It is the dialogue which is constantly used in TV shows and movies. Truth alone shall Triumph but the truth is that several times is seen that the lies triumph and the victims suffer. There are many dead bodies buried under the dirt of lies. The powerful Triumph that is also a reality. Sometimes we prefer to live in lies because lies are convenient. Sometimes discovery of the truth is expensive. This line Satyameva Jayete is taken out of context.
The truth shall continue to exist whether you believe in it or not.
What is the truth? After the transfer of power in 1947, a committee was formed to draft the constitution of India. During those times citizens of India were very touchy about religious aspects. We had seen several riots and enough bloodshed to take the matter of belief seriously and to avoid anything that could create a rise in citizens.
The constitution incorporated the right of Religious Freedom. Now the subject is touched, defined and avoided in a very political way. First, the definition of religion is left to the interpretation, no hard definition is defined. Second, if we go through the section which deals with the subject, these topics are defined just to address religion in terms of the law. Not for the existence of religion itself. The subject of understanding religion is avoided. I can not comment on the understanding of individuals of the drafting and reviewing committee of the Indian constitution but in my personal opinion it feels more like the constitution allows people to have “imaginary friends” within the boundary of laws. It allows people to have imaginary friends and they could perform festivities and rituals for their imaginary friends.
Just like any other subject, like science. Religion is to be explored. We are allowed to discover and question any aspect of it but it is preferred that it must be done in a hushed manner because people tend to kill and die for their imaginary friends. An honest person never aims for sensation or debate, such a person just seeks. He only discusses his understanding and thought process around the subject. Even today, we have gatekeepers in the world of science too. Einstein faced resistance from these gatekeepers and we must expect no less while dealing with a subject that is based on adamant faith. The gatekeepers of religion are the most stubborn, if not stupid people around.
I feel that the constitution of India and the makers of the laws are dishonest about the topic of religion. They are desperately trying to distance themselves from religion but instead, their selective ignorance is hindering peoples’ fundamental right to exist. I also question the eligibility of constitution-makers to address the subject. The Indian courts recently discussed the impact of firecrackers of the Deepawali festival on the pollution of Delhi city. Studies were provided by scientific institutes that the impact of three days of the festival was not that severe and also suggested the real culprit was the season and stubble burning. The judges commented that no study is needed to prove that firecrackers cause pollution. Sometimes the “common sense” of gatekeepers superseded the systematic scientific studies. Similarly, the laws which dwell in ambiguous zones could sometimes use “common sense” instead of available research. I have already stated that sometimes the truth is too expensive to afford.
Many people know the length and breadth of the subject. You are free to term it anything, religion, faith, spirituality, way of life, some people know the subject intricately. These people are sidelined and people who deal in subjects like laws and humanities make the decisions for the subjects outside of their understanding. Religious leaders are not the ones to be consulted. They are just like influencers. Just like we have chess experts and chess influencers, similarly the people who understand religion and the domain of god are different from the people who sell the concept of god. The weirdos and the obsessed are the real deal. Ask them what is god, what is religion? Their understanding will pave the way to actual religious harmony.
The constitution formers had the idea of UCC (Uniform Civil Code). One unified law to guide a nation. This will again cause more troubles and issues instead of resolving things. It is currently being considered but I do not know if the actual subject matter experts are being brought in. See again I would say that if the topic of religion is to be handled scientifically instead by “common sense” and belief, otherwise blood shall continue to flow. UCC (Uniform Civil Code) will just end up hurting the “imaginary friends” and in turn, real human friends of imaginary friends will hurt each other. If the laws are ambiguous that law itself is criminal.
I do not care if a person has a belief but to hell with a belief that supercedes my existence. I do not wish to be hurt or die because a person has an imaginary friend. My existence for myself is above any law, god or community.
Truth is never defeated but it could be buried by faith, propaganda, common sense and power. Well, the truth always wins in the end but it is not written anywhere how much time will it take for the truth to win. Generations, cultures and communities have been eliminated awaiting the victory of truth. Today we discuss their truth but they do not exist to experience this victory of the truth. Ask the questions, who is Ram and who is Rahim? Why do we fight on their name, when we haven’t seen either? Offend each other. Discover the truth. Truth is expensive, could you afford it or will you take solace in your convenient lies? Life is deep, I do not expect you to not be afraid but learn to differentiate between truth and belief.