Letters

During my short exposure as a team member for a UNICEF study on AIDS in rural Kenya, I also questioned the presence of God – yet I never thought I could reach that point in my life. 

When one watches a mother dying while nursing her skeleton baby even though the medication supplied by the finest pharmaceuticals for her battle against AIDS are by her bedside, yet there is no food, one can truly connect with the despair and dichotomy of our world. It is at that point that one can relate to in Mother Theresa’s expression of hopelessness. 

With further research, you will find that most of those who work in these fields experience serious breakdowns, whether they are serving through missions, clinics or non-profits. These human conditions engulf you like a bottomless black hole and challenge your deepest convictions and beliefs.
AZMINE NIMJI
Houston, Texas
 
I AM COMPLETELY NONPLUSSED BY the stir over Paul Courtright’s writings on Ganesha (“Elevating the Sacred, September 2007). What’s the big deal with some unsavory truths about Hindu myths? Why give Courtright, a mere intellectual, so much power? No one can defame any religion least of all Hinduism, known for its age old tolerance of dissent and diversity, despite its purportedly crude pagan roots, and not withstanding the now popularized “Hindu chauvinist” term that Courtright himself uses repeatedly in his essay.

Let Courtright do all the deep, puranic excavation he wants, if it makes him feel right, and let us embrace his dry cerebral thirst for old Hindu texts with true Hindu largesse. For, Courtright knows, yet does not know. True faith and conviction within any religious order comes not from university halls and clever research, but from the hearts of men and women who base their beliefs on their own private testimonials to their personal faith. Given this personal faith, and its immense power on the individual, all such academic intellectualism is redundant. So, we Hindus defer to others, don’t we, and let them have their say, because we are so secure in ours? 

Why not extend the same courtesy to Courtright? If he chose to search what he searched and prove what he predetermined, then we might as well read and take what we will. If bad clergy cannot undermine Catholicism then a well-informed religious scholar on the way to his scholarship can hardly put a smudge on timeless Brahman. So instead of joining in this ruckus let me invite Courtright to a splendid Ganesa festival at our house. I am sure that once he has seen, smelled and tasted first hand all the rasas that Ganesa has to offer he will cast aside his mantle just a bit and get in with the true spirit of any religion, Hinduism no less.
VIDULA JOSHI
Houston, Texas
 

I CONCUR WITH KRISHNAN RAMASWAMY’s article “Invading the Sacred,” (August 2007). Why intellectuals go about spouting falsehood, inciting hatred and polluting innocent minds in the guise of academic freedom is beyond my comprehension. 

However, one must not feel too slighted by Courtright for his negative and biased interpretation of Hinduism. There are many Hindu intellectuals who will be happy to do this for him. I lived in West Bengal for a while where I noticed the pleasure that the educated communists took in denigrating Hinduism. Even here in U.S., I have heard children of Hindu priests describe Hinduism as “a religion of agarbattis” or a “mumbo-jumbo religion.” 

I wish Krishnan had explained what he meant by saying that America is a deeply religious land. What beliefs and activities constitute religion can be endlessly debated. Hinduism is an old religion, its history is complex and being polytheistic, it is quite difficult for a Western mind that has been nurtured on monotheism to comprehend the many religious symbols, their sacredness and their rightful place in Hindu worship and Hindu way of life. 

Many Christian groups genuinely seek the welfare of people at large, but there are a few well-organized and well-funded missionary groups whose motives might be suspect. The mentality of such missionaries should not surprise us. The powers that be in the West seem to function well when there is an identifiable “enemy” against whom they can direct their tirades. For centuries, the Jews and the Blacks were demonized, labeled as sub-humans and in time, robbed of their wealth, property and dignity. 

This is why the Hindus or for that matter any community should be proactive in projecting a correct image of their history and their identity. The beauty of the U.S. nowadays is that the system allows a community to reinvent itself for the better. 

It took centuries of hardships for both the Jews and the Blacks to overcome the negative image that had been created of them. A sustained constructive effort by concerned Hindus will go a long way in neutralizing the biased images that are being put forth by certain intellectuals.
JAWAHARLAL PRASAD
Webster, Texas
 
SUDHIR KAKAR’S ARTICLE “MARRIAGE: Is Love Necessary?” (June 2007) was terrible. The writer carries on pompously using flowery words, with little recognition that there are many viewpoints among over a billion Indians. Not only is he “stereotyping,” but he is doing so in a way that I think is quite uncharacteristic. While many Indians might share the author’s perspective, they certainly would not be in the majority.

In my view, arranged marriages aren’t mostly about the couple, because in most families in India, life really isn’t about the couple. After marriage, a bride typically lives with the family of the groom. Quite often, she spends more time living and dealing with her in-laws and relatively little time with the groom on a daily basis. This is very different than a typical arrangement in the West, where the couple most often live by themselves.

All the things people in the West obsess over when looking for a mate are less relevant in a situation where you don’t see your husband or wife all that often and when you do, it’s mostly in a group setting and rarely alone.

Bollywood focuses on love marriages, because they’re fun drama, but that is just not all that practical in real life. Romantic love is nice, but it’s only one aspect of life. For a typical Indian couple, it’s an even smaller part of practical life.

Marriage completely shapes most brides’ economic situation and life and not just in the cultural and emotional sectors. I think arranged marriage is just a more prudent way for Indians (given their lifestyle and family structures) to approach life.

I think it’s hard for us who are raised in the West to understand this, especially because it is so easy for us to make a basic living. In most of the world, and not just among those who are poor, survival is a much different thing. Even if you make enough in money, life is difficult. Having resources, respect, clout, status, these are all necessary for survival and advancement.

Despite this, many upwardly mobile families are paying more attention to the importance of a couple’s time to bond in their early years. Many parents respect that, which the article doesn’t acknowledge.

Bollywood allows people to fantasize about one aspect of life, because it provides entertainment and lightness. In reality most people’s lives are filled with economic challenges and heaviness. Perhaps Hollywood offers action and violence for people who suffer from too much structure, routine and boredom.

Couples in arranged marriages often make the best of the situation they have; many of them even fall in love. I just see arranged marriage as more applicable to a certain lifestyle.
ANONYMOUS
Via email
 
I HAVE LIVED IN THE U.S. FOR OVER 34 years and am very impressed with your monthly magazine. It covers various subjects with an authenticity and depth that is commendable. The August issue brought light on subjects like fair skin, homosexuality, cricket and Sonu Niiggam, etc. I am in my 70s and living in the U.S. I am proud of being an American, but I also respect my roots in India.

I personally feel people in India still look for fairer complexion when it comes to marriage, although of course there are exceptions. But ultimately it is how one dresses, behaves, and their intellect, which makes one attractive. When I visit India, I admire the Maharashtrian women who wear simple sarees, but look very attractive because of their choice of colors, etc. Watch them getting off the trains in Churchgate Station every morning. I also liked the article on Sonu Niggamm and his bout with Subhash Jha. Having studied in college in Chennai in the 1950s, I have seen homosexuality in the hostels and used to laugh it off, but society then just concealed the subject. Your articles on some of the distinguished Indians whom you never hear about are very commendable. I salute Little India in its endeavors to open our eyes to reality in the world.
KENNETH MENEN
Houston, TX.
 
RIKKI MASSAND IN HIS ARTICLE “DAMN Cricket,” (July 2007), expressed the feelings of millions of sportsmen and sports lovers. I am now 72-years-old, but in my youth I was a very active sportsman. I played hockey, football and volleyball for Punjab University and also represented India in the Asian Athletics in Singapore and Hong Kong under the leadership of Milkha Singh, “the flying Sikh.”

I know that cricket mania is promoted by big business for its commercial value and the TV industry. Prior to 1980, cricket was not as popular, because there was little TV coverage. Hockey, football, volleyball, athletics and wrestling, all Olympics sports were popular. Regular tournaments attracted large crowds. 

The flow of money into cricket and the media obsession adversely affected these sports. It is the reason we never won a single Olympic medal, which is shameful.

Cricket was adopted from the British and is not an indigenous sport. They passed it on to Maharajas and bureaucrats, who were better known for gambling and drinking on the field than playing the sport.

Former Indian cricket captain Kapil Dev once wrote that cricket is not just a game, but an industry. He is right. There is big money and glamour for cricketers. By contrast, how humble was the life of legendary sports heroes, like Dhayan Chand, Balbir Singh, Milkha Singh, Chandgi Ram and many others who brought glory to India in international sports.

Cricket is a slow game. It lacks the three mottos of the Olympics: fastest, strongest, and highest. It is akin to the rural game of Gooli Danda, with similar rules. It is mostly played in the countries that were part of the British commonwealth. Leading sports countries, like USA, Russia, China, Germany, Canada, France, etc. do not play it. The sport also hurts the Indian economy. We cannot afford the economic and educational loss of the time millions of workers and students spend watching the game for days on end.

Massand is not alone in his assessment that cricket is harming the sports community and the the country. I hope many other intelligent and sports loving people will step forward to help nudge Indian sports in the right direction.
RAJ KISHAN 
Iselin, NJ