, they should likewise perceive the job of primary disparities in forming individual successes. By recognizing these elements, preservationists can advance arrangements that advance individual opportunity and moral obligation while likewise guaranteeing equivalent open doors for all.
On Enola Holmes
Last night, I finished watching "Enola Holmes" and contemplated extensively on her character, the period feature, post-Victorian era, and the women's suffrage movement. Although I am somewhat undecided about women's rights and feminism, I consider radical feminism an integral part of my ideology and philosophy. It should be clear that radical feminism has nothing to do with Marxism. Instead, it has a lot to do with leftist ideology, the ideology of rebellion, but not so much with Marxism. However, what I would like to discuss is Enola's fearless, reckless, rebellious, and admirable character.
Without delving too deeply into the movie's plot to avoid spoilers, allow me to provide some background on the theme. Enola Holmes is the sister of Holmes brothers, namely Sherlock Holmes and Mycroft Holmes, and the daughter of Eudoria, a woman of strong character and somewhat revolutionary ideas. Eudoria was well-educated in science, mathematics, chess, and martial arts, and was also very beautiful.
You may wonder what the fuss is all about? Well, imagine the Victorian Era, the people, the culture, and the position of women in society. Now, think of a 16-year-old girl learning science, social science, mathematics, physics, chess, martial arts, and more—all being taught by her mother through homeschooling without exposing her to the outside world and how women are usually taught. The same subjects that Enola learned at home were taught in Finishing Schools—how to speak with poise, how to laugh politely, and how to please men. Yet, Enola Holmes was rebellious, educated, knowledgeable, daring, skilled in martial arts, laughed differently from those around her, and went on adventures like her brother, Sherlock. What a remarkable woman.
When you ponder all these things and think about the time period, you will get goosebumps. The truth is that in the present time period, women are still constrained by the rules and regulations of the Victorian Era, at least in India. Allow me to leave you with one of Sherlock Holmes' many wise quotes, spoken while conversing with his sister, Enola Holmes: Sherlock remarks, "Perhaps she wants to change the world," clearly not understanding why. But Enola responds, "Perhaps it’s a world that needs changing."
On castes
Some time ago, I came across a piece of news: the Maharashtra Cabinet approved a proposal to rename residential colonies with caste-based names. This is a commendable decision, and I wholeheartedly support it. The caste system represents a long history of oppression, subjugation, suppression, and slavery in the subcontinent. Even after 70 years of independence from the British Raj, and more than 500 years of foreign rule under the Turks, Mughals, and Britishers, it is a moral defeat that our people are still being subjected to a rabidly discriminatory process by upper-class people. Renaming caste-sensitive locations would surely eliminate the Indian version of racial segregation based on caste, to some extent.
However, this topic raises a question: should the same policy be applied to places named after a particular foreign religion or conqueror faith? An ethical and moral argument arises here. Should the state not eliminate symbols of discrimination, suppression, and conquest when it comes to a faith that dominates the land? If the state fails to remove the symbols of bigotry that show certain faiths' people as inferior on their own soil, it would demonstrate a lack of perspicacity.
Examples of the dominant faith being bigoted and suppressing the conquered faith come from places whose beliefs and identity were stolen by renaming them after the conquerors. For instance, Kondapalli was renamed Mustafanagar (during Qutub Shahi and early Asaf Jahi times) to Kondapalli, and Kondaveedu or Gopinathapuram was renamed Murtazanagar (during Qutub Shahi and early Asaf Jahi times) to Kondaveedu. Peddapalli was renamed Petapoly by the Dutch settlers to Pettipolee or Pettipoly by the British or Nizampatnam (during the Asaf Jahi era) (Guntur district). (Swarnalatha, P., 2005)
Speaking of some revered cities that were symbols of resistance, Allahabad, or Prayagaraj, is one of the greatest examples of that faith and resistance. It is still a living example of bigotry, no less than a place named after a lower caste to show the inhabitants their right place in the eyes of the conqueror and the conquered.
Quoted literature suggests that Prayagraj stands on the site of ancient Prayag, a holy city that was comparable in fame to Varanasi and Haridwar. Prayag's importance in the ancient Buddhist period of Indian history is attested to by the inscriptions on a pillar attributed to the 3rd-century-BCE Mauryan emperor Ashoka. The present city of Prayagraj was founded in 1583 by the Mughal emperor Akbar, who named it Allahabad (Ilāhābād, “City of God”). It became a provincial capital during the Mughal Empire, and from 1599 to 1604, it was the headquarters of the rebellious prince Salim (later the emperor Jahangir). Outside the Prayagraj fort is the tomb built for Jahangir's rebellious son, Khusru. With the Mughal decline, Prayagraj changed hands many times before being ceded to the British in 1801. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
I agree that the Mughals are a part of our cultural heritage. However, I disagree with the way in which the person in question perceives their significance. Their argument lacks depth, as the city of Prayagraj existed for several millennia before it was renamed during the Mughal reign, and evidence of this can be traced back to the Rig Veda. The history and importance of Prayagraj to Indian civilization predate the Mughal era by more than 2400 years. Nevertheless, we must examine the circumstances surrounding the construction of the fort Illahabas, later known as Allahabad, during the reign of the powerful Mughal ruler Akbar in the late 16th century.
In 1574, Akbar decided to build a fort and name the place Illahabas. By 1584, the fort was completed. According to accounts from several sources, including Jesuit missionaries who visited Akbar’s court in the early 1580s, the religious zeal of Muslims had destroyed many of the Hindu temples in the area, and in their place, countless tombs and shrines of Muslims had been erected. Two years after the decision to build Illahabas, Akbar rewarded the Mughal historian Badauni with gold coins for his declaration that he would soak his beard in the blood of infidel Hindus.
It is difficult to deny that a ruler who was excited about the prospect of someone soaking their beard in Hindu blood would change the name of Prayagraj to Illahabas as an attack on the Hindu faith. Those who believe that Illahabas was founded by Akbar for a secular cause and that Illah does not come from the illahi of Kalima may not be aware of Akbar’s actions, which strongly identify him as a Jihadi. A Ghazi, in his own words, is not a secular soul.
In terms of moral and ethical arguments, I believe that if people around the world are tearing down statues of racists, slave owners, and colonizers because of their horrendous acts in their colonies, then those who were conquered for being different in their way of worshipping their Gods should also be recognized. We should restructure locations that were turned into symbols of bigotry by invasive forces and conquerors to pay homage to those who suffered and lost their heritage. The people who were butchered for their beliefs should be remembered and respected just as much as those who were traded as slaves.
It is unfair that the conquered faiths are constantly reminded of what they gained from being subjugated by invasive monotheistic religions, but are not reminded of the suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, mortification, shame, indignity, abasement, and loss of heritage that they experienced.
In conclusion, symbols of discrimination, oppression, and conquest have no place in a modern, just, and equitable society. The Maharashtra Cabinet's decision to rename residential colonies with caste-based names is a welcome step towards eradicating the Indian version of racial segregation based on caste. However, the state must also examine other places named after a particular faith or conqueror and take necessary steps to remove symbols of bigotry associated with them. By doing so, we can create a more just, equitable, and reconciled society, free from symbols of bigotry that divide us.
On Veganism
People often ask me if I consider beef-eating Hindus to be true Hindus. I find this question to be strange because Hindu scriptures vaguely mention meat-eating and even beef-eating. However, I am a deist Hindu and reject the religious aspects of the scriptures, viewing them instead as philosophical treatises. For me, a person's character is more important than what they eat. I believe that inflicting pain upon living beings goes against the fundamental belief system of right and wrong and morality. My core belief, as a human, is to treat others as I would like to be treated. It is not consistent to testify to protect cows and eat fish and chickens at the same time; consistency is a fundamental tenet of moralism.
I am more concerned about those who advocate for one type of meat while prohibiting another. I view beef-eating Hindus the same way I view chicken or fish-eating Hindus. If you claim one meat is sacred but consume another type of meat, you are a hypocrite. If you believe that God resides inside cows, then the same should apply to other animals. All animals are connected by the fact that they want to live, are living beings, are a part of natural diversity, and provide for nature in some way. So what makes cows sacred but not other animals? As a lifelong vegetarian (soon to be vegan), I believe it is morally wrong to kill any living being. If you have a choice between fresh fish and cabbage for dinner and choose to eat fish, you are not acting morally, despite having a choice. Death is equal for both humans and animals because they both suffer.
If beef-eating Hindus or Muslims advocate for one type of meat while prohibiting others (beef and pork), they are hypocrites, and the act of indifference is called cognitive dissonance. Stop eating all types of animal meat, then lecture on veganism. If you eat tons of chickens while beating up people for eating beef, you are not a rational person. Do not be a hypocrite. I do not care what your religion says about killing animals and eating them. If you are inconsistent with your thought process, you should consider rejecting it. My argument is not religious but moral. Both Leftists and Right-Wingers are hypocrites in this regard, advocating for some kind of meat instead of no meat at all.
As Peter Singer said, believing that only human lives are sacred is medieval thinking. You cannot claim to be moral and ethical while slaughtering goats in front of God or Allah while advocating for cows and pigs. You cannot. If you do, there are only two possible reasons for being: your religion does not consider a goat's life and a cow's life equal, or God is indifferent to its followers’ stupidity and irrationality.
At the end of the day, it is not my business what you choose to eat, but remember that you are acting immorally. “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.” “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” “We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.” – Peter Singer.
