Latest news with #Gita
Time of India
a day ago
- General
- Time of India
Wittgenstein, Kipling and Gita's Stithprajna
Authored by Ashok Vohra The Sanskrit term ' stithprajna' combines 'stitha' – steady, firm, and 'prajna' – wise, learned. So, stithprajna means a person of steady wisdom. He is the 'one whose mind remains undisturbed amidst misery, for whom sukha-duhkha, happiness and sorrow; labha-alabhau, gain or loss; jaya-ajaya, conquest and defeat are the same. A person, according to Gita, 2.55, attains the status of stithprajna when he 'discards all selfish desires and cravings of the senses that torment the mind, and becomes satisfied in realisation of the Self, such a person is said to be transcendentally situated.' A stithprajna turns his mind away from the material allurements and renounces lure of the senses. He is free from raag, attachment; dvesh, jealousy; bhay, fear; krodh, anger. He is indifferent to the uncertainties of life, its vulnerability to reversals and its resilience. He is indifferent to the temporary nature of the results of his actions, nor is he disappointed if he cannot achieve his chosen goals, complete the deeds undertaken by him, or even if his deeds do not yield desired fruits. The performance of actions with all sincerity is the end that gives him satisfaction. Kathopanishad, 2.3.14, goes to the extent of saying that one who has renounced desires becomes like God: 'When one eliminates all selfish desires from the heart, then the materially fettered jivatma (soul) attains freedom from birth and death, and becomes Godlike in virtue.' In the Bhagwad Gita, 2.54, Arjun asks Krishn about the characteristics of a stithprajna. He asks, 'How does the man of steady wisdom speak? How does he sit? How does he move about?' Krishn answers that a stithprajna 'practises self-control' and 'discards all selfish desires and cravings of the senses that torment the mind'. His life is both authentic and autonomous. If interpreted in Ludwig Wittgenstein's terms, stithprajna is 'the man…fulfilling the purpose of existence who no longer needs to have a purpose except to live. That is to say, who is content.' For him, the solution to problems of life lies in 'disappearance of the problem'. This frees him from hope and fear, 'for life in the present there is no death.' He knows that the lived world is 'beyond the control of human will, and therefore he is content with how the world is.' He lives in the world and accepts it without trying to change it. He contemplates the world as a limited whole as an impartial observer. He realises that he 'cannot steer the world's happenings according to (his) will,' and that he is 'entirely powerless'. He also realises that he 'can only make (himself) independent of the world – and so in a certain sense, master it – by renouncing any influence on happenings.' Krishn's description of stithprajna also reflects in Rudyard Kipling's poem If , it reads: 'If you can dream – and not make dreams your master/If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim/If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/And treat those two impostors just the same…/If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you/If all men count with you, but none too much'. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
3 days ago
- General
- Time of India
Be audacious, you can rock the world
Written by: Jaya Row The Bhagwad Gita gives a window of opportunity for you to look beyond the mundane, boring existence to a life of purpose, vitality and excitement. It helps you move from mediocrity to excellence, from drudgery to revelry, and from misery to magic. You may have been born an ordinary person. But you were designed to take off into the realm of the extraordinary. MK Gandhi, the timid, unknown lawyer, was transformed into a mahatma. APJ Abdul Kalam rose from humble origins to become one of the best presidents India has had. So can you rise to heights of perfection. You were born with a unique gift, an exclusive talent – your svadharma . It's your personal magic. Oblivious of it you get distracted and chase after mirages. Instead, look within. Find your passion and invest in it. Identifying your svadharma is the game-changer in life. You can never excel in a field alien to your nature. Fix a higher goal in that field. Thought of self is the devil. It comes in the way of success. It makes you unhappy. And blocks your growth. The Gita helps you unlock your potential and become the best version of yourself. You then metamorphose from an ordinary mortal to the extraordinary Immortal. All it takes is a change in mindset. The Gita upgrades your inner personality. When your phone lags you recharge it. Similarly, when you get demotivated, you need to be revitalised. Then you take off into subtler realms. You glow with joy, confidence and enthusiasm. You drop the old selfish habits and switch to the miracle mindset. As you think, so you become is the law. You have been consistently thinking of just 'I, me, myself', and become a small, powerless person. Think of a higher cause, espouse a nobler mission. The highest goal is that of enlightenment. The higher the goal, the greater is your dynamism and power. Open up to others. Care, connect and show compassion. Develop genuine love. People respond. They support you in ways you never expected. And here's the cool part – you start feeling joy not just for your wins, but for others' too. Their success feels like your success. As you gain knowledge you gain inner strength. You tap into the more permanent aspects of life. The world's ups and downs don't throw you off. You stay calm, balanced, grounded. You're no longer reacting – you're acting. You become a clear thinker. The Gita doesn't ask you to change your wardrobe, vocation, or environment. What you do matters little. It is where your mind is that makes the difference. Keep thinking small, and you'll stay small. Think big, have audacious dreams, and you can rock the world. As you drop the baggage of ego and desire, your inner light shines through. The forces of nature bow down to you. Suddenly, life starts working for you. Prahlad, a young boy, stayed true to his faith. Hiranyakashyapu, his father and king of demons, tried to kill him. Fire couldn't burn him, elephants couldn't trample upon him, venom of snakes couldn't hurt him. Why? He followed his conscience and aligned with the Spirit. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
News18
6 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Operation Sindoor Has Restored Dignity Of Women: Home Minister Amit Shah In Mumbai
Last Updated: Home Minister Amit Shah was in Mumbai for the 150th anniversary celebration of Shri Laxmi Narayan Temple at Madhavbaug, Mumbai Home Minister Amit Shah said on Tuesday that Operation Sindoor has restored the honour and dignity of women globally. The Home Minister was in Mumbai for the 150th anniversary celebration of Shri Laxmi Narayan Temple at Madhavbaug, Mumbai. The event saw the presence of key dignitaries including Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, and Deputy Chief Minister Shri Eknath Shinde. Also present were Speaker of the Assembly Rahul Narwekar, Cabinet Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha, and several other eminent figures from Maharashtra's social and political circles. आज मुंबई के माधवबाग स्थित श्री लक्ष्मीनारायण मंदिर में पूजन-अर्चन किया और मंदिर की 150वीं वर्षगाँठ पर आयोजित समारोह में शामिल हुआ।धार्मिक आस्था का केंद्र होने के साथ-साथ यह मंदिर महाराष्ट्र के सांस्कृतिक इतिहास को भी जीवंत बनाए हुए है। भगवान श्री लक्ष्मीनारायण से सभी के कल्याण… — Amit Shah (@AmitShah) May 27, 2025 Highlighting the impact of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership, Shah said, 'The 11-year tenure of PM Modi will be written in golden letters. Long-pending historic decisions were taken with bold determination. Today, India is the world's fourth-largest economy and is poised to become the largest by 2047. This is a new India — one that does not tolerate injustice against its women." 'Operation Sindoor has made the entire world understand the significance of the sindoor on our mothers' and sisters' foreheads. It has restored their honour and raised their dignity globally," Shah said. The event began with a special puja, followed by cultural presentations led by Sangeet Natak Akademi Chairperson Sandhya Purecha and Sarfoji Raje Bhosale Sanstha. Shah congratulated the Madhavbaug family for 150 years of dedicated service to society through faith, culture, and welfare. He emphasised the need for such institutions to also serve as centres for learning our mother tongue, and imparting knowledge of the Gita, Vedas, and Upanishads along with health services. Fadnavis lauded the temple's 150-year journey as a moment of immense pride. 'This temple is not just a place of worship; it is the abode of the divine. Through Madhavbaug, continuous service — from cow protection to social outreach — has become a way of life," he said. First Published: May 27, 2025, 20:02 IST
Buzz Feed
24-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
How Crunchyroll's Gita Rebbapragada Puts Anime Fans First
The 9th Crunchyroll Anime Awards are OTW and fans around the world are gearing up to see which show will take home the BIG "Anime of the Year" title for 2025. With over 50 million votes casted and mountains of discussion online, it's really anyone's guess between Dan Da Dan, Delicious in Dungeon, Frieren: Beyond Journey's End, Kaiju No. 8, Solo Leveling and Apothecary Diaries. My bet's on Solo Leveling. Anime is (and always has been) watched, adored and discussed around the world. Everyone has a connection to it, whether it be turning on the TV to a random episode of Pokémon as a kid, seeing friends collect trading cards/merch or being a diehard series viewer. The genre has grown up with us and continued growing into something HUGE. But how did it get to where it is now? Ahead of the Awards, we sat down with Gita to answer this very question, chat about what's coming next and living in an anime world. BFOZ: With the wild jump in Anime Awards votes from 30 million+ last year to 50 million+ this year, what do you think has made anime into the global phenomenon that it is today? And I also think it's just deeply resonant with younger audiences and as they start to grow up and talk about it more and have financial independence of bigger allowances. You're also seeing that multi-generational viewing, which is also creating a lot of growth. BFOZ: When you speak to the studios about what's on their slate for the upcoming year, what are the key indicators to success that jump out at you and figuring out what to put onto Crunchyroll next? That is also telling stories from around the world that we think could be a good told in the art form of anime and the storytelling style of anime. We're always looking for those too. Isekai, for example, I think is really popular because the fluidity of different worlds is always very appealing, increasingly plays on gaming references, gaming territories. Solo Leveling, part of why it's so popular is it's a story of essentially leveling up, which I think is super interesting. I think horror also does surprisingly well. A lot of fans are like that. So I think it is a slate approach. It's not just action sequences. There's a lot of art house that does really well too. So it really depends. BFOZ: Working in the anime space, do you have any all-time comfort anime shows or movies? In terms of characters that I just find really endearing, my hero is definitely, especially when we're first introduced to some of the characters in the earlier seasons, found them really relatable. I'm watching One Piece now with my daughter, which is where I would say we're early days in that one. In terms of my favourite character? Might be Spy x Family. There so many, I mean, there's just a lot. I like them all, a lot of different shows for a lot of different reasons. I love Kaiju No. 8, which is, I'm not usually, it wouldn't be one you would describe, you would guess, but I don't know. There's something about it that I just found kind of gripping. BFOZ: Stepping outside of the anime bubble for a moment, as a woman of power, how do you learn to trust and strengthen your gut in an entertainment industry that's ever-evolving and at the mercy of emerging technologies? It's going to change. It has changed in the last five years. It's going to radically change in the next five years. And so being really clear about knowing what that evolution is, what they want, what they don't want, and also taking risks like we are at heart. This is a content. We deliver content. Content is a creative pursuit and making sure we're developing things or giving them things that are very, very exciting and not always playing it safe. I think that's the key. BFOZ: What's the best business advice that anyone has shared with you that you still keep to you till this day, other than know your audience? Because the reality is at the rate of innovation that's happening right now, every company is at the risk of . And so I think what we do as leaders is we have to really challenge ourselves to think, "How would we do things differently, if you started today?".I think I've definitely been in some high growth companies that have been very disrupted, and that's always very top of mind for me is there is someone who is going to have a really great idea and they're going to implement that idea with all the tools that are available to them today without any legacy thinking. So have your experience be your superpower, not your liability. BFOZ: And finally, if there was one anime universe you could live in, which one would it be? Which show do you think will take home "Anime of the Year"? Tune into the Crunchyroll Anime Awards on Twitch and YouTube on May 25, 2025 — the pre-show kicks off from 6pm AEST.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Ashoka University Professor But Endorses State Overreach in Free Speech Case
Published : May 22, 2025 08:46 IST - 10 MINS READ The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor and head of the Political Science department at Ashoka University, following his arrest over social media posts related to Operation Sindoor. The Haryana State Commission for Women, led by chairperson Renu Bhatia—a 36-year-long BJP member who has since the controversy publicly expressed aspirations to contest elections on an MP or MLA ticket—claimed that Mahmudabad had 'demeaned' women officers, notably Colonel Sofia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, who had led the media briefing after the precision strikes. A second FIR was registered against him by a local leader of the BJP's youth wing. Mahmudabad's post on May 8 remarked that the optics of having women officers—Colonel Qureshi and Wing Commander Singh—conducting the media briefing were 'important', but would amount to 'hypocrisy' if not backed by tangible change on the ground, referring to instances of bulldozing of houses and mob lynching. This observation, part of a larger critique of performative nationalism, was twisted into an allegation that Mahmudabad had 'disparaged women officers in the armed forces' and 'promoted communal disharmony'. A host of sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were invoked by the Haryana Police, including the modern-day avatar of sedition, Section 152 (acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India). The two FIRs are clearly absurd. Far from disparaging the armed forces, Mahmudabad's posts were deeply thoughtful. He praised the Army's restraint, warned against warmongering by civilians who have never experienced war, analysed the strategic shifts in geopolitics between the two countries, criticised dehumanisation, and called for moral introspection by invoking the teaching of the Gita, the Prophet, and Imam Ali (and maybe this is what has irked the complainants and fuelled their communal rage). This very measured opinion, essentially anti-war and anti-jingoism, was reinterpreted through the lens of hyper-nationalist outrage and, perhaps, communalism. The conduct of the bench On May 18, the 42-year-old professor was arrested by the police and a district court mechanically remanded him to two days of police custody. When the Supreme Court finally heard the matter by on May 21, the bench, headed by Justice Surya Kant and consisting of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, criticised Mahmudabad's 'choice of words', labelling it as 'dog whistling', asking him why he sought 'cheap publicity', but ultimately decided to release him from custody on interim bail. However, it declined to suspend the ongoing investigation. What is important is the nature and tone of the bench that raises far more alarm than comfort. As is usual in the higher courts, especially the Supreme Court, it is the presiding judge who leads the conversation and does much of the deciding. Rather than confronting the dubiousness of the FIRs or offering categorical relief, Justice Kant's bench has chosen to cloak an absolutely punitive approach in the garb of liberty. It refused to stay the criminal proceedings and instead ordered Haryana's Director General of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to investigate and understand the true meaning of the post. To 'holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in the two posts', the order stated. The bench also ordered Mahmudabad to surrender his passport and gagged him from writing or talking about the present Indo-Pak conflict and the ongoing case. Also Read | Warmongering as nationalism Worse is the court's language. By characterising Mahmudabad's post as 'dog whistling' and sternly warning academics and students supporting him—'we know how to handle them also'—Justice Kant echoed the coercive language of state power. Academics from Ashoka University have been taking turns to be with Mahmudabad in jail premises, worried about his safety and health. Justice Kant's tirade is not an isolated slip of the tongue. A few weeks ago, during the second hearing in the Ranveer Allahbadia case (BeerBiceps as he is famously known), the same judge had harshly criticised 'people writing on free speech' as 'brainless' (note: I too had written critically about Justice Kant's conduct in the first hearing and similar draconian condition imposed by him on Allahbadia at the time) and in the same breath, warned: 'we know how to handle them also'. Such judicial language is not just unbecoming—it is weaponised rhetoric that chills freedom of speech and public discourse. It signals to every university lecturer, columnist, and concerned citizen that even the judiciary will not stand up for them if the state comes knocking. Or, it may, but the costs would be far greater, if not equal, to what is being given as 'relief'. What Justice Kant's bench has failed to do is even more revealing. It did not interrogate the political motivations behind the complaint. It did not test the FIR against established free speech jurisprudence. It did not ask whether an academic post—no matter how critical—could legitimately trigger criminal prosecution under our constitutional standards. It did not examine the weaponisation of institutions like the Women's Commission for vendetta politics. Instead, the court played enabler, ensuring that Mahmudabad's life and work remain under a cloud, thus furthering the interests of those who initiated this persecution. The bench had an opportunity to send a strong message to those threatening constitutional rights. But instead, despite not making note of any potential criminality, Justice Kant's bench chose to police Mahmudabad's choice of language, stating that he could have used 'neutral language' that would not have 'hurt sentiments', etc.—clearly engaging in moral policing. The Supreme Court's Shreya Singhal judgment clearly held that mere 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', or the causing of 'offence' cannot form the basis of criminalising speech. Expressions that 'offend, shock or disturb' are constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) and that any restriction must pass the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2). Free speech does not only include palatable or popular opinion, but also extends to speech that provokes, unsettles, or challenges. Justice Kant's bench has drifted far away from the very ethos of this landmark ruling. Vijay Shah vs Mahmudabad Some may attempt to compare the court's handling of Mahmudabad's case to that of Madhya Pradesh BJP Minister Vijay Shah, against whom the same bench ordered the formation of an SIT for actual derogatory comments against Colonel Qureshi. But such comparisons do not hold. Shah's remarks were not interpretative or academic—they were direct, gendered, communal insults to a serving officer, for which the court itself rejected his apology. In contrast, Mahmudabad's post made no personal attack—either against Colonel Qureshi or any other individual. It was a general critique of warmongering civilians. To apply the same judicial standard to both instances, without acknowledging their difference in intent and content, is not just wasteful, but a false equivalence. Yes, Mahmudabad has been given interim bail—but at what cost? Along with all the legal proceedings greenlit by the bench and the restrictions imposed by it, there are terms and conditions yet to be determined and imposed by a chief judicial magistrate, Sonipat. They really can be anything, like a weekly signing before the local police station. The conditions imposed ensure that the brunt of the state is largely preserved and future speech is restricted or at least, self-censored. Choking free thought Mahmudabad's case is a microcosm of sorts. It is a perfect example of how you make a nation of intellectually dead citizens, where critical inquiry is replaced by rote repetition and progressive voices are muzzled to make space for conformist, mediocre opinions. This is how a society dies, where the proliferation of free thought is choked, through a slow, judicially sanctioned suffocation of intellectual life. But can one really expect a state such as ours to safeguard critical thinking when ample evidence exists to show that intellectuals and intellectualism are seen as the new enemies, as 'urban naxals' within—threats to be silenced and extinguished? After all, the court, too, is part of the state. What should equally bother us all—and I wish more of us would ask this question—is the complete silence of the accompanying judge on the bench, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh. To be a Supreme Court judge and sit mute while rights are steamrolled is not 'judicial discipline'—as many may justify it to be—it is judicial betrayal. The pretence that benches are non-hierarchical is, of course, a lie. One can see the lie crumble every day in our courtrooms. When the presiding judge leads the regression and the 'junior' judges passively comply, the rot is systemic. That a judge can be elevated to the highest court despite showing no demonstrable courage or independent judicial thinking is itself an indictment of India's judicial appointments process. This is not a comment on Justice Singh, but a broader reflection on a system that routinely produces judges who appear unwilling—or unable—to assert an independent opinion, especially in cases under intense public scrutiny, such as this. The result is a judiciary that sends out a signal—loud and clear—about the kind of court it has become. Of course, one may draw some cold comfort from the fact that this kind of order will likely remain a Kant court special—and may not lead to a change in India's free speech philosophy—it does highlight, again, what I call the 'vibe jurisprudence'—where judicial outcomes are based on an individual judge's temperament, whims, and political anxieties, rather than consistent legal principles. And it may only be a matter of time before such vibe-based orders establish a new normal. What will leave one aghast is the fact that Justice Kant had, in 2021, authored a stellar judgement advancing bail rights in the Najeeb case. As part of a three-judge bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Kant had authored a judgment holding that constitutional courts could grant bail in a UAPA case if there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The strict conditions for bail under UAPA would not impede the court's powers to grant bail if there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time, and the period of incarceration already undergone had exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Also Read | Civil society stands with academic under political attack That such stark departures in positions of liberty can coexist in the same judge really underscores how fragile and contingent our constitutional protections are, entirely dependent on the 'mood' and the 'vibe' of the moment rather than constitutional principle. What is also interesting is the fact that a diametrically opposite event was unfolding simultaneously in the Supreme Court today—one that could not be more telling. While Justice Kant's bench in courtroom number 2 was moral-policing an academic and endorsing state overreach, in courtroom number 3, Justice Abhay Oka was reminding an investigative agency of the following—'For ideology, you cannot put someone in jail,' while hearing bail pleas of accused Popular Front of India members in the Kerala RSS leader Srinivasan's murder case. Just weeks earlier, in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, the Supreme Court had eloquently reaffirmed in its judgment (authored by Justice Oka) that 'in a healthy democracy, the views or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view', and that even if such speech is disliked by many, it must still be 'respected and protected'. It went on to note that there could be speech that even judges may not like, but the court went on to remind them that it was their 'duty to uphold' and 'zealously protect' the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. That such clarity and progressive stand could coexist with the regressive posture of Justice Kant's court only shows us the schizophrenic state of free speech in today's India. Saurav Das is an investigative journalist writing on law, judiciary, crime, and policy.
