Culture: a matter of likes and dislikes.

Many practices, norms and rules of the present day have been defended on the grounds that a particular practice is held logical, because it’s a part of culture. What is culture?

Culture is a way of life. When two or more individuals adopt same kind of likings and dislikings in respect to music, taste, dressing, eating, thought process, we come to define it as culture. It’s a shared way of living. For instance if two people think that drinking is a sin then it becomes a part of their thinking which forms a particular culture, this is given acceptance and carried on from generation to generation and becomes a tradition on the same hand.

Is there something wrong about a particular culture. Well my logic says a big NO. We can’t hold a particular culture as intelligible or unintelligible because it’s not accepted by people at large. People have different identities and there identities can’t be modified in one single way. Just because a particular culture is in majority it can’t be acceptable to everyone. Culture becomes binding when it’s being imposed on individuals even when they don’t want to be a part of it. Many evil practices are defined as culture which is surely a misinterpretation (like honor killings).

But the question that we ask if all cultures are right in their own way then how can we prevent bad practices in society. For instance- hippies consume drugs as a part of their culture which is a crime, not for them but for the society. Where should we draw lines between good and bad practices. Well following are some of the points that must be considered-

· All cultures must hold some shared understanding of good or bad as this will create cooperative society.

· People should not impose a cultural practice on others.

· Culture should be a blend of modernity and traditions.

· It should be able to transcend itself with time.

· People should make culture a matter of principle but not a matter of rule.

· Practices which are unlawful (like consuming drugs) should be not be a part of any culture.

If these things are taken into consideration then we can hope to have a society where these heterogeneous cultures live in unity to form an ideal society. Where even conflicts can be easily resolved on a shared understanding.

Gandhi and Churchill

After reading this book review in TOI on the book by Richard Toye Henry Holt named “Churchill’s Empire: The World that made him and the world he made”, I got back to Gandhi’s work Hind Swaraj. I have not read the book on Winston Churchill. But I know for sure that Winston Churchill disliked Gandhi and Gandhi never disliked anyone.

"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the vice regal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."- Winston Churchill, 1930.

His views on India as highlighted in the article were-

India is a Godless land of snobs and bores-1896.

India is a geographical term it is no more a united nation that the equator-1931

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion-1942

Nobody of us would like these comments. So let me take you back to Gandhi what he offered us from his work. Gandhi very captivatingly pointed out that if India was not united and Indians did not have the sense of belongingness then British couldn’t divide India. As only UNITY can be broken and notDISUNITY. India was united that is why British could split us. For him unity was never a political unity but unity of hearts.

Therefore religion played a positive role for him. He said that every religion would teach the people the path of friendship with others . Gandhi questions whether Hindus and Muslims were always at war with each or whether this difference evolvedwith their arrival. Only the evils of western civilization brought in the difference.

Gandhi never loathed anyone but Winston Churchill did. And that makes him different and the epitome of peace and non-violence. Respect what he offered us by giving enlightenment to our thoughts. I don’t fully agree with Gandhi on civilization but a blend of modernity and traditionalism, both can bring development while keeping our culture intact.

Murder in the name of HONOR is no HONOR.

A series of honour killings graped the country this year bringing deep insights into the civil society. Young boys and girls were brutally murdered by their family members to protect the reputation of the family or community in parts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and New Delhi. More then 1000 killings have been done in the name of honour killing. There are special reports on this sitehttp://www.honourkilling.in/.

Even as the civil society fails to do anything about this crime the Human Rights Commission has raised voice over this issue. The propagators of such acts, the unofficial village councils, called the Khap Panchayats condemn marrying outside caste and religion and now even within same kinship (gotra), even when there is no biological connection between the latter.

In recent times, feminist activism has been pushing the states to take steps to address the issue. In response, Khap panchayats are claiming legitimacy over honour killings in defense of “our culture”.

Can Haryanvi or Western U.P culture be protected by honour killings. If so is the case then the first the priority of every state must be to protect our pride, which has been brought down due to corruption. Why don’t people raise their voice and kill the people in return who commit female infanticide. Why on such issues our culture isn’t threatened? What a contrast we see in our culture and polity. At one instance we talk about development in every possible field and on the other we such issues where minds fail to develop.

Under pressure from Human Rights watch to frame laws against the killings, the Indian Government has proposed amendments in the Indian Penal Code to ensure that individuals issuing diktats (harsh or authoritative statements) against couples can be charged with murder.

The political class of our country must not overlook this heinous crime and must address the issue with the Khap panchayats and must ask them to address issues of more importance like lack of inheritance among women, gender equations (which is a matter of concern in both Punjab and Haryana) and female foeticide .