Genes Vs Jeans : Are moving backwards?

Short introduction of the terms I used here:



Genes: What we have in us? An example would be thoughts which we carry forward through influence.



Jeans: What we should be? An example would be our 'own' thoughts, say genuine thoughts. For all those thoughts which have a reason. That is our generation !



I would like to compare thoughts which we carry forward without knowing the reasons and thoughts which we built in ourselves, for which we have a con vincible reason.



Genes: Marry a girl/boy of my own caste/religion?

Jeans: Do we? But why? Do they feel we cannot find people who are loving in other caste/religion?



Genes: No chance to you to select your partner?

Jeans: But why? We are going to spend time with him/her.



Genes: Vote for your own caste/religion party or politician?

Jeans: But why, do they feel they can save us?



Genes: We should take dowry?

Jeans: But why? Do they think we cannot earn?



Genes: We should have favourite actor of our caste/religion?

Jeans: Do we? Do they say there are no other good actors or acting skills are based on caste/religion?



Finally,

Genes: Pray God?

Jeans: But why? They don't have a reason which can convince our generation but do we follow?



There are many things like this for which we don't have a reason and just follow. If someone can give a rational of these things what we do and follow, then it would be valid to follow.

In my life, I have seen many whom I came across with these but could not dare to question. I am not able to question them just because they are so sensitive.

Is there an Indian way of thinking? A book written by Attipat Krishnaswami Ramanujan. Usually, everyone thinks in a 'moral' way when they want to judge between right and wrong. But, truly I believe in 'Indian way of thinking', this is called 'contextual' way. Lets here when it comes to morality, its 'contextual morality'. This may seem a new kind of morality, no its just simple to understand. Most often, for a majority of Indians, an action is right or wrong depending on the context in which that action is situated. So in some contexts it is perfectly all right even to kill your brother. Even the Gita tells you so.

Lets argue upon this.

1. India - Pakistan our outstanding problem. Majority of the Hindus think that its right to attack Pakistan.

2. Inequities of the caste system - It was all right to deprive the upper castes via reservations, never mind that such deprivation is itself immoral.

3. Secularism - Its right to support religion but not right to support caste system. Eg: I am ready to marry any Hindu? but not other religion. Seems to be an example of extreme 'contextual' morality.

This logic really works out if you apply them on oneself. Its really strange.

4. Vegetarianism: Eating chicken, goat/lamb meat but not to eat beaf or pork. I see people who can eat rabbit and many other wild animals but not beaf or pork. If we really go through a more extreme case, we can kill plants but we fight for not killing animals, though both are grown in farms. How is killing animals different from killing plants? But 'contextually' right !

5. Soharabuddin Case: Yes! Narendra Bhai Modi is right in the encounter, but again to think 'contextually' its right.

6. Politics in Caste or vice versa: When it comes to secularism we say BJP is wrong, but its right to follow caste politics in Congress. Don't you think its extreme! I am not aware of other states but this is in Andhra Pradesh.

Like this we can quote hundreds of examples from daily life to Indian affairs. I wish all the best for those who apply this to their personal life.

Conclusion:

I don't want to bore much on such a topic which pose many questions to our self. At the end I would like to request everyone to do for what you have a valid reason for.



- Neti Kalam (Pen of present day)