Should we continue with the old traditions indiscriminately?

There are so many traditions we keep on following in our communities just out of respect for our ancestors even if we very well know in our heart that they do not resonate well any more.

We forget that such traditions had been set by our ancestors keeping in mind the conditions in which they were constrained to live but we don’t live under same constraints any more.

So we should change our traditions with time without giving in out of emotional attachment to such traditions giving due thought to the changes that have taken place in our societal setup.

For sure, we are not living under the same environs in which they had been living.

Let me take a typical case of one of such traditions to explain what I am hinting at by such an assertion.

What our ancestors may have handed down to us may have been pertinent in the past during their lifetime as the system of all women setting themselves ablaze in India may have been pertinent during their time so that the invaders could not have molested them or may have demoralised them if they lost in war to them. So, this practice had become more or less the order of the day during their time.

This custom was known as Jauhar or Sati in the past under which thousands of women used to immolate themselves. But this custom had been legally banned in the year 1829.

So actually we should keep on reviewing what practices do not resonate well now and should try to discontinue such practices as may not resonate well any more.

We should not think it necessary to continue with them even if they do not resonate well with time.

Let us look at the custom of matching horoscopes, for instance, followed in certain sections of the Indian community prior to marriage. This practice is based on the belief in the sanctity of “Astrology”.

Checking the Sanctity of Astrology

Just imagine whether all the people who die in a stampede or in riots or in a war may ever have born under such stars that would justify their death in a stampede, in a riot or in a war?

Do you think, all the people who had been incarcerated in the concentration camps during the regime of Adolf Hitler should have been incarcerated because they should have born under such stars as should have led them to have been incarcerated so inhumanly in the concentration camps as they had been incarcerated?

The same is true of the people who die in the rail accidents due to a derailment.

Or think of the people who had boarded the Cruiser “Titan” on its maiden cruise that had struck against some iceberg and had lost their life. Is it at all possible that all of them may have had identical Natal Charts?

If you believe, not – do you think we should attach any sanctity to astrology in our life?

Should we not debunk astrology – altogether?

I have given this analogy only to impress upon you – why we should, better, exercise our own judgement instead of having blind faith in everything that has been handed down to us by our ancestors.

Another such thing is “religion”.

Checking the Sanctity of Religions 

Three foremost religions are Christianity, Islam and the Hindu religion.

People, nowadays, have realized that all is not well with all of them.

For instance, in Hinduism, the followers of Kali Maa believe in sacrificing a goat to the deity to propitiate her.

In Islam also, they celebrate their festival Bakrid by sacrificing goats en mass not minding how horrible sight it gives when we look at the raw blood flowing even on the roads here and here, as may be seen in the following picture which shows a Bangladeshi girl walking on a floor – profusely stained with blood on the occasion of Eid al-Adha festival in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

 

The ghastly sight presented by this picture obviously, calls for us to see – what is right and what is wrong and make our own choice instead of following our rituals blindly.

The same way, the Muslims should bring in a change in the system of disowning their wives simply by uttering “Talaq” three times in a go or the system of “Halala Marriage”, instead of dragging their feet in an insensitive manner.

Likewise, the way Hindus have discontinued the practice of letting their women get burnt they should also think – it is also not fair that they hoard arms to kill the infidels as has been written in their holy book, “Quran” in verse 8:60.

Quran expects Muslims to treat those who believe in anyone other than Allah as “Infidels” much the same way as the Bible expects the Christians to treat those who don’t go to the Church as Infidels.

But mind you – the Bible does not tell the Christians to maim or kill the Infidels.

Just think, how can we call such a religion a religion that exhorts you to kill anyone?

Two things most said about the God, are:

First – He is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

Second – It is He who should have created the universe.

If He is “omnipresent”, why do we have to go to a temple or to a church or to a mosque to worship Him?

Well, Hindus have a reason for it.

They tell that, in the past, temples used to be built at a place where it was observed to have some special type of magnetic waves coming out of the earth – though nowadays, people have started building temples just anywhere, wherever they get free space to build a temple.

So, if anybody who sat at such a place in a temple even for a few minutes could have got unusual relief in his mind from the mental turmoil he may have been passing through, at such a time.

Good or bad, they did not allow Shudras (people who were engaged on such tasks as lifting the night soil from the toilets etcetera, those days) to enter the temples so that they did not get desecrated.

But, as we know, it is not so in the case of the churches and the mosques.

The bottom line

In the past, nobody could have changed his religion.

Everybody was supposed to essentially adopt the religion of his parents only.

Inter-religion marriages were also not on a go.

It was as difficult to have changed one’s religion as it was to have changed his nationality.

But as we know – nowadays, we can just permanently repatriate to a country to become its citizen.

The point is – if we can change our nationality, why it should not be possible for us to embrace a religion of our choice as well, instead of having to follow our ancestral religion for the whole of our life?

This ideology stems out of the fact that everything of every religion is not, necessarily, the best.

It would be, therefore, better if it becomes possible to exchange our religion the way we can exchange our currencies, abroad. 

For instance, if some Christian may like to adopt the Hindu religion, he may be allowed to do so if he finds out some Hindu who may be willing to adopt Christianity as his religion or vice versa.

The same way if some Muslim may like to adopt Christianity, he may be allowed to do so if he finds out some Christian who may be willing to adopt Islam as his religion or vice versa.

It should be left to an individual to decide which religion he wants to follow or does not want to follow.