This ?blind faith? business is getting curiouser and curiouser, and for soft-brained Satiricus harder and harder to comprehend. The partly-progressive dispensation of Maharashtra had cleared a Superstition Bill (that is, a Bill against superstition) in the Legislative Assembly in the last session, but when, the other day, the minister concerned insisted in the Legislative Council that ?it must be passed immediately?, the Opposition simply shouted him down and made him apologise for his dadagiri.
See? It seems to Satiricus that in India that is still Bharat, superstitious forces are still formidable enough to prevent the progressive powers that be from progressing on the path of progress. Now Satiricus, professional ignoramus that he is, learns from learned lexicographers that a superstition can be a practice, an opinion, or even a religion, that is widely held but is unjustified, even irrational. So is there such a religion in secular India? Of course there is. It is Hinduism. So should Satiricus say this Bill against superstition is actually a Bill against Hindu superstition? Satiricus does not know?but this man Narendra Dabholkar seems to know. He is a leading light of the anti-superstition movement in Maharashtra and has been described by the English-cum-secular media as a ?famous rationalist?.
Now Satiricus happens to know a close relative of this Dabholkar, who once asked him, why do you target only the Hindus? In reply, this rational anti-Hindu could only hum and haw, and then say, let'sfirst do something about our own religion. That was an admirable answer, because it showed that discretion is the better part of rationalist valour. At the same time, does it mean that in the fullness of time Dabholkar would train his rationalist gun on superstitions in Islam and Christianity? The rational gods forbid!
A Pope of historical times may have called Jesus Christ ?a lie?, but for Dabholkar and his righteous rationalists he must remain the truth and nothing but the rational truth. Then again, Satiricus has read a glowing biography of Mohammed which says when Mohammed was born the heavens glowed with a heavenly light. Should Satiricus say this is a silly superstition in view of the fact that he was born in a leading idolatrous family that had the privilege of looking after the Hindu shrine of Kaba and he himself was an idolator till he founded Islam at the age of forty?
Satiricus may say so because he is a communal cuss and an irrational retard, but Dabholkar definitely won?t. Then Satiricus has read a Muslim writing that because the Prophet of Islam was an Arab the language of paradise is Arabic. Is this an arrant lie for a rationalist?or is Dabholkar going to join an Arabic class before booking a ticket to heaven?
And talking about a ticket to heaven, only the other day a Governor of a state in the USA publicly endorsed a Christian preacher'sassertion that anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ is going straight to hell with a one-way ticket. So where does Debholkar want to go?up or down? A ticklish choice, Satiricus would say. If this shining light of secular rationalism (or rational secularism, as the case may be) leaves superstitious Hinduism and embraces rational Islam in a bid for a place in paradise, he becomes a non-Hindu but he still remains a non-Christian, and so must go to a Christian hell.
On the other hand, if he becomes a Christian he becomes a non-Hindu but still remains a non-Muslim, an infidel, and all un-Islamic infidels rot in hell, no? Talking of Christianity, Bernard Shaw said the Bible is a bundle of silly superstitions?like, for instance, the world began a mere five thousand years ago. But did not even a reputed scientist like Stephen Hawking mention it seriously enough to explain it away?
Talking about science, this curious cuss has a curious question?when is a superstition a superstition? To put it differently, when is faith blind? The dictionary assures this illiterate journalist that a superstition is a belief that is unjustified, even irrational. And why is it so? Because science cannot prove it in a lab. In that case it is clear even to a dimwit like yours truly that there is no God because he cannot be proved with an experiment in a lab. But in that case what can Satiricus make of a whole book he read which said the ?New Physics? is virtually a way to God? Then there was Einstein. His mathematical calculations led him to believe in a universe that was so infinitely orderly that he declared, ?God does not play dice.?
With similar and perhaps still more advanced mathematics ancient Hindu cosmologists calculated that Brahma, the Creator God, has a day and night somewhere in the range of 8.4 billion years, and reputed science writer Carl Sagan says, ?It is the only religious tradition on earth which talks about the right time scale? for the age of the universe. But having said all this, the question of questions is, does communal Satiricus have the right to raise such questions? Not in secular India. His belief in superstitious Hinduism automatically disqualifies him from indulging in such presumptuousness. Rather, he should be rational enough to pray??Oh God, if there be a God, forgive me my sins, if there be sins.? But will God forgive? He may?if Satiricus prays in Arabic.
Comments