A Non Conformer is not always the Enemy

It is very satisfying and fulfilling to take the moral high ground and proclaim that the level of freedom in a country is a direct consequence of the amount of ‘security’ enjoyed by the minorities. Fact of the matter is that there are too many minorities to be satisfied according to their own definitions of ‘security’ and hence this equation is inadequate. A country can be considered ‘free’ if it is able to accommodate minorities through either compromise or, in some instances, reform whilst still maintaining its foundational framework.

To grant all the wants of the minority is to ensure the destruction of a country. A minority will only feel secure if they are able to essentially do whatever they desire. This in their opinion will allow them to be free however it is obvious that this could in fact endanger the freedom of another group. If this level of ‘security’ were granted to each minority group within a society, a society and hence a state or country will no longer exist. Therefore, although it may seem morally correct to allow minorities to practice their definition of freedom, it only redefines the current way of life of a country to align with the beliefs of a minority. This is impractical.

At the same time, the majority must not ardently adhere to their system of beliefs and practices, ignorant of the existence and needs of the minorities. A majority must respect its minorities firstly because they live together and therefore to ensure some social harmony. The majority defines a framework within which everyone must live in but these boundaries must also be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the minority. That is, the needs of the minorities must be placed in context with the current system of the majority and then assessed in terms of its suitability. For example, voting is compulsory in Australia yet people may be engaged in religious activities on election day. This society has come to a compromise by allowing such people to place a postal vote. Here a compromise is reached so that both the needs of the minority and the rest are satisfies.

Nevertheless, a minority can truly be called ‘free’ if they have a say in how these boundaries are established. Surely it is practical to reach a compromise in most issues however they are still based upon the beliefs and practices of the majority. When a society is open to both legal and moral reform based upon need and the security of that society, then and only then can it be labelled as free. A strong society will know what it needs and is therefore also strong enough to know when certain aspects of its functional policies need to be changed. That is, the people of that country can recognise when certain needs of the minority need to be officially accepted and also when they need to be totally rejected. Allowing reform at this level not only creates social harmony but also political and, in some cases, economic balance.

Therefore, granting every single need of each and every minority with the morally inclined hope gaining the title of a free country is an impractical approach. Rather, a country needs to be firm in how it defines itself but at the same time accommodating so that it can accept certain minorities and their practices. This type of concession can only be practical if such a state allows the possibility of reform to accommodate what it deems as necessary changes whilst at the same time strongly upholding its foundational principles.

Human Weakness and the System of Faith

One thing that I find most irritating is when people tell me that my beliefs are wrong. For example, we would often come across the instance where we believe that our youth is a time to have fun and experience new things whereas our parents believe that we should just study. This often leads to much distress as we struggle to convince our elders that going out and socializing is essential to ensure fruitful and productive study. Or perhaps we study too much and our parents believe that we should get out more. Whatever the belief, a conflict between the two defeats the purpose of holding a belief and thereby living by it. That is, our belief might be “having fun” but we spend a lot of time defending that belief rather than living it.

In a religious sense, this is what most people do when it comes to religious philosophy. Hinduism is rich in ancient and modern sources of knowledge and therefore numerous commentaries of various interpretations of those texts. Furthermore, Hindus are numerous in number and therefore there are many who follow one of the many paths that this religion has to offer. There are extremists that insist that a certain path will lead to salvation and there are generalists who would follow any path to avoid any sort of commitment. Even so, there are also atheists who don’t care for religion. The major conflicts that arise are when two people with differing thoughts try to impose their beliefs on one another.

Hinduism is plagued by this disease. People try to convince, perhaps even convert another into their line of thinking. Suppose one has the stomach and intellect to defend his own claims. Chances are that he or she may be excluded from certain social circles.

At a recent festival we had just finished celebrating the birthday of a certain deity. It was cleanup time and everyone was eager to help pack up and tidy the hall that we were using. I went up to the altar to pack away the puja items. The offerings were placed in one container, the pictures in another. Then I turned to extinguish the lamp. As soon as I had done so, there was a big gasp from a couple of those who were helping. Apparently, it is bad to turn out a diya (lamp) without letting it to burn out completely. Why I asked? That’s just the way things are. On top of this, apart from a couple of ‘death stares’, one individual even said that I was cursed and the deepest abscesses of hell were reserved for me.

I was now genuinely worried. As crazy as it might sound, I really did feel that I was going to hell. I talked to a couple of people and spent much time thinking of the matter and soon I realized that such notions of religion are mindless and in some ways time wasting. Religion is not about wondering whether turning the lamp out or leaving it to burn is the ‘proper’ method. That day, we were celebrating the birth of a deity. The purpose was to use that time as an opportunity to reflect on how we could improve ourselves and live our beliefs. If the day is reduced to just bickering over little rituals, the whole purpose is lost.

Perhaps we tend to regress into such antics because by finding others who think like us, the more reason there is to confirm our beliefs. Perhaps this is one way of following a religion. But we all must realize that our way is not the only way.