• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Is Marriage necessary in the modern day?

Rudra_Maha

New member
This is a question, that has been on my mind for quite sometime.

Note:- Not applicable for the traditionalists. This is for the aspiring progressives.

We have been seeing a lot of fuss regarding marriages and traditions off lately. My question is:-

1. Migration from tradition

Many of us have moved away from our traditional jobs seeking comforts, so we have lost the identity of calling ourselves a brahmin. We have started sacrificing our practices and customs and have also validated this act.

So, if this can be done, why not next step....avoid getting into an institution called marriage.

2. Women empowerment

Corporate to govts, they are forcing a 50% cap on workforce, not sure if they're compromising on work efficiency, but to score brownie points, many flaunt their gender diversity. What difference does it make to an office, whether a job is done by a Man, woman or a trans.

3. Marriages can be risky for the man.

With laws being set against the man, anyone who gets himself into it should think a 100 times cause if it turns sour, the man would stand to lose more than the woman.

4. Less responsibility. More live-ins.

We live in a world of consumerism and capitalism. Everybody is bent on getting gadgets, money, power etc. Very few are into service and thats a dwindling race. Many of us are employed by the corporate which considers people as a resource rather than a potential. No one is sure of when they would be handed the pink slip. So to start a life thinking all would be well tomorrow spells doom for the person.

If each person is to live for himself, why jump into this institution called marriage and make a mess of ourselves.

If a man and woman is mutually attracted, they could live together and if suppose they happen to get a child and when they don't like each other, they can separate, with each supporting the child equally. Isn't that how the west operates. Maybe let the child as the property of the society and not the family.

5. Support systems

Most often, the reason being given to youngsters is, marriage is for a partner when you're old to take care.

But, shouldn't it be like we must create a moral support system in the country when people can get psychological counselling from the govt, rather than get into marrying one person.

Now, if a woman divorces a man, until she finds another source of income, the man will have to pay for her upkeep, sad part is this being misused left right and center and many men are held at ransom.

More than 70% cases reported by ncrb relating to dowry, rape, harassment etc were proven to be fake. This could seriously jeopardize an innocent person. When laws are taken for a ride like this, how will one get confidence in this institution called marriage.

6. Career

This is a priority for all. Why would someone marry a person who doesn't have a bright career. So, when a question of Character/tradition vs career comes, its the career that takes the lead. If a woman can choose a man for providing her with safety and good career, shouldn't the man also have the rights to choose multiple partners.

Say, like the animal kingdom, there isn't a concept of marriage. Partners change. Women take responsibility of the child. Should we buckle up for the situation of Matsya nyaya/ law of the jungle.

On the contrary, although studies have shown that, a stable marriage is needed for a strong economy, better health, children's growth: in a fast paced society, where we don't get to call the shots, is it time to raze down the institution of marriage?.

Opinions are welcome.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
sociologists and historians of marriage tell us that marriage was originally a business transaction of sorts, rather than an undertaking hinging on the attraction and love between two individuals. Historically in western culture, people from wealthy families were directed to marry in order to create bonds, alliances, and mutual obligations with other powerful families—or even between nations, in the case of royals. For the lower classes, marriage was a question of creating a labor force to run a farm or small business. Households were production-centered economies in which men’s and women’s labor were complementary, and kids they had together or brought together from previous unions (maternal mortality rates were high until the late 19th century) pitched in. Marriage was necessary. And remarriage with children after the death of a spouse—a common occurrence until relatively recently—was considered the most civic-minded thing a man or woman could do. The household and by extension all of society depended on it, after all.

But by the early 20th century, marriage historian Stephanie Coontz points out, with the notions of the individual, liberty, and equality well-established by the Enlightenment and French and American revolutions, and the subsequent rise of the love match, marriage had become a different animal entirely. Marriage morphed from institutional, in the famous formulation of sociologist Ernest Burgess, to companionate and now, something more individualistic. Marriage is now expected to nurture, satisfy and support the members of the couple in a dizzyingly comprehensive variety of ways—emotionally, sexually, psychologically.

 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Yet people live marriage every day and make it work. We are not all Mark Sanford or John Edwards, and Gottlieb’s anti-romantic vision will leave many of us cold, even (to judge by the reviews in the blogosphere) outraged. But with Marriage less necessary than ever before, the challenge becomes, how do we make our own marriages necessary and relevant? How do we keep Marriage—not to mention marriages—alive? And should we even try?





As for me personally, I could not live without my wife. She is the reason for my life.
I had an arranged marriage, I could never have found such a wonderful person to share my life with.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
When we debate the value of marriage, most attention focuses on the potential harm to children of divorce or illegitimacy, and for good reason. Mountains of research tell us that children reared outside of intact marriages are much more likely than other kids to slip into poverty, become victims of child abuse, fail at school and drop out, use illegal drugs, launch into premature sexual activity, become unwed teen mothers, divorce, commit suicide and experience other signs of mental illness, become physically ill, and commit crimes and go to jail. On average, children reared outside of marriage are less successful in their careers, even after controlling not only for income but also for parental conflict.

Yes, marriage protects children. And yes, marriage, therefore, protects taxpayers and society from a broad and deep set of costs, personal and communal. But there is another case for marriage, equally significant, that you probably haven't heard. Marriage is a powerful creator and sustainer of human and social capital for adults as well as children, about as important as education when it comes to promoting the health, wealth, and well-being of adults and communities. For most Americans, this is news. When it comes to adults, the case for lifelong marriage has been framed in exclusively moral, spiritual, and emotional terms: one side argues for personal liberation from marriage, the other urges parents to sacrifice for God's and/or the kids' sake.

These are important considerations to be sure. Parents surely should be willing to make appropriate sacrifices for their kids' sake. But framing the marriage debate solely in those terms obscures as much as it reveals. It misses the profound benefits that lasting marriage confers on adults. And it overestimates considerably the likelihood that divorce will, in fact, lead to greater happiness for the individual.

 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
TOP TEN REASONS WHY MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR YOU:

10. IT'S SAFER. Marriage lowers the risk that both men and women will become victims of violence, including domestic violence.

9. IT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE. Married people live longer and healthier lives. The power of marriage is particularly evident in late middle age.

8. IT CAN SAVE YOUR KID'S LIFE. Children lead healthier, longer lives if parents get and stay married.

7. YOU WILL EARN MORE MONEY. Men today tend to think of marriage as a consumption item—a financial burden. But a broad and deep body of scientific literature suggests that for men especially, marriage is a productive institution—as important as education in boosting a man's earnings.

6. DID I MENTION YOU'LL GET MUCH RICHER? Married people not only make more money, they manage money better and build more wealth together than either would alone.

5. YOU'LL TAME HIS CHEATIN' HEART (HERS, TOO). Marriage increases sexual fidelity. Cohabiting men are four times more likely to cheat than husbands, and cohabiting women are eight times more likely to cheat than wives. Marriage is also the only realistic promise of permanence in a romantic relationship.

4. YOU WON'T GO BONKERS. Marriage is good for your mental health. Married men and women are less depressed, less anxious, and less psychologically distressed than single, divorced, or widowed Americans. By contrast, getting divorced lowers both men's and women's mental health, increasing depression and hostility, and lowering one's self-esteem and sense of personal mastery and purpose in life.

3. IT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY. For most people, the joys of the single life and of divorce are overrated. Overall, 40 percent of married people, compared with about a quarter of singles or cohabitors, say they are "very happy" with life in general. Married people are also only about half as likely as singles or cohabitors to say they are unhappy with their lives.

2. YOUR KIDS WILL LOVE YOU MORE. Divorce weakens the bonds between parents and children over the long run. Adult children of divorce describe relationships with both their mother and their father less positively, on average, and they are about 40 percent less likely than adults from intact marriages to say they see either parent at least several times a week.

1. YOU'LL HAVE BETTER SEX, MORE OFTEN. Despite the lurid Sex in the City marketing that promises singles erotic joys untold, both husbands and wives are more likely to report that they have an extremely satisfying sex life than are singles or cohabitors.




 
Last edited:

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
How can a piece of paper work such miracles? For surprisingly, the piece of paper, and not just the personal relationship, matters a great deal. People who live together, for the most part, don't reap the same kinds of benefits that men and women who marry do. Something about marriage as a social institution—a shared aspiration and a public, legal vow—gives wedlock the power to change individuals' lives.

By increasing confidence that this partnership will last, marriage allows men and women to specialize—to take on those parts of life's tasks, from developing an interesting social life to getting money out of insurance companies, that one person does better or enjoys more than the other. Though this specialization is often along traditional gender lines, it doesn't have to be. Even childless married couples benefit from splitting up the work. Married households have twice the talent, twice the time, and twice the labor pool of singles. Over time, as spouses specialize, each actually produces more in both market and non-market goods than singles who have to shoulder all of life's tasks on their own.

But because marriage is a partnership in the whole of life, backed up by family, community, and religious values, marriage can do what economic partnerships don't: give a greater sense of meaning and purpose to life (a reason to exercise or cut back on booze, work harder, and to keep plugging even in the middle of those times when the marriage may not feel gratifying at all). Married people are both responsible for and responsible to another human being, and both halves of that dynamic lead the married to live more responsible, fruitful, and satisfying lives. Marriage is a transformative act, changing the way two people look at each other, at the future, and at their roles in society. And it changes the way significant others—from family to congregation to insurance companies and the IRS—look at and treat that same couple. Sexual fidelity, an economic union, a parenting alliance, the promise of care that transcends day-to-day emotions: all these are what give a few words mumbled before a clergyman or judge the power to change lives.

 
OP
Rudra_Maha

Rudra_Maha

New member
All the above explanations are fine. Mainly they're focusing on the upbringing of the child. But the question arises as to what will the style of upbringing.

Say a Brahmin girl marries a Non brahmin boy, if being a multi diverse society is the intention of a person , then such a union should be avoided because only one of the two cultures of the parents is going to work on the child. What happens here is a dilution of various societal practices both of mother and father. If this happens on a persistent scale, only the mighty of either traditions would exist and diversity would go for a toss.

The child would grow up to be a mixed melting pot of both brahmin and other tradition without knowing any of the two in its entirety. Which means, we are creating a generation of Generalists rather than experts. Its like getting into a general management role rather than a niche skill based role. Too many managers in the society too will cause chaos. We are moving towards a tribe deficient society.

Regarding the upbringing part, I believe it should also be the role of society in a child's development. Every marriage is a separate unit. Each has its own dynamics. The kids coming out of it, will ultimately get impressed by the ideas of the couple. This could be dangerous, kids of good background go onto become doctors, engineers while the less privileged becomes thieves, sanitation workers. If it were controlled by the society, the children would look up to every single man and woman as his mother and father and would learn from the society and vice Versa hence the death/achievement/vice of one child would be the loss/victory of every lady and man. Like now if my neighbors child does an act of bad, I don't even care or I'll be damn happy that he's doing bad and my son is doing great . All this selfish hara kiri can be reduced greatly. This could address/reduce the biological imprint on kids. In a way, for the anti-caste warriors, this could be the way, as the children would never come to know of who their biological parents were. Say a melting pot. I believe this could be a panacea for getting rid of the brahmin male patriarchy and free the woman.

Old age--->Society and support systems. Explained above

Even in one of the previous threads, there was a blog post of Adi Shankara saying never get attached to ones family, culture, children, we must renunciate and let go. So, if one refuses to identify with his tribe identity, why not become completely free, instead of cherry picking and diluting the society.

Agree with what sadhguru says, but he also says if given an alternative, we can go ahead. As I mentioned before, I am not against the traditionalists who marry, but only would like to know of the progressives, who marry out of their tribe today in the name of modernism; just wondering to what extant they would go, are they ready to create the open society which they claim to do so in the name of anti-caste,culture.


Similar to sadhguru, we have Osho who was completely anti marriage, religion etc. He was say like a global man. Shouldn't his thought process also ring a bell.

 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member

Here's Why The Issue Of Same-Sex Marriages Is Making Headlines​

by Shilpa Dubey | September 15, 2020, 16:54 IST​

DIY body wash

Same-Sex Marriages

Image: 123rf

An apology [is owed] to members of the LGBT community… for the ostracisation and persecution they faced because of society's ignorance.

- Justice Indu Malhotra, after Section 377 was struck down by Supreme Court in 2018.

Love is love. Every statement, demand and dreams of LGBTIQA+ community members circle around this statement. However, the government sees it rather differently. While love remains love irrespective of gender, sex and marriages are a different trajectory. Same-sex relations could no longer be criminalised in India after September 2018, all thanks to SC for unanimously striking down Section 377 and making love possible within a legal framework (as if that stops love!), but same-sex marriages still have no legal recognition in the nation.

"Our culture and law don't recognise the concept of same-sex marriages," India's Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told Delhi High Court yesterday while opposing a plea seeking recognition of same-sex couples under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, and Special Marriage Act. He even argued that same-sex marriages are not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act itself.


Yes that too is marriage - Non-Traditional.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
All the above explanations are fine. Mainly they're focusing on the upbringing of the child. But the question arises as to what will the style of upbringing.

Say a Brahmin girl marries a Non brahmin boy, if being a multi diverse society is the intention of a person , then such a union should be avoided because only one of the two cultures of the parents is going to work on the child. What happens here is a dilution of various societal practices both of mother and father. If this happens on a persistent scale, only the mighty of either traditions would exist and diversity would go for a toss.

The child would grow up to be a mixed melting pot of both brahmin and other tradition without knowing any of the two in its entirety. Which means, we are creating a generation of Generalists rather than experts. Its like getting into a general management role rather than a niche skill based role. Too many managers in the society too will cause chaos. We are moving towards a tribe deficient society.

Regarding the upbringing part, I believe it should also be the role of society in a child's development. Every marriage is a separate unit. Each has its own dynamics. The kids coming out of it, will ultimately get impressed by the ideas of the couple. This could be dangerous, kids of good background go onto become doctors, engineers while the less privileged becomes thieves, sanitation workers. If it were controlled by the society, the children would look up to every single man and woman as his mother and father and would learn from the society and vice Versa hence the death/achievement/vice of one child would be the loss/victory of every lady and man. Like now if my neighbors child does an act of bad, I don't even care or I'll be damn happy that he's doing bad and my son is doing great . All this selfish hara kiri can be reduced greatly. This could address/reduce the biological imprint on kids. In a way, for the anti-caste warriors, this could be the way, as the children would never come to know of who their biological parents were. Say a melting pot. I believe this could be a panacea for getting rid of the brahmin male patriarchy and free the woman.

Old age--->Society and support systems. Explained above

Even in one of the previous threads, there was a blog post of Adi Shankara saying never get attached to ones family, culture, children, we must renunciate and let go. So, if one refuses to identify with his tribe identity, why not become completely free, instead of cherry picking and diluting the society.

Agree with what sadhguru says, but he also says if given an alternative, we can go ahead. As I mentioned before, I am not against the traditionalists who marry, but only would like to know of the progressives, who marry out of their tribe today in the name of modernism; just wondering to what extant they would go, are they ready to create the open society which they claim to do so in the name of anti-caste,culture.


Similar to sadhguru, we have Osho who was completely anti marriage, religion etc. He was say like a global man. Shouldn't his thought process also ring a bell.

Dear Rudra Maha ji, you wrote the following..


"The child would grow up to be a mixed melting pot of both brahmin and other tradition without knowing any of the two in its entirety. Which means, we are creating a generation of Generalists rather than experts. Its like getting into a general management role rather than a niche skill based role. Too many managers in the society too will cause chaos. We are moving towards a tribe deficient society."



Why attribute a person's capability into generalist and experts based solely on someone's genetics?

The rest of the world are doing fine each expert in their own fields and life and its not as if they are pure breed too.
For eg an average white in any country has so much mixed blood of various types of european blood..that didnt make them any lesser than what they should be?

Why be so attached to genes?
Any DNA analysis would show even a Brahmin having diverse DNA.

In life when it comes to existing genetics only has a minor role not fully a major role.
And finally when one wants to transcend all these even the body itself is just a conglomerate of blood and flesh.

There is a verse in the Bhajo Govindam which forewarns men that do not lust for the anatomy of a woman.

"Do not get drowned in delusion by going wild with passions and lust by seeing a woman's navel and chest. These are nothing but a modification of flesh. Do not fail to remember this again and again in your mind"


Let's rephrase it as


Do not get drowned in delusion by going wild with imagination and stress by seeing a human's DNA . These are nothing but a modification of flesh. Do not fail to remember this again and again in your mind..hence Bhajo Govindam!
 
OP
Rudra_Maha

Rudra_Maha

New member
@prasad ji...the marriage reforms for the Transgender community is a welcome move, infact a much awaited move. Many in that category are yet to get acceptance among the mainstream. I dont have much of an opinion on Homosexuals or say i dont know much about them, so i'll keep shut, but as far as the Trans are concerned, they must be provided with some opportunities to lead a dignified life.

This category of marriage can also be traditional(depending upon their choice), although currently non traditional, i was mentioning only about the choices of Progressive liberals of any community: be it Brahmin, Pillai, Thevar etc.

They're the ones who throw away the identities of their caste/religion in the name of humanism, which i would agree only if they had stuck to humanism and not pass disparaging comments on the choices of their native community to marry among themselves. Its an issue when some people marry outside a community out of their own volition and then preach on the close mindedness of the community over not able to evolve or change with times, saying they're not progressive enough, I'm sorry: this is pure escapism or say chameleon type camouflaging of ones inability to stick to his own traditions/roots or control his sexual urges.

For such people who throw away traditions and caste based affiliations, my question is are they/say wont they, throw away this so called rigid institution called marriage. Is'nt marriage rigid, one man for one woman?. Where is the diversity here. Each man and woman should have the ability to mate or go after multiple partners without being committed/bonded to one person. That's perpetual Slavery. If one can throw away their rigid caste based affiliations, why not throw away such a rigid and outdated model like marriage and replace it with a model that suggests humanism, where everyone takes care of each other without any prejudices. Say, a glorified version of Socialism, Nothing is ones property, everything can be shared...

@renuka ma'am...i do agree that genetics should not be looked upon, but one can never ignore its impact or neglect it. The average white man is a combined genetic pool, they're no way lesser. How many of them are really into their native traditions or practices. How many have preserved their culture. What we see today, is a shadow of their past. Most of them have either converted to Christianity/Islam/Buddhism. What happened to their native traditions like Greeks, Paganism, Ancient Roman religion etc. Its all lost. We are moving towards such a state. To avoid such a situation, we must clearly define the role based families from the majority lot.

Genetics may not play a lot, but it is significant. The difference between a chimpanzee and a human is just at 1.2%. This difference is not huge in the big level of things, but are we ready for march ahead to accept human-animal marriage.

Each family has a certain tradition around it, say the Shilpis got their knowledge from the Shilpa Shastra. They're the experts and we have some amazing architecture around us in the temples they've constructed. Some jathis are experts on medicine, some on learning the vedas, some on constructing and some on farming. The support frameworks that the people of these families get are the main reason behind the success in the communities. When this support framework is lost through the proliferation of individualism, all of them would be left at the mercy of the govts/corporate. Thus, we have industrial slaves ready, just like what we see in the case of modern progressives, they're only attachment is to Money and their own utopian idea of religion/spirituality.

Lets say, a farmer does a traditional framing technique. His son lives and grows around the same farm. Equip him with modern farming knowledge through education, we can get a combined product of a farmer with traditional knowledge and modern knowledge. Say, by chance this guy moves out and becomes a doctor, on an individual level, he may be able to pickup skills of a doc from college or by practice, but would he be able to do so in regards to a person who was born and brought up in a certain envt?. A kid growing up in a doctors home would be more able to understand the pains of a doctor than an engineer/MBA family. Even today, we see IT engineers marrying each other, docs marrying each other, we are again heading towards a modern degree based caste system.

Freedom to choose ones occupation should be given, but at the cost of the community?...Noo...

Because, there is a certain aspect of Guna that is prescribed to each Jathi. These Gunas guide us on the usage of the skills we develop.

Some by the nature of their gunas are more passive some more intelligent, some athletic etc. Some by generations, have been vegetarians, who may have a peculiar trait about them, while others being meat eaters, may have a certain trait about them. This mixing together may not always go well down the path. Mixing to be avoided, no?...but mixing to be advocated...hell nooo!!!....genetics may not be a huge factor in the long run, but it sure does give me a better headstart.

People blessed with the good genes and add to it conditioning of their gunas over generations, their children are more tuned to suit a particular type of profession than the other. Whether they're able to survive today, is a question of economy and geo-politics. But, genetics can never be avoided.

I'm only against the moral policing done by the progressives on the native communities. In that regard, i was just wondering whether they would go ahead and accept the marxian philosophy of a free world and not bound by the rules of marriage.

I strongly believe, if a person needs to change something, he will have to be a part of the system and fight from within the system to bring an everlasting change rather than run away and advocate change by attacking externally. If i have cancer, i need to administer chemicals to my body and it has to fight from within me to get rid of the tumor. I cannot take chemicals and pour it externally and say this would be enough to cure me of the disease. Similar is the case for any community as well.

Yes, Bhaja govindam says we are all humans. Krishna also says, we are just souls who are replacing bodies like clothes etc. I completely agree. But however, where is the midpoint. Nevertheless, have we created a society where every young man can be turned into a SAGE, or atleast have we found a way to guide the common young man to express his sexuality in a dharmic way. Nope, we see a huge imbalance. A womans body is just flesh and bone, but so is money, its just paper: so is land, its just soil. Am i ready to part with my money to another person, nope. Am i ready to part with land/water. Nope, we see govts fighting over it, if i can never part with inanimate objects like land and money/water, should i expect anything over the womanfolk.

Moreover, have we reached that level of consciousness where we begin to look at everything around us as an extension of our faculties?...maybe individuals may have done so, but as a generation?...nope... so for a person aspiring to achieve that level of clarity in his life, Bhaja govindam does make sense and infact i would personally recommend it.

But for a person who is shrouded in his daily escapades of survival...would i think of Bhaja govindam...nope i dont think it would make any sense of understanding to him.

Just like u, i too would want him to attain that level of spirituality, but to achieve that, his existing confusions should be reduced. In the name of modernism, i should'nt be adding to his perplexity, should i?. This only retards his progress.

On one hand, there are traditions and rules to be followed. Other hand we see the outliers/progressives, who run away from such traditions and call the traditions as hocus pocus and keep berating the traditions.

To those traditionalists, i would want them to get married and seach their path within the network.

But the progressives, what's their next target, now that they've discarded their native traditions, what are they going to discard/accept next?
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
@prasad ji...the marriage reforms for the Transgender community is a welcome move, infact a much awaited move. Many in that category are yet to get acceptance among the mainstream. I dont have much of an opinion on Homosexuals or say i dont know much about them, so i'll keep shut, but as far as the Trans are concerned, they must be provided with some opportunities to lead a dignified life.

This category of marriage can also be traditional(depending upon their choice), although currently non traditional, i was mentioning only about the choices of Progressive liberals of any community: be it Brahmin, Pillai, Thevar etc.

They're the ones who throw away the identities of their caste/religion in the name of humanism, which i would agree only if they had stuck to humanism and not pass disparaging comments on the choices of their native community to marry among themselves. Its an issue when some people marry outside a community out of their own volition and then preach on the close mindedness of the community over not able to evolve or change with times, saying they're not progressive enough, I'm sorry: this is pure escapism or say chameleon type camouflaging of ones inability to stick to his own traditions/roots or control his sexual urges.

For such people who throw away traditions and caste based affiliations, my question is are they/say wont they, throw away this so called rigid institution called marriage. Is'nt marriage rigid, one man for one woman?. Where is the diversity here. Each man and woman should have the ability to mate or go after multiple partners without being committed/bonded to one person. That's perpetual Slavery. If one can throw away their rigid caste based affiliations, why not throw away such a rigid and outdated model like marriage and replace it with a model that suggests humanism, where everyone takes care of each other without any prejudices. Say, a glorified version of Socialism, Nothing is ones property, everything can be shared...

@renuka ma'am...i do agree that genetics should not be looked upon, but one can never ignore its impact or neglect it. The average white man is a combined genetic pool, they're no way lesser. How many of them are really into their native traditions or practices. How many have preserved their culture. What we see today, is a shadow of their past. Most of them have either converted to Christianity/Islam/Buddhism. What happened to their native traditions like Greeks, Paganism, Ancient Roman religion etc. Its all lost. We are moving towards such a state. To avoid such a situation, we must clearly define the role based families from the majority lot.

Genetics may not play a lot, but it is significant. The difference between a chimpanzee and a human is just at 1.2%. This difference is not huge in the big level of things, but are we ready for march ahead to accept human-animal marriage.

Each family has a certain tradition around it, say the Shilpis got their knowledge from the Shilpa Shastra. They're the experts and we have some amazing architecture around us in the temples they've constructed. Some jathis are experts on medicine, some on learning the vedas, some on constructing and some on farming. The support frameworks that the people of these families get are the main reason behind the success in the communities. When this support framework is lost through the proliferation of individualism, all of them would be left at the mercy of the govts/corporate. Thus, we have industrial slaves ready, just like what we see in the case of modern progressives, they're only attachment is to Money and their own utopian idea of religion/spirituality.

Lets say, a farmer does a traditional framing technique. His son lives and grows around the same farm. Equip him with modern farming knowledge through education, we can get a combined product of a farmer with traditional knowledge and modern knowledge. Say, by chance this guy moves out and becomes a doctor, on an individual level, he may be able to pickup skills of a doc from college or by practice, but would he be able to do so in regards to a person who was born and brought up in a certain envt?. A kid growing up in a doctors home would be more able to understand the pains of a doctor than an engineer/MBA family. Even today, we see IT engineers marrying each other, docs marrying each other, we are again heading towards a modern degree based caste system.

Freedom to choose ones occupation should be given, but at the cost of the community?...Noo...

Because, there is a certain aspect of Guna that is prescribed to each Jathi. These Gunas guide us on the usage of the skills we develop.

Some by the nature of their gunas are more passive some more intelligent, some athletic etc. Some by generations, have been vegetarians, who may have a peculiar trait about them, while others being meat eaters, may have a certain trait about them. This mixing together may not always go well down the path. Mixing to be avoided, no?...but mixing to be advocated...hell nooo!!!....genetics may not be a huge factor in the long run, but it sure does give me a better headstart.

People blessed with the good genes and add to it conditioning of their gunas over generations, their children are more tuned to suit a particular type of profession than the other. Whether they're able to survive today, is a question of economy and geo-politics. But, genetics can never be avoided.

I'm only against the moral policing done by the progressives on the native communities. In that regard, i was just wondering whether they would go ahead and accept the marxian philosophy of a free world and not bound by the rules of marriage.

I strongly believe, if a person needs to change something, he will have to be a part of the system and fight from within the system to bring an everlasting change rather than run away and advocate change by attacking externally. If i have cancer, i need to administer chemicals to my body and it has to fight from within me to get rid of the tumor. I cannot take chemicals and pour it externally and say this would be enough to cure me of the disease. Similar is the case for any community as well.

Yes, Bhaja govindam says we are all humans. Krishna also says, we are just souls who are replacing bodies like clothes etc. I completely agree. But however, where is the midpoint. Nevertheless, have we created a society where every young man can be turned into a SAGE, or atleast have we found a way to guide the common young man to express his sexuality in a dharmic way. Nope, we see a huge imbalance. A womans body is just flesh and bone, but so is money, its just paper: so is land, its just soil. Am i ready to part with my money to another person, nope. Am i ready to part with land/water. Nope, we see govts fighting over it, if i can never part with inanimate objects like land and money/water, should i expect anything over the womanfolk.

Moreover, have we reached that level of consciousness where we begin to look at everything around us as an extension of our faculties?...maybe individuals may have done so, but as a generation?...nope... so for a person aspiring to achieve that level of clarity in his life, Bhaja govindam does make sense and infact i would personally recommend it.

But for a person who is shrouded in his daily escapades of survival...would i think of Bhaja govindam...nope i dont think it would make any sense of understanding to him.

Just like u, i too would want him to attain that level of spirituality, but to achieve that, his existing confusions should be reduced. In the name of modernism, i should'nt be adding to his perplexity, should i?. This only retards his progress.

On one hand, there are traditions and rules to be followed. Other hand we see the outliers/progressives, who run away from such traditions and call the traditions as hocus pocus and keep berating the traditions.

To those traditionalists, i would want them to get married and seach their path within the network.

But the progressives, what's their next target, now that they've discarded their native traditions, what are they going to discard/accept next?

Dear Sir,

Going by your logic of a Guna based jati based classification and you feeling that a farmers child would do better in farming than doing any other job....well in that case I guess Dr APJ Abdul Kalam should have been a better boat operator than his father?
Or Dr Sivan of ISRO being a better farmer than his father.

Coming to a doctor from a doc's family being better than one who is not from a doc's family is totally generalization.
Do you know the pioneer for the Blue Baby Syndrome (Tetralogy of Fallot) heart surgery was an African American janitor?
He wasn't even a doctor when he pioneered the surgery that saves lives of millions of babies today....it was made into a movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_the_Lord_Made

By denying anyone a chance we can lose out brilliance.
BTW most other countries besides India are not in any Guna /Jati based system...we study..we get the marks we take up the job we excel at.

So many kids from broken homes to end up becoming brilliant doctors.

BTW also in that case why so many Tamil Brahmins are working in the IT sector?
Isn't that not in line with the Guna/Jati too?
Cos a Brahmin is supposed to mainly be a priest and continue propagating Vedas that too without crossing the sea.


Going again by logic..Swami Chinmayanada is not a Brahmin yet his Chinmaya mission and his works of Vedanta is par excellence.

Do you see what I mean?

Why restrict anyone.

Anyone from any caste or varna has the right to knowledge and education and the freedom to choose their profession.
A person is entitled to uplift themselves.

BTW what guna is a sportsman?
Why are so many Brahmins into cricket and good at it?
Brahmins didnt invent cricket yet they play it well.
So what say you?

Try to see your country as one whole unit and let the best of every community shine like the sun instead of trying block the rays with clouds of division.

I would quote Thyagaraja here " Danuja neera dhara sameerana"
 
OP
Rudra_Maha

Rudra_Maha

New member
I agree, I am not asking people to completely lock in into their born traditions. I'm all in favor of fluidity in the system.

Regarding the likes of Dr Kalam and Dr Sivan, such extra ordinary personalities are exceptional, which is why we mention them as EXTRA-Ordinary. However, since then how many kalams or sivans have we produced?.

Genius can manifest from anywhere at any age. I agree. When a Kshatriya king became a brahmarishi or a thief composed an Itihasa or a woodcutter becoming a poet, our history is replete with such examples of people who have shed their shackles and achieved greatness. Add Kalam and Sivan also to this.

However, such cases are countable. What about the innumerable majority.

Have I asked to lock them in?....nope...but at the same time there should be a system where people can practice an occupation with dignity and achieve greatness from within. Every society has to perform a function in the building of a nation. Each is important in its own way and no society is complete without the other.

Kalam became a great scientist, but is that so of his brothers?....it was his individual genius that shone , add to it, his zeal and effort made him the person who he is now.


India or its neighbors may be the countries that practice caste as a system, but guess what so are the other societies. Whatever, we see of the existing so called modern societies have progressed from a caste system to a class system.

Everyone should be respected and treated equally with equal opportunities but, at the same time, am I ready to break an existing social structure, and replace it with a class system, I would be highly doubtful. I wouldn't want the future gen of my country to be nothing but resources that can be exploited by the corporations in the name of modernism. Individualism can never become the catharsis for the inequality we have in the system today.

Now, in such a system, every person is left to his individual self, out of his own efforts he can move across classes, but in case he fails who will protect him. There is no concept of a community where he can fall back on. There is no safety net guaranteed by society, except maybe for the social security provided by the govt. This might be possible in European models where their population is low. Is it feasible for a country like India?. Nope. Our exchequer is already running dry. Hence, the only possible way forward maybe to educate the masses, make sure each one respects each others identity rather than attacking an existing system and replace it with individualism.

Regarding the case of Brahmins in IT and cricket, yes that is a tragic case. What us even more worrying is when such people claim to be brahmins without taking the necessary effort to live the life dictated by the Shastras. They should stripped off their Brahmin identity. Prime example you can see is the debilitating conditions of temples across TN or any state in India. If the Brahmins, as they claim to be are at the top of the hierarchy as per purusha suktham, shouldn't they also act accordingly, otherwise it is just a show off their entitlement.

This is where I call such people as the progressives . I don't even consider them as brahmins. They're just born to people who were practising brahmins. These people have relegated themselves to the level of a glorified corporate wage earner, say a shudra.

But what about those priests and practicing vaideekas in pathasalas and gurukulas. One shankaracharya may have made a difference years back. Show me another one from the same community today. Hard to find because they're busy chasing IT goals and weekend cricket parties. I agree there are govt pressures, politics etc but if every community is amassing a mobile force, what is stopping this community from being so.

This is a sorry state of affairs. Such so called brahmins should be stripped their identity . there are far many better equipped people who are brahmins not by virtue of birth, but by their gunas. But because of consistent virtue signalling by the above progressive brahmins, the whole framework is getting damaged. A person from a Dalit community, if he aspires to become a priest by learning Vedas, is it even possible to include him today. Difficult, why:

1. Highly ossified system, hence the guru wouldn't accept him.
2. Progressive brahmins are berating the traditions of the community day in and day out.

If I as an outsider, want to become a priest, I see a so called born brahmin scorning the priestly class, what kind of a signal or a message am I sending down the line. Doesn't this go against the same fluidity we were aspiring for?.

Be it cricket, it, law if one doesn't subscribe himself to the community, there is no point in including him, because he would any day be a misfit.

I am only against the entitlement of the progressives, they've lost their license to call themselves so and so.

My doubt was only over the trajectory, our progressives would take in the near future. Now that they've dropped their traditions. Next is what in the name of progression:- Inter galactic/animal marriages?.

I was just wondering why such progressives dont go ahead and say marriages are not needed, I haven't seen any in my closer or extended circles despite all the virtue signalling they make. That number is still so small.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
I agree, I am not asking people to completely lock in into their born traditions. I'm all in favor of fluidity in the system.

Regarding the likes of Dr Kalam and Dr Sivan, such extra ordinary personalities are exceptional, which is why we mention them as EXTRA-Ordinary. However, since then how many kalams or sivans have we produced?.

Genius can manifest from anywhere at any age. I agree. When a Kshatriya king became a brahmarishi or a thief composed an Itihasa or a woodcutter becoming a poet, our history is replete with such examples of people who have shed their shackles and achieved greatness. Add Kalam and Sivan also to this.

However, such cases are countable. What about the innumerable majority.

Have I asked to lock them in?....nope...but at the same time there should be a system where people can practice an occupation with dignity and achieve greatness from within. Every society has to perform a function in the building of a nation. Each is important in its own way and no society is complete without the other.

Kalam became a great scientist, but is that so of his brothers?....it was his individual genius that shone , add to it, his zeal and effort made him the person who he is now.


India or its neighbors may be the countries that practice caste as a system, but guess what so are the other societies. Whatever, we see of the existing so called modern societies have progressed from a caste system to a class system.

Everyone should be respected and treated equally with equal opportunities but, at the same time, am I ready to break an existing social structure, and replace it with a class system, I would be highly doubtful. I wouldn't want the future gen of my country to be nothing but resources that can be exploited by the corporations in the name of modernism. Individualism can never become the catharsis for the inequality we have in the system today.

Now, in such a system, every person is left to his individual self, out of his own efforts he can move across classes, but in case he fails who will protect him. There is no concept of a community where he can fall back on. There is no safety net guaranteed by society, except maybe for the social security provided by the govt. This might be possible in European models where their population is low. Is it feasible for a country like India?. Nope. Our exchequer is already running dry. Hence, the only possible way forward maybe to educate the masses, make sure each one respects each others identity rather than attacking an existing system and replace it with individualism.

Regarding the case of Brahmins in IT and cricket, yes that is a tragic case. What us even more worrying is when such people claim to be brahmins without taking the necessary effort to live the life dictated by the Shastras. They should stripped off their Brahmin identity. Prime example you can see is the debilitating conditions of temples across TN or any state in India. If the Brahmins, as they claim to be are at the top of the hierarchy as per purusha suktham, shouldn't they also act accordingly, otherwise it is just a show off their entitlement.

This is where I call such people as the progressives . I don't even consider them as brahmins. They're just born to people who were practising brahmins. These people have relegated themselves to the level of a glorified corporate wage earner, say a shudra.

But what about those priests and practicing vaideekas in pathasalas and gurukulas. One shankaracharya may have made a difference years back. Show me another one from the same community today. Hard to find because they're busy chasing IT goals and weekend cricket parties. I agree there are govt pressures, politics etc but if every community is amassing a mobile force, what is stopping this community from being so.

This is a sorry state of affairs. Such so called brahmins should be stripped their identity . there are far many better equipped people who are brahmins not by virtue of birth, but by their gunas. But because of consistent virtue signalling by the above progressive brahmins, the whole framework is getting damaged. A person from a Dalit community, if he aspires to become a priest by learning Vedas, is it even possible to include him today. Difficult, why:

1. Highly ossified system, hence the guru wouldn't accept him.
2. Progressive brahmins are berating the traditions of the community day in and day out.

If I as an outsider, want to become a priest, I see a so called born brahmin scorning the priestly class, what kind of a signal or a message am I sending down the line. Doesn't this go against the same fluidity we were aspiring for?.

Be it cricket, it, law if one doesn't subscribe himself to the community, there is no point in including him, because he would any day be a misfit.

I am only against the entitlement of the progressives, they've lost their license to call themselves so and so.

My doubt was only over the trajectory, our progressives would take in the near future. Now that they've dropped their traditions. Next is what in the name of progression:- Inter galactic/animal marriages?.

I was just wondering why such progressives dont go ahead and say marriages are not needed, I haven't seen any in my closer or extended circles despite all the virtue signalling they make. That number is still so small.


There is no such thing that anyone like Dr Kalam or Dr Sivan are exceptions.

Try to wonder how many more actually go undiscovered?

In one family not everyone would have the same inclination..even identical twins can differ in job choice.

If you have seen America Got talent show and see how slum kids from Mumbai became a sensation for their dancing skills.
Even some other poor house boy and girl both salsa dancers from india train 8 hours a day and also blew the crowd away with their performance.

They go all the way to USA to compete becos they know they would be apprieacted.

So its the same..talent goes undiscovered if one stream lines one destiny.

Dr Kalam kept saying "dreams keep you awake" and he encouraged every kid to educate and improve themselves and reach the stars.

A great man like him didnt tell kids..your dad is a fisherman..so you dream on making bigger boats to catch fish.
Nope he didnt.

Let everyone have the freedom to choose the life they want.
The human has the innate capacity to strike a balance eventually.

Coming to Dalits becoming priests, honestly the trend these days it more towards Vedanta.
Its more user friendly...not many people are into rituals and agama shastras.
So that can be the domain of the Brahmins..no one really actually wants to become a priests when Brahmins themselves are not interested in it as before.

Its not worth trying to superimpose the past in the present.
The 4 tier varna system served its purpose in the past but it is not conducive at present..as humans we need to live in the present otherwise we would be gone in the self generated wind created by the windmills of our minds.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
BTW when you said that only Dr Kalam shone by his genius and not his brothers...logically does every family produce all the same type of kids?

One of the richest man in Malaysia his son abandoned everything and became a monk but the other kids are fully into a life of luxury.

A family generates kids but not all have the same capability.
Paramhansa Yogananda had many siblings..yet it was only him who became a Paramahansa..so can we say he is just an exception? Everyone is an exception...nature didnt intend to make everyone crash test dummies without individual talent and capability.

There is something called individual karma too..so we really cant generalize at all.

anyway I have a question...whatever you feel will never be implemented..if going by the same logic the current PM of India isnt a Kshatriya by birth to lead the country..so are you going to say India needs monarchy again?
 

ekaputra

Member
Marriage is a by product of human evolution (evolution is not just from ape to man!). If we did not have the concept of marriage we would be probably fighting for "mating rights" much as baboons and bison do and our cave dwelling ancestors most likely did. In fact, a high percentage of the bird species and even some animals like foxes and gibbons mate for life

Parents have a profound influence over the children especially in the growing years (the mother, even more so) and as a minimum they need to drill some ethical and moral values into them apart from taking care of them (food, clothing, education, medical care). What is the alternative to marriage? Just live with someone till you get sick of him/ her and then find some other person and if such an "intellectual relationship" (unfortunately) bears fruit then leave the children in some institution and claim that you have discharged your duty by paying for their food, clothing, education and medical expenses? If people want to be nothing more than biological parents and shirk their responsibility do they have the moral right to expect anything ethical of their offspring. To put it very coarsely, can they even blame their offspring for indulging in incest - the boy and girl may not even know that they are brother and sister or even that such a relationship is wrong! We may continue to be scientifically advanced but we would be squandering a lot of other values gained over the millennia.

Read "Thy Neighbours Wife" by "Gay Talese" which is a very readable true account. Some of the things the people (not fictional characters) indulged are not too different from the so called "progressive ideas" advocated by liberals. But it must be said to the credit of the true characters in the book that they were at least honest and admitted it was "porn".

I wonder if many of the liberals would like their so called "progressive ideas" being practiced by their immediate family members!
 
Last edited:

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Nothing in this world is permanent. Everything changes all the time.
The social norms are similarly very fluid. In this fluidity some practices there is stagnation, turbulence, whitewater, running underground, and disappearances, just as in any rivers.
It is foolish to cry or hold on to some age-old outdated practices.

For a society to function there has to be social norms in addition to laws of the land. Laws of the land supersedes social norms.
Child-Marriage and Sati were the social norms, they got outlawed.
Similarly, widows in India were disinherited, which was reversed by law.
Caste discrimination was outlawed but has been very poorly enforced. The social norms and politicians have kept caste discrimination on life-support. It will die in due course.

The rigid caste system wastes human resources and denies growth. The people who could not progress in the stifling bureaucratic systems of poor countries, migrate to the west and prosper because they can unshackle themselves.
CUT the SHACKLES.

A domesticated dog will stay close to home when unchained.
For an average human stays and marries in a relationship.

A wild wolf will run the moment the chins are removed.
Some people are like that.

Coming back to marriage:
At present the Laws of land favor Marriage. Marriages have legal privileges. It also helps the social order and rearing of children (labor force). The social norms towards marriage are changing, we do not know the trajectory at this time. But at present most societies and political leadership favor marriages.


My sincere request is to keep this thread about Marriage and not pull it down to the Caste level.
 
Last edited:
OP
Rudra_Maha

Rudra_Maha

New member
There is no such thing that anyone like Dr Kalam or Dr Sivan are exceptions.

Try to wonder how many more actually go undiscovered?

In one family not everyone would have the same inclination..even identical twins can differ in job choice.

If you have seen America Got talent show and see how slum kids from Mumbai became a sensation for their dancing skills.
Even some other poor house boy and girl both salsa dancers from india train 8 hours a day and also blew the crowd away with their performance.

They go all the way to USA to compete becos they know they would be apprieacted.

So its the same..talent goes undiscovered if one stream lines one destiny.

Dr Kalam kept saying "dreams keep you awake" and he encouraged every kid to educate and improve themselves and reach the stars.

A great man like him didnt tell kids..your dad is a fisherman..so you dream on making bigger boats to catch fish.
Nope he didnt.

Let everyone have the freedom to choose the life they want.
The human has the innate capacity to strike a balance eventually.

Coming to Dalits becoming priests, honestly the trend these days it more towards Vedanta.
Its more user friendly...not many people are into rituals and agama shastras.
So that can be the domain of the Brahmins..no one really actually wants to become a priests when Brahmins themselves are not interested in it as before.

Its not worth trying to superimpose the past in the present.
The 4 tier varna system served its purpose in the past but it is not conducive at present..as humans we need to live in the present otherwise we would be gone in the self generated wind created by the windmills of our minds.
Of course, there are too many going undiscovered, is it only because of caste. Damn No!...Geo politics, economy and many factors abound in this.

Talent need not go waste when one streamlines destiny. I had already mentioned above that the ones who are super achievers/Genius manifesting will break and move beyond their normal orbits. That fluidity should be promised for the fortunate souls. But is that so of the other souls in the society.

Every other person we meet is an average Joe like us. Should everyone aspire to be something greater than what the society had intended him to be?...yes...but for any person who does'nt want to/say who doesnt know what he wants for himself...what should be his case. Shall i break the existing substrate and say, you're free, go out and hunt for yourself?. I'm sorry, this is nothing but Matsya nyaya. The weak ones will be trampled down by the powerful elites in no time. It is this social structure that gives some hope for a section of people. Is this system fair--> Need not be...But is there an alternative and If that is individualism, then damn no, better not take that road and end up as a cultural orphan.

Although i didnt make any comments on Dr.Kalams quote of dreams and children, i'll try addressing that point. He said to dream and achieve something for the nation. Highly motivational from a great person indeed-->

However, i have never advocated to lock kids into their hereditary professions......But i am saying, just because we think of caste as something demonic, should i throw away the baby out with the bathwater?....Nope....For generations it has given a sense of identity to many people...If this sense of identity is derogatory or demeaning to someones beliefs, a dilaogue can be initiated and a mid point can be reached, it can be addressed and mitigated largely, which is why i said everyone should be taught the art of respecting the differences., this becomes the basis of diversity and not mixing everything up and become a so called melting pot. Be it the PM of India or the chowkidaar of a bunglow, both should be looked at equally. Now, is it this practically possible? i would like the progressives to lead by an example and show rather than put the onus on the traditionalists and gaslight them.

Regarding the exceptions---> Yes, being the youngest of five siblings, Kalam was the exception category. Is'nt he the one who went onto become President. Same is the case with Dr Sivan too. But by saying all are exceptions, If you're hinting at that human genius in everyone, i respect that view point. But in the normal sense, i would'nt call myself a genius. I am just a normal average joe squandering in this chaos. Say in corporate terms, each one of us is a resource. Thats it!!

Coming to Dalits becoming priests, honestly the trend these days it more towards Vedanta.--->

Nope, this is just generalization of the schools of thought. It may appeal to some intelligent beings, but for the masses nope. I'd rather stick to the other astika traditions than get myself into Vedanta. Thats my personal choice. Vedantic school suggests the first step towards mokṣha begins with mumuksutva, say a desire of liberation. To break away the shackles, and liberate oneself, maybe possible at an individual level, but nope, i am only concerned the societal consciousness. At the end of the day, if i keep dreaming self introspecting by being the detached person in the society today, i'll be left to fend for my own survival and may end up dead on the streets.

Now again, here is another question, who sets the trend in a society. If a person is left free, he will be susceptible to forces beyond his control, in a way one can be manipulated into thinking he is doing a great thing. If he has a community backing, atleast he is secure to an extent, he can touchbase with multiple people and get some perceptions. Now, can this person go out and learn other schools of thought, yes...but if there is no such thing as a community, what becomes of such a person....

Regarding the Varna system-->why do you think its outdated?.....look around u.... ministers sons becoming ministers, doctors wanting their children to be doctors,film stars, bollywood, professors, bureaucrats...list goes on....the so called Caste system has just transformed itself into a degree based entitlement system today.

Even now, there are separate associations/Alumni groups for Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers etc. Is'nt this the same as what those people who referred to themselves as the Brahmins/Kshatriyas/Vaishays/Shudras did in the older days.

If varna had gone outdated, the fluidity it offered would have been lost and the individual genius of Dr Kalam and Dr Sivan would have never arisen. Nothing has changed much, just replaced the old indian/sanskrit terminologies with the Portugese/American term....waalah modern society created....

Paramhansa Yogananda had many siblings..yet it was only him who became a Paramahansa..so can we say he is just an exception? Everyone is an exception--->

Yes thats why i termed those gentlemen as exeptions. As i said earlier, if youre identifying genius in every individual person, you're an enlightened person and i humbly respect that honorable thought of yours. But in my idea of an exception, all the other persons/siblings stuck to their normal lives while one person of the lot went beyond the borders and created a track for himself. This is the exception category i believe in/define as.

anyway I have a question...whatever you feel will never be implemented..if going by the same logic the current PM of India isnt a Kshatriya by birth to lead the country..so are you going to say India needs monarchy again-->

To answer this, yes i do agree that my thought process will never be accepted or be implemented. I am glad and happy about it too. I again say, i am not a progressive, who goes around preaching their entitlement and choices to others. I stick to whatever i believe is my path without blocking/ forcing others into mine.

I am not aware of our PMs genealogy or family to comment on that. I believe, the PM as an individual has a vision of the India, he is able to articulate it well and many like it too. So, he is just a kshatriya by guna. This is his personal choice to be a PM. If somebody had forced him to take the position, then that would be bad.....again the same case as of Dr Kalam and Dr Sivan, individuals rising to the top on their caliber and karma. Also, where does the question of monarchy come into this....
 

Similar threads

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Top
  Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.