Indians know Oct 2nd as “Gandhi Jayanti.” Most Indians celebrate Gandhi as the one who is responsible for India’s independence from the British Raj. That’s patently false but being false has never deterred the ignorant. Most people — not just Indians — are ignorant anyway.
Gandhi was a monster. I have wasted a lot of time arguing why. Here are a few of my previous posts on Gandhi. Indians should be told who the man actually was. This one is not about Gandhi.
This post is about two of my favorite musicians who were born on Oct 2nd: Don McLean in 1945, and Sting in 1951.
To celebrate those two singers, here are two of their songs. First the 1971 super-hit song by Don McLean.
Having heard the song hundreds of times when I was on college, I know the lyrics by heart. Here’s a sample of the lyrics:
When the jester sang for the king and queen
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and me
Oh, and while the king was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned
And while Lennon read a book on Marx
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died
Lots of people have written about the meaning of that mega-hit song. It’s been called the “song of the century.” Here’s a nice piece by the BBC: What do American Pie’s lyrics mean? McLean says that to him it meant that he’d never have to work again.😄
Now a song by Sting.
. . . nothing comes from violence
And nothing ever could
For all those born beneath an angry star
Lest we forget how fragile we are
On and on the rain will fall
Like tears from a star like tears from a star
On and on the rain will say
How fragile we are how fragile we are
It’s been a while since I had an ask me anything. So what’s on your mind?
Life is a Random Draw 
Hi Atanu,
Human rights are rights of human beings like life, liberty, speech, and freedom of expression. Animal rights are the rights of animals like the right to not be treated brutally/violently.
But property rights are different, in the sense that they are not rights of the property. Property is a non-living thing, it cannot have any rights. Property rights are rights that humans have over property.
The Indian legal system recognizes something called deity rights – https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1199-rights-of-a-deity.html#:~:text=No%20fundamental%20or%20constitutional%20rights&text=However%2C%20the%20Court%20ruled%20the,any%20fundamental%20or%20constitutional%20right.&text=To%20conclude%2C%20it%20can%20be,’Legal%20%2F%20Juristic%20Person’.
There are many temples where the owner is the presiding deity of the temple and the Indian courts recognize this. The temple could be controlled by the government and administered by the temple devotees, but it can still be considered as being owned by the temple deity.
For example, in the Ayodhya case, Ramlalla Virajman was recognized as a party to the title suit – https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ayodhya-title-suit-lord-ram-the-lord-as-a-juristic-person-what-legal-rights-do-deities-enjoy-6052442/
In the Sabarimala case, the justice said that though deities are valid juristic persons who can own properties, can sue and be sued, they do not have constitutional rights – https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-deity-does-not-have-constitutional-rights-justice-chandrachud/article25074235.ece
This recognition of deity rights in the Indian legal system is a nod to the Hindu religious belief that once a deity has been consecrated in a temple, it is no longer just a statue, but there is divinity and life imbued into it – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana_Pratishtha
Do you think deity rights should be recognized in India? Don’t you think any piece of property, temple or otherwise, should have a human being as the owner? In a country like India, where the property rights of human beings are on such shaky grounds, does it make sense to allow non-living beings to own property?
LikeLike
I have written about property rights before.
Source: Human Rights are Property Rights.
I did not know about “deity rights”. Now that I know, it seems stupid to me. It makes no sense. A temple is property and therefore whoever (a person or a collective) owns it, gets to determine the property’s disposition.
I like simplicity. It is important to figure out a set of guiding principles and then follow them. The guiding principles have to be worked out seriously, and they should be a set that is as internally consistent and complete as humanly possible. No need to bring additional ad hoc complications.
LikeLike
Hello,
In this constitution that you wrote up here – https://deeshaasite.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/constitution-for-a-free-india-v0-2-1.pdf
In Article 7.5 – What are public religious funds? Can you give a couple of examples? Why are they prohibited from giving to charity?
In Article 7.6 – Why are domestic missionary activities prohibited? Doesn’t it violate Article 5a? If a community group with its own fund says, I will give you money but you need to convert to X religion, what is wrong with that?
In Article 7.7 – Why can’t foreign assistance be allowed in the case of war casualties( like in Ukraine) or in case of domestic strife( like a communal riot)?
LikeLike
Mr Joe Blow of San Jose, CA, sending money to a church in India for use in conversion, is private religious funds. The Church of the Blessed Mary of Newark, NJ, sending money to a church in India for use in conversion, is public religious funds. The distinction is between private individuals and institutions.
Why are domestic missionary activities prohibited? It is because of the harm they do to the social fabric. Missionary activity has caused great harm in the past. Think of all the money that flows from the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to mosques and madrassas in India. It funds Islamic terrorism.
Foreign money is involved in funding communal riots in the first place. Communal riots are a way to destabilize a country which is in any case primed for communal riots. Want more of that? Allow Pakistani and Saudi Arabian money to fuel the flames.
LikeLike
This seems like a consequentialist argument. If an Indian citizen( not any entity from a foreign country) comes forward and says he will give money, free school, free healthcare, etc. if the beneficiary converts to some XYZ religion, then what is wrong with that?
Evangelical and missionary activity can get aggressive and I am not saying there is no potential for the social fabric to be harmed. If there is force or coercion then it can be stopped. But I am trying to see this from a deontological perspective. If two people are engaged in a voluntary transaction where one person gives money, the other receives it, and in return changes his religion to the benefactor’s religion, then why should the government or any third person intervene? How is it their business?
LikeLike