SamnyAsa is not the central point of Vaidika Dharma

For some reason, modern day Hindus are indulging in the tomfoolery of considering samnyAsa as the greatest stage of dharma. They even claim that it is the ‘most profound and exemplary invention’ (used by several so-called Hindu Right friends of mine) of Hindu dharma. These ‘modern Hindu scholars’ are of the opinion that samnyAsa is the central point, the very axis, of Hindu dharma.

The truth is somewhat different. The origin of As’rama system is an interesting study. Brahmacarya is the first and compulsory As’rama. Olivelle feels that initially the As’rama system was one where in the snAtaka (graduate from a Vaidika school) selected an As’rama for his life rather than the sequential life stages that we see now. Olivelle makes a very compulsive argument for this view. It appears to be true that a snAtaka had the choice to select an As’rama. But ancient Vaidika texts themselves seem to show that the selection of one As’rama need not be for life. One could indeed become a gr.hastha and then, a samnyAsin.

Br.hadAran.yaka upanis.ad (2.4 – prathama maitreyii brAhmana) shows that YAjn~avalkya had entered gr.hasthAs’rama and then, entered into samnyAsa. The chapter begins with the r.s.i declaring to Maitreyii (his wife) about his desire to renounce. He says that he will divide the property between Maitreyii and KAtyAyanii (his two wives) before taking to samnyAsa. Hence, we will stick to the traditional interpretation of the various As’ramas being sequential stages (at least since the time of late brAhman.as and early upanis.ad period) though some snAtakas might have taken to samnyAsa directly. Also, just because a few snAtakas selected samnyAsAs’rama immediately after their graduation, it does not mean that the AcAryas were in favor of such action. One must remember that Hindu society had given lot of freedom to the individuals. Buddha and MahAviira were allowed to preach against the Vaidika dharma. Their ideas were opposed philosophically. Similarly, while some people might have practiced taking to samnyAsa directly after their brahmacarya period, it was certainly not a favored practice among the ancient AcAryas.

That some people held that one can enter any of the three As’ramas after becoming a snAtaka is confirmed by Gautama Dharmasutra (3.1) – “tasyAs’ramavikalpam ekebruvate” (eke – some people). But the same text (3.36) states that there is only one valid As’rama as only gr.hastha stage is expressly mentioned by the Vedas (entire Vedic literature from Samhita to Upanis.ad mentions the importance of procreation – thus, gr.hastha As’rama is “the As’rama”).  Similarly, Apastamba Dharma sutra (2-9-21-5) also states that there was a practice where one can choose the As’rama to be followed after becoming a snAtaka. Combining these statements with the legend from Br.hadAran.yaka mentioned above, we may come to a conclusion like this: a snAtaka was able to select any of the As’ramas. But it need not be for life; a gr.hastha may indeed decide to become a yati (ascetic) in his later life. Thus, some students jumped the intervening As’ramas directly to samnyAsa. But it does not mean that one cannot enter gr.hasthAs’rama and then, proceed towards samnyAsa.

All said, the ancient dharmAcAryas were very categorical in stating their preference for gr.hasthAs’rama against others.  Apastamba (2-9-24-1) says that a person achieves amr.tatva (immortality) through his offspring. This sentiment is as old as that of R.g Veda. RV (5-4-10) prays “O Agnii, may I attain immortality through my children”. Apastamba (2-9-24-8) cites PrajApati and confirms that only those who take to procreation of children among other duties are those who are supported by PrajApati. Those who do not follow these duties (thus, anyone who fails to procreate – which can be done only in gr.hasthAs’rama) become dust and get destroyed. TaittirIya upanis.ad (1-11) orders a snAtaka thus: “..prajAtantum mA vyavacchetsIH” – “do not cut off the line of progeny”

Thus, the most important duty of any Hindu is to enter gr.hasthAs’rama. Gr.hasthAs’rama is the central point of Hindu dharma (certainly not samnyAsa). Taking to samnyAsa without fulfilling one’s debt to his ancestors (pitr. r.n.a) is not advised by the ancient AcAryas. Undue importance to asceticism is a characteristic of S’raman.a traditions (Bauddha and Jaina) which is also reflected in Advaita worldview later on (e.g. as.t.Avakra giitA). Advaitins viewed the world as an illusion and as such, they decided to give more importance to world denying asceticism (which is an innovation and not supported by the ancient dharmasutra texts). It is to be remembered that advaita had indeed appropriated some bauddha ideas with its philosophy being a result of combination of Buddhist and upanis.adic ideas (see http://tinyurl.com/bbobj9u). The opinion of the dharmasutra writers is crystal clear. They were not in favor of ascetic traditions being given undue prominence. They were very much against any step taken by a snAtaka to become a samnyAsin without entering the gr.hasthAs’rama. 

Ideal Hero – S’rii RAma and His approach to war

Most of the so-called Hindu right wing love to call the iks.vAku kulabhUs.an.a as an ‘Indian hero’. Some more sensible persons prefer to identify Him as a/the Hindu hero. Both these groups hail rAma and hold him aloft as an ideal hero, an ideal king etc etc.

But as with most other instances, these groups have a ‘vision of rAma’ in their minds and it is not as much based on the text of Adi kavi’s mahAkAvya as on their fertile imagination. Their vision of rAma is that of an ever forgiving benign person who was almost always distressed about bloodshed. The truth is something else. S’rii RAma was indeed the ideal hero and followed the rules of warfare. He offered peace to a powerful enemy (rAvan.a) when he saw that the war will cause terrible devastation. As a king, one of His duties will be to try to avoid any possible causes for social devastation. Yudhis.t.hira and Kr.s.n.a tried for peace for the very same reason. But this preference for peace does not make them ahimsa mongers. While Yudhis.t.hira bemoaned the loss of lives several times in MahAbhArata, S’rii RAma stands as a class apart. The iks.vAku hero’s lapse into such guilt feeling was very rare. The characterization of RAma reaches its pinnacle in His determination to do what he perceives as dharma.

RAma was born into a Ks.atriya royal family. As such, his duty was mainly two-fold: 1. rule his subjects with love and care, 2. Protect the innocent and uphold dharma by punishing the wicked. RAmacandra was especially good in the latter. While the former duty was glorified by MK Gandhi with his eulogizing speeches on rAma rAjya, the doyen of ahimsa preferred to gloss over the latter of the two duties upheld by the rAghava.

Let us take a look at how Adi kavi Valmiiki portrays Him

1. abhiyAtA prahartA (2-1-29) – one who sought out his enemies and destroyed them.

2. gatvA saumitrisahito nAvijityA nivartate – He goes to war with Laks.man.a by His side. And He never returns without winning.

3. When Khara sees RAma in dand.akAran.ya, Adi kavi describes his vision as follows:

“avas.t.abdha dhanum rAmam kruddham ca ripu ghAtinam” (3-25-1)

The angry RAma, destroyer of enemies, was holding his bow. Note the words ‘ripu ghAtinam’ and kruddham. His prowess in destroying His enemies and His anger are very clearly mentioned.

4. ‘bhiima dhanvAnam’ (3-25-7) – One with a ferocious bow (no arms control act there!!)

5. ‘durjayam’ (3-25-7) – Invincible.

6.  “tatho rAma susamkruddho man.dalii kr.ta kArmukha I sasarja nis’itAn bAn.An s’atas’aH atha sahasras’aH II” (3-25-16,17)

On becoming extremely infuriated, RAma bent his bow into a circle and unleashed a torrent of arrows in hundreds, nay, in thousands. (He was not a wimp who cried out his eyes upon killing an enemy. Nor did He feel squeamish about becoming a killing machine on facing His enemies).

This is just the tip of an iceberg. Similar glowing description of RAma’s unyielding anger and invincible prowess in the battlefield is given by VAlmiiki throughout his kAvya.

That such prowess was highly valued by the ks.atrAn.iis is very clear. Upon RAma’s victory over Khara and his army, Vaidehii behaved thus:

“tam dr.s.t.vA s’atruhantAram mahars.iin.Am sukha Avaham I babhUva hr.s.t.A vaidehii bhartAram paris.vaje II” (3.30.39,40)

On seeing her husband, the scorcher of enemies and bringer of happiness to the mahars.i-s, SiitA embraced him with great rejoice. It is to be noted that when RAma tried to dissuade SiitA from following Him to the forest (by saying how the forest is full of dangers and hardships), SiitA reproaches him very harshly with these words:

“kim tvA amanyata vaidehaH pita me mithilA adhipaH I rAma jAmAtaram prApya striyam me purus.a vigraham II” (2.30.3)

She turns RAma’s very words upon Him. By trying to make SiitA afraid of the forest’s dangers and hardships, it seems as if RAma is stating that He is not capable of fighting danger (and hence, a coward and unmanly person). Thus, she says “Hey RAma!! What will my father think of himself about gaining a woman in a man’s body as his son-in-law?” In the aran.ya kAn.da, RAma proves that he is certainly not a woman in a man’s body. He kills the entire army of Khara within seventy two minutes and SiitA is rejoiced by this show of valor from her husband, the mahAvIra. It is worthy to note that BhavabhUti titled his drama on rAmAyan.a story as ‘mahAviira caritam’. S’rI vedAnta des’ika, a polyglot acArya from the south, titled his stotra gadya on RAma as ‘mahAviira vaibhavam’. It is seen that Hindu scholars did view RAma as the mahAvIra par excellence. Even in Bhagavad giitA, Kr.s.n.a says “..rAmaH s’astrabhr.tAmaham” (10-31, I am RAma among those who wield weapons).

Thus, RAma was never hesitant in punishing the wicked. His ability to do the needful in the times of war is well brought out by one incident during the war at LankA. Ramayana 6-75 describes how the vAnara-s burnt down LankA nagara a second time. This was done after Laks.man.a was healed with the herbs brought by HanumAn. While the city was burning, RAma and Laks.man.a brought down the gates of the city. The chapter describes how men and women of LankA suffered due to the scorching fires spreading through the city. It is to be noted that some rules of war do not apply when your enemy is not a follower of dharma. The RAks.asa-s were not bound by dharma and indulged in vices. RAma’s army burned down their city without any hesitancy. The general rule of leaving the civilians alone was not followed in this occasion (after all, the RAks.asa-s never cared to leave enemy civilians unhurt).

Modern day Hindus must learn from their ideal hero. Rather than relying on some imaginary nonsense, they must try to know the truth about RAma and try to follow in His footsteps.

A Hindu view on Gun control

Another shooting in the US, more hysteria from Hindu “right wing” on twitter and the pattern repeats itself.

It is interesting to note that these alleged Hindu “right wing” crowd don’t ever dare question India’s gun control over countless atrocities against Hindus by their Muslim brothers. It is also interesting to note how they selectively ignore countries such as Switzerland with very high gun ownership rates and very little gun crime, perhaps because it pokes holes into their shoddy theories.

They didn’t find it pertinent to ask how 26/11 could have happened if gun control worked. They never ask how well gun control worked out for Hindu Kashmiris or the Bodos.

The truth is that these are no Hindus or right wingers but arm chair liberals living in the safety of America or some other place of safety. They think the masses of Hindus are nincompoops and should be abandoned to their fate if Muslims attack them, in other words Hindus have no right to self defense.

But what do Hindu texts and tradition say about the right to bear arms?

Acharya Medhatithi (9^th century CE) answers this question in his Manubhashya when he points out that a Kshatriya is to live by bearing weapons, but common people are also permitted to bear arms for self protection. In support of this he points out that the king’s arms cannot reach all men, and that there are some wicked men who attack the most valiant of the king’s officers, but are afraid of persons bearing arms.

The Hindu tradition from the earliest times has been that the right to self defense cannot be outsourced to the government and this has always been the practice of Hindu kings. Indeed this is how Hindus survived centuries of Muslim tyranny, the common people being armed would resist the tyranny of Muslims using their weapons.

Let us look at history:

These comprised mainly of two options – to fight with determination as far as possible, but, if resistance proved of no avail, to flee and settle down elsewhere. Medieval Indian society, both urban and agrarian, was to some extent an armed society. In cities and towns the elite carried swords like walking sticks. In villages few men were without at least a spear or bow and arrows, and they were skilled in the use of these arms. In 1632, Peter Mundy actually saw in the present day Kanpur district, “labourers with their guns, swords and bucklers lying by them while they ploughed the ground”.⁷⁰ Similarly, Manucci described how in Akbar’s days the villagers of the Mathura region defended themselves against Mughal revenue-collecting officers: “The women stood behind their husbands with spears and arrows, when the husband had shot off his matchlock, his wife handed him the lance, while she reloaded the matchlock.”⁷¹ The countryside was studded with little forts, some surrounded by nothing more than mud walls, but which nevertheless provided centres of the general tradition of rebellion and agrarian unrest. Armed peasants provided contingents to Baheliyas, Bhadauriyas, Bachgotis, Mandahars and Tomars in the earlier period, to Jats, Marathas and Sikhs in the later.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/tlmr/ch7.htm

So how did weapons control & disarmament of Hindus begin?

It began with Muslim tyrants such as Aurangzeb who issued the following order:

In March 1695, all the Hindus, with the exception of the Rajputs, were forbidden to travel in palkis, or ride on elephants or thorough-bred horses, or to carry arms. (Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, ii, 395; Maasir-i-Alamgiri, 370 and News Letter, 11 December 1694).

http://www.aurangzeb.info/2008/06/exhibit-no_7371.html

Imagine the fate of our ancestors if Hindu rulers had practiced bow control, matchlock control, or sword control. The result would have been enmasse foreskin control of the unarmed population by Muslims.

Now we move forward a few centuries, the British were now the rulers of India and the 1857 rebellion breaks out which shakes British control. How was this rebellion made possible?

By an armed populace of course, Tatya Tope did not do Satyagraha but fired guns against the Christian British tyrants. Unfortunately the rebellion failed but the British had learned their lesson and began a systematic disarmament campaign of Hindus along with suppression of Hindu martial arts. In 1878, Lord Lytton helped pass the “Indian Arms Act” which made it illegal for any Indian to possess arms unless he was considered a loyal subject of the empire. Europeans in India were of course exempted from this act.

Even the ahimsa monger Gandhi had recognized this great crime of the British tyrants & commented:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

— Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

In fact before India’s independence from the British, one of the items on the Congress party platform was lifting the arms control imposed by the British. But the brown sahibs who replaced the gora sahibs thought the average Hindu was an idiot who cannot be allowed to defend himself, the same view held by fake Hindu “right wing” today.

To conclude, these fake Hindus & “right wingers” have more in common with Aurangzeb and the British than with the traditions of our ancestors. If they had been living under Aurangzeb they would have no doubt supported his efforts to disarm Hindus.

These people have no shame or conscience because they know they never have to face the guns of the terrorists as the common people did on 26/11 or Hindu Kashmiris during their ethnic cleansing by Muslims or more recently the Bodos at the hands of illegal Muslims. Many live in the safety of the West or in affluent non-Muslim majority areas in India while demanding that everyday Hindus be made defenceless.

People such as these are more dangerous to the survival of Hindu civilization than any Kasab & every right thinking Hindu should emphatically reject gun control.

Hedonism vs Dharma – Part 1

Hedonism, as a philosophy, gives great importance to the pleasure of an individual. Nothing is more important than pleasure. The aim of life is to enjoy pleasure (and avoid pain completely as much as possible).

Thus, most hedonists are also great supporters of individual freedom. They will support the freedom of an individual to do whatever he/she wants unless it hurts another individual. Traditional morals/ethics do not matter to them.

Ancient India had a school of hedonistic atheism – lokAyata. One branch of it, the niilapat.a (aka niilAmbara) made hedonism the basis of their very existence. The famed tolerance of Hindus towards diverse philosophical traditional found its limit with the niilapat.a doctrine. Jayanta bhat.t.a ad RAjA Bhoja of Dhar made it a point to exterminate this sect. niilapat.as’ belief could be summarized as follows:

“Indulge in coitus with any woman/man you like. Give up social norms (let there be no barriers to pleasure). Drink wine as much as you want. In short, do whatever gives you pleasure.”

Jayanta understood that even faithful wives will be instigated to leave their households as all restraints are rejected by this cult. Family system will cease to exist and with it, the entire society will fall into abyss. The community will cease to exist in a few generations. That is the reason why Jayanta and Bhoja exterminated this cult.

This opposition to unadulterated hedonism is one major reason for the continued survival of Hinduism despite the various onslaughts throughout the centuries. Greek and Roman pagans became extinct as they had taken to hedonistic values. Various civilizations have met their end within a short span of taking to hedonism – the end result of which was undermining the family system (Sumeria, Greece, Rome, Persia). We will take a detailed look at these cultures and how hedonism undermined them in the next post.

sarva dharma samabhAva – an Astika view

sarva dharma samabhAva is much preached by many modern day Hindus as the very essence of Hindu dharma. In a way, it can be stated that sarva dharma samabhAva is a very old concept and was as such practiced to an extent by the ancient Astikas. But there are clear demarcations regarding which religions must be accorded this respect. Not all religions were given this treatment.

Jayanta Bhat.t.a, in his drama ‘Agamad.ambara’, explains the need for a kind of ‘sarva dharma sammAna’ in a society and in the same breath also states that only certain religions can be accorded this respect. After explaining why all religious texts must have their source in Is’vara, he qualifies this statement as follows (Agamad.ambara, caturtha an~kaH):

After the argument made by DhairyarAs’i in favor of considering all religions as divine in origin, DhairyarAs’i is made to state the pUrvapaks.a as follows –

“nanu caivam atiprasan~ga dos.Ad atimAtram bhuvi viplaveta dharmaH

kva nu nAma na s’akyam etad ittham gaditum yAdr.s’a tAdr.s’e (a)pi vAkye”

Translation: But if we follow this, due to the mistake of unwarranted extension of rule, there will be utter confusion about dharma on earth. Tell me a situation where one cannot say that about any religion (literally “just as that, this as well” – thus, resulting in unwarranted extension).

 

DhairyarAs’i answers as follows:

“aviccinnA yes.Am vahati saran.iH sarvaviditA

na yatrAryo lokaH paricayakathAlApavimukhaH

yadis.t.Anus.t.hAnam nakhalu janabAhyam na sabhayam

na rUpam yes.Am ca sphurati navam abhyutthitam iva

pramattagItatvam alaukikatvam AbhAti lobhAdi na yatra mUlam

tatha vidhAnAm ayam AgamAnAm prAmAnyamArgo na tu yatra tatra”

Following are the laks.an.as of the religions which can be accorded the respect:

1. It must have an unbroken line of teachers
2. Aryas (people of noble conduct) are not repulsed by associating with it or discussing its tenets
3. Its cherished practices must not be against social norms nor fearful
4. It must not be entirely too new in form or a just born religion
5. It must not be based on mad ramblings nor must it be too unusual (or even otherworldly – ‘alaukika’ is the word used)
6. It must not be rooted in undesirable gun.as like greed (lobha)

Those religions which do not satisfy the above conditions cannot be validated as acceptable nor accorded the respect of being divine in origin.

We must learn these rules for evaluating any religion. We must read the basic tenets and texts of the religion which is to be judged and arrive at a conclusion based on the rules given above.

We can see that Jayanta Bhat.t.a, the great naiyAyika (logician), has given some simple rules to arrive at a logical conclusion about the validity of any religion. Hindus of the present age must follow Jayanta’s footsteps on this issue.

Abortion – an Astika view

With the unfortunate death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, pro-abortionist camp is in uproar that abortion must be legalized to avoid such disasters. The so-called Hindu-Right in India has mostly supported this pro-abortion call as well. In fact, most of these Hindu-Right people are the result of a combination of liberalism with anti-Islamic terrorism beliefs/some mild pro-Hindu notions. As such, most of them do not have any idea of the traditional Astika position on abortion and the others couldn’t care less (for a section of them wants to create a ‘new India’ based on scientific rationalism combined with ‘Hindu pride’ – but giving up all Hindu morals and practices).

For a change, we will take a clear look at the practice of abortion from an Astika (traditional Hindu) point of view.

Abortion is a great sin and is a forbidden act as per our dharma shastras. But abortion is not forbidden without any exception. Hindu texts rarely take an absolutist stand. When the life of the mother is in danger (due to some complication in pregnancy), abortion is recommended by Hindu texts. Thus, in a society which follows traditional Astika morals, Savita would have been offered an abortion and her life would have been saved.

Susruta Samhita (Chikitsaasthaana, 15.13) says”..raks.ennArI ca yatnanaH” – the woman has to be saved. Chikitsaasthaana, 15.15 even makes it clear that a dead fetus has to be immediately removed from the mother’s womb, as otherwise she may die painfully just as an animal dies from suffocation (“nopeks.eta…pas’um yathA”). Thus, a woman in the situation of Savita would have been saved as per ancient Astika customs – the child would have been sacrificed to save the mother. But in other cases, the texts are clear that the child should not be harmed for any other reason. Life is precious. Saving both the child and the mother is the prime duty. But when only one of them can be saved, preference must be given to the mother’s life.

The Nastika positions may differ on this issue. Jaina dharma might go for absolute prohibition.  Non-violence of the highest form is prescribed in their tenets (e.g. they are not even supposed to kill mosquitoes). So, a Jaina mother might be expected to even give up her life in order to save her child. On the other hand, the Charvakas (predecessors of modern day hedonists) might support ‘abortion on demand’.

Many Internet Hindus run around without proper understanding. Even a famous columnist like Sandhya Jain has erred in stating that “This profound civilisational view has influenced modern India’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which offers virtually on-demand abortion to adult women.” (taken from the page: http://www.ibtl.in/column/1326/abortion-a-hindu-perspective – she seems to have followed the belief of the authors of the book “The Human Drama of Abortion: Seeking a Global Consensus” Pg.88). The Indian MTPA is not based on the Astika shastras but based on modern feminist-liberal views. The distinction between the two is very clear.

Let us now look at the Hindu view about the sanctity of a fetus’ life. As early as Rg Veda, the protection of a fetus was given great importance. Rg Veda (10.184) prays to Vishnu, Tvastr., Prajapati, Sinivali (a wife of Vishnu), Sarasvati and Ashvins for fetus’ formation and safety. AV 7.46 (Saunaka) calls on Sinivali to grant progeny. AV 6.113.2 (Saunaka) also specifically brands the person who performs abortion as a great sinner (‘bhrUn.aghni’ is the term used – literally means fetus killer). Manu smr.ti (5.90) says that a woman who commits abortion is not worthy of receiving libations (udaka kriyA) upon her death. Apastamba Dharma Sutra (1-7-21-8) considers the person who commits abortion as a fallen person/outcast (patanIya). Gautama Dharma Sutra (21.9) says the same about the woman who commits abortion (bhrUn.ahani). Vas’is.t.a Dharmasutra (1.20) counts abortion (bhrUn.ahatyA) as one of the panchamahApAtaka-s (five great sins). ParAs’ara Smr.ti (4.20) states that abortion is twice as sinful as killing a brAhman.a. ParAs’ara categorically states that there is no prAyas’citta for the sin of committing abortion.  From the period of Vedic SamhitA-s to later smr.tis, Astika tradition has been clear about abortion: it is a great sin. Abortion was allowed only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g) when the life of the mother was in danger. There is no question of ‘abortion on demand’ or ‘freedom of choice’ in the ancient Hindu texts when it comes to killing a fetus.

Let us look at the moral issues of abortion:

The ‘liberals’ argue for abortion to be completely legalized. The main argument is: a woman must have the right to decide whether she wants the baby or not. The first counter point would be: she must decide it before indulging in coitus. To not use any birth control measure like condom is the fault of the persons involved, if they did not want a child. To go for abortion to get rid of that ‘unwanted child’ is murder.

The moderate liberals’ normal posture is using ‘gradualism’. Typical argument is that the fetus gradually becomes human. And in the initial months, the fetus is not fully developed to be considered as a human being. While this is good to hear, it is not a sensible position. When does the fetus become a living being then? Is there any definite time frame? Life is formed the moment an embryo comes into existence. If it is a question of a young fetus being unable to feel ‘aware’ of its surroundings, then a man in coma can also be ‘terminated’ using the same argument. Gradualism is not a logical viewpoint. Hindu texts, in general, hold that atman (soul) enters the embryo as soon as an embryo is formed as a result of fertilization.

On the other hand, Peter Singer represents what we will call as the radical liberals. Singer agrees that gradualism “is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” (Rethinking Life and Death, pg 105). He uses the personism definition of Michael Tooley. In the end, he says that a newborn baby (not just fetus) is not self aware and hence, killing a baby cannot be considered as equal to killing an adult human. Interestingly, Singer argues for animal rights. So, according to our esteemed professor, a human infant is worth less than a non-human adult animal.

To us, these ‘liberal’ arguments are neither sensible nor logical.

In the case of ‘right to decide’, the government must then allow gender specific abortion as well. After all, a woman ‘must’ have the rights to decide the gender of the child that she wants. To say that abortion is a matter of right but sex selective abortion is not – this is not a logically sound position. As for Singer’s interpretations, to forcefully stop a person/soul from living his/her life is murder. As a society, as a social species, every infant is a part of the future of our species. Our genes are made immortal by procreation. To consider this blessing of the Gods (or nature, if one wants to avoid identifying oneself as a ‘believer’) as a mere burden, which can be killed as per the whims and fancies of some hedonistic humans, is a great sin. It is moral depravity.