My blog

Tag: benefits

  • Are you a Hindu Atheist? God have mercy on you

    Are you a Hindu Atheist? God have mercy on you

    With the rise of atheists in secular societies, an important question is: should atheists read theology?

    If you are a knowledge seeker, but have intentionally shunted out reading of theology due to being an atheist, I would definitely recommend reviewing such a decision. I’ve seen voracious readers say, “I’ve read so many books, what’s next? There are no more good books in my wish list, but don’t recommend theology because I am an atheist.” Read it; you will thank me later. It is analogous to travelling the world to get more perspectives. Just like travelling to Vietnam doesn’t make you Vietnamese, reading theology does not make you religious. In fact, if you are into the study of patterns, you will like these concepts. It will definitely feel like taking the brain to the gym, and it will positively impact your performance in other walks of life.

    I don’t believe in one “personal god”, so that makes me an atheist, but I still believe that the “idea of religion” is a worthy human pursuit. When humans encountered things that were deterministic, they put them in science books, and when they encountered something abstract and philosophical, they put it in theological books. Every civilization has tried to approach this question of existence in its own way and in that process they “figured out” something and penned down their thoughts in such a way that the benefits of that high philosophy could trickle down to the masses without having to do deep study, hence the regimented prayer timings and other ceremonies. Religion is a culture’s answer to the philosophical questions that man faces. It’s literally an encyclopedia written by our ancestors while trying to juggle with the nature of existence. In that sense, I would give some credit to every religion for attempting to explain it in its own way. In addition to the metaphysical aspects, the Abrahamic religions have a political aspect of materialistic self-preservation and propagation that makes these religions lethal towards other groups, unlike Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, which are pure theologies and have pure philosophy (Shruti) and separated political aspects, like in Chanakya Neeti and Manu Smriti. What makes Hinduism even better is that it is a crowdsourced repository of information which keeps getting edited with new data every time our civilization progresses.

    I remember Subramanian Swamy saying Hindus congregate at festivals like Kumbh, but they don’t realize that the real benefit of congregation is to create a sense of unity and show the strength of our civilization, and whatever spiritual benefit you get is just a trickle-down effect. It’s not because the rivers, gods and temples emanate magic that you go there; you go there to represent yourself as a part of a large civilization. One for all and all for one.

    Doval has said, “Old religion used to say, if you don’t believe in God, you are an atheist; new religion says, if you don’t believe in yourself, you are an atheist.” Understand the deeper meaning of this on a practical level. You are an individual, you have individual interests. You are also a part of a group and you have collective interests. The bigger the group, the stronger position it has in any negotiation, the stronger it is, the more dividends it yields for the group, and by proxy, the more dividends trickle down to you as an individual. Even if you are an atheist, your individual interests are intertwined with how well the group does. No matter how loudly you scream that you are an atheist, when you are walking in a Muslim locality, for them, you are just another kafir and you will be given the same treatment that is meted out to other Hindus. In that case, you don’t have a choice of stepping out. Now that you are sure that you will anyway be made to pay the price of being part of a group, then why not make sure you also gain the dividends of being a part of that group? The group becomes stronger when you are a part of it, and you become stronger when you are a part of the group; this might in fact reduce the chances of you facing attrition in the first place. Being an atheist is the worst bargain you can make for yourself. You get all the cons of being a kafir and no pros. No matter whether you are atheist or not, you have to foot the bill. If you are a practical atheist who believes in hard logic, then I hope you see how bad this logic of atheism is. When you say that you are an atheist, you aren’t really signing yourself out of the group, you are only signing out of the benefits of the group.

    Even if you don’t want to go to temples and chant prayers, go to Kumbh, Akshardham, Jagannath Puri and witness your civilization alive and ticking. Don’t chant mantras but do read high philosophy. It will definitely make you a better person. Don’t confuse deterministic science with indeterminate philosophy. When existential crisis hits, even the best of scientists commit suicide. Both science and philosophy have a place in Hinduism. You need both to live a wholesome life. Atheism is for those Abrahamic religions which have a history of persecution of scientists by the Church and clergy. Hinduism never antagonized science; it has always assimilated it.

    Image Source:
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/thumbnails/atheism_big.png

  • Who should pay for your pregnancy?

    Who should pay for your pregnancy?

    Motherhood is one of the biggest and most wonderful gifts of nature to women. But in the modern economy, when women are increasingly joining the workforce, it has taken a backstage and has become only one aspect of the multifaceted lifestyle of a modern woman. Even after the advance of modern medicine, women still have to take considerable time off from work to fulfil their motherhood duties. So in such a situation, the question arises: who should pay for the cost of motherhood, or pregnancy to be precise?

    There is a story doing the rounds in the media where a girl was fired from her job when she asked for leave on medical grounds over and above the maternity leave that she had planned, due to complications during her pregnancy. It is a delicate issue and many people will react emotionally without looking at the whole picture. It is an expected reaction as traditional Indians still associate high value with motherhood, although it is increasingly disparaged as a worthless exercise by liberals.

    It is a very broad topic of discussion and has a very profound impact on the future of the nation, so it is essential to distil the case down to who benefits from a new child. Only when we know who is the ultimate beneficiary can we decide who should bear the cost of pregnancy.

    The decision to have a child is a private decision. Given how parents these days plan the time and number of children they want to have, it is almost a no-brainer to associate this decision with the parents. Since couples decide to have or not have a child, it means they are the sole beneficiaries from this decision, at least when they make the decision. Although a nation benefits from having a young population, most couples do not take it into account when making this decision. Since they hardly think of the nation or society during this decision-making, we will ignore this issue until the end before briefly touching on the ramifications.

    So, if a decision accrues private benefits, who should pay the cost? It is very simple if the case were made for buying a sports car. One does not ask his or her employer to gift them a sports car if he or she likes the car. Also, the employer gains no benefit from the employee having a sports car. A happy employee working hard is a side benefit, but there is no direct relation. Similarly, couples usually do not ask their employers if and when they can have a child, nor do employers gain any private benefit from their employees having children.

    This implies that the decision to have a child is a private decision and parents should take this into account before going forward with it. If this requires a woman to be out of work for a long and significant amount of time, it is not the duty of the firm to pay for her maternity leave while she does not work for the firm. There are two intertwined issues at play here which are often ignored. Firstly, small firms do not have enough working capital and often scrape through with their daily payments. The increased cost of an unproductive employee, if a pregnant woman takes maternity leave for three months, makes it difficult for many firms to survive. Also, it is morally wrong to expect the firm to pay for a private decision of its employee. Of course, if the firm is happy to pay for the pregnancy of its female employees, it should do it, but it cannot or should not be enforced by the state. Secondly, if the state decides to enforce compulsory maternity leave with benefits, it leads to the next problem, which is discrimination. If a small firm knows that its female employee will become pregnant and thus become unproductive for the firm in the future and it cannot fire her, the firm will just stop hiring young females. So the idea to correct one problem will lead to another problem.

    Since the Indian economy still depends significantly on the contribution of small and marginal firms, transferring the cost of the private decision of having a child onto the firm will have very bad consequences for the growth of new and young firms. But this also opens questions of discrimination in social policy. What about women who do not work and are stay-at-home mothers? Or women who work in contractual or small jobs, where firms are not forced to pay for maternity leave? The last set of women will not get the benefit of transferring the cost of their private decisions onto anyone else. So from a fairness perspective, why should a small section of middle-class women get subsidized by private firms for getting pregnant, while poorer women, also more vulnerable and needy, who work in the unorganized sector or don’t work at all, do not get any benefits?

    So who should bear the cost of having children? The cost of bearing children has been borne by the family throughout history and that is how it should be. The parents bear the future cost of bringing up their children, so why should it be different during the pregnancy period? Of course, firms can allow women to rejoin the workforce once they have fulfilled their maternal duties, but it is unfair to expect them to foot the bill for private decisions of individuals. It is daylight robbery if the state relinquishes its duty and passes on the tax to firms for its moral obligations.

    This brings us to the last point in this debate. While individuals and parents usually ignore the public benefits of having children, the state can very well understand such benefits. Not only does a young generation keep a healthy demographic and contribute future taxpayers, but new people also contribute new ideas. Parents might not always recognize this value, but a nation values future citizens. This is the reason that although feminists lambast motherhood in the West, their governments still try to subsidize maternity. Some countries like France, which pay high maternity benefits, have been able to maintain decent demography despite their young women increasingly trying to opt out of motherhood. But India is not a rich country and can hardly afford the cost of such benefits when it cannot even feed everyone. So, what is the way forward? India should inculcate the value of the family system in its citizens and shut down the propaganda against a big population, as most Indian states are already below replacement-level fertility, i.e. 2.1 children per woman. Putting emphasis on the family system will allow women to take help not only from their husbands but also from extended family during times of maternity, thus decreasing economic and emotional pressure. On top of that, government should decrease the cost of raising children by spending money on building healthcare infrastructure and repealing laws like RTE which have increased the cost of education, thus increasing the cost of having children. But before that, government should stop burdening young firms which are the growth engine of the economy and are needed for generating future jobs and income.