ना कुछ लेना, ना कुछ देना…

ना किसी से कुछ ख्वाहिश है,
ना किसी से कुछ रंजिश है,
मेरी ज़िन्दगी ही मेरा राग,
और वोही मेरी बंदिश है.

ना किसी से कुछ गिला है,
ना किसी से कुछ शिकवा है,
किस्से करू में शिकवा, गिला,
यहाँ ना कोई मेरा मितवा है.

ना किसी से प्यार है,
ना किसी से नफरत है,
जो मिला उससे दोस्ती है,
जो ना मिला उससे इबादत है.

 
— प्रसाद

ऐ दिल-ए-नादान…

ऐ दिल-ए-नादान,
क्यूँ तू इतना खुराफाती है?
अभी अभी बिखरे तुकडे सँवारे है,
और अभी फिर से बिखर रहा है?

क्यूँ तू उस गली जाता है,
जहा तेरा इंतज़ार भी नहीं होता,
जाने पहचाने रास्तों में भी,
क्यूँ है तू अंजानो की तरह खोता?

क्यूँ तेरी दिमाग से दुश्मनी है?
प्यार में क्यूँ तू इतना हावी है?
वोह हर वक़्त तुझे मना करता है,
और तू हर वक़्त उसे मनाता है

ऐ दिल-ए-नादान,
क्यूँ तू इतना खुराफाती है?
अब फिर से बिखरे है तुकडे,
चल उनको फिर से संवारना है.

 

— प्रसाद

Love Poem No. 135

This is Love Poem No. 135.
Where did previous 134 go?
Well, in the dust bins.
They weren’t bad,
Not at all.
In fact they were,
Best of my works.
But these best words,
Couldn’t describe her.
The best I could do,
Was to just praise her.
They couldn’t do the justice,
Of describing her.
Let’s see if this,
Love Poem No. 135,
Can describe her properly,
Or will see the dust bin again.
Let’s see.

Between Silences…

Between her silence,
He found words,
More loud and clear,
Profound and chaotic
Her silence,
was a lot of things for him,
Gauging the actualities,
Whether it’s demanding,
Or merely a refrain.
Her silence,
Would always make him,
Think hard and hard,
Did she mean this?
Did she want that?
But she enjoyed,
Her silence when demanding,
And got annoyed,
By it when refraining.
She wanted him to figure,
What her every silence meant,
And he too would comply,
Finding words,
In her silence…

The Wait…

He waited by the bank,

for a boat to pass by,

the silence followed,

and the blankness showered.

Some planks swam by,

bumping in the stones,

dipping and coming out,

playing a helpless bout.

The restlessness grew,

when he heard the noises,

but nothing came by and he,

started finding the calm again.

Monsoon came and went,

the water touched the ground,

and slimmed to the centre,

the wait on the bank continued.

British and Post-Independence governance in India…

Come to think of governance of post independent India and one thing is pretty evident, India is still being governed by “Divide and Rule” policy. Now I don’t really have to explain why I used “still” in the above statement, but still I will go ahead and explain the cause.

It is a well known fact that British entered in India via Bengal route and with a cause of running “East India Company”. And soon it became clear that they wanted to rule India but the then India was divided in so many small dynasties that little could have been achieved to stop the course of action. And the rest is history.

It is very interesting to know that British didn’t just come to India because they felt like it. They were prepared and studied. They studied about the “social built-up” of India and used it to their benefit. They suppressed those who had might to fight back and encouraged those who had no idea what this could lead to and would be loyal to them. British were very cunning in using Indian “class” based setup to capture India.

They knew “Marathas” from Maharashtra were already fighting the “Mughals” on the basis of ideologies and were quite successful in the same. So basically people from “Konkan” side and Maharashtrians were “threat” to them. Bengalis later joined the Maharashtrians to fight the British, but it’s a different subject altogether.

What British did was suppressed the brainy, rebelious people from entering their armed forces. They wanted loyal soldiers and hence they selected people were completely oblivious to what was happening in their surroundings. Thus using “Divide and rule” strategy British captured India.

Now coming back to post-independent India, what we see today isn’t different from what British did to us. Today too, Indian bureaucrats are using this “Divide and rule” strategy to rule India. Since some years it has been obvious that the government, though from behind the curtain, are straining Hindu and Muslim relations to create a divide and capitalize on it.

Is it any different from what British did?

The answer is NO and YES at the same time.

NO – because we see the same traits in governance that we saw in British governance.

YES – because British actually did something good while ruling India. They brought railway in India. They built dams and canals to spread the water in a better way. They built strong buildings and bridges that helped India in growing. Not just infrastructure but they even tried to bring developments in India. They eradicated some of the ancient and troubling laws/customs in India.

Do we see the same happening post independence? I know it is not that easy to bring about changes in the society and it’s a long, cumbersome process to bring them, but we don’t even see the government taking steps towards it. What we see is, they are taking step towards making bigger and bigger scams of lakhs of crores of rupees, to create even bigger divide in Indian caste system and religions, to exploit the people in various ways, no steps towards creating a better infrastructure and the list is never ending.

Some people, of course those who have seen British rule (and now even those who studied history) say that British rule was better (even if you say a bit better than current Indian rule). And we can see why they would make such a statement.

Disclaimer: These are my own views. Also I am not saying this post-independence governance is a complete crap. They have done some good work too, but the amount is very small is what I mean. And instead of moving towards stable and better India, we are going moving backwards again.

Do things really change??? (Part – 2)

This is in continuation of previous post – “Do things really change???

 

Take an example of “Honeymoon”.

Honeymoon, since the historical times, was a tour of newly wed couple away from people to get to know each other well. There are references to ancient times, since which time it is considered to have come into play, which suggest that since 16th century English people started this tradition of Honeymooning. But even before that, Indian elites used to go for “Bridal Tour” with relatives and friends after marriage.

Honeymoon simply described the period after wedding which is considered to be sweet as honey. And this period wanes, fades away as Moon, in a period of a month or so – hence Honeymoon.

(Reference: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeymoon)

 

And consider 20th or 21st century’s example. Newlyweds still go to honeymoon, though the superficial aspects of honeymooning have changed (it’s different issue that these days couples go to exotic places to click snaps and upload them on Facebook). Honeymoon is still a way of knowing your partner mentally, physically well.

Well think this way, newlyweds don’t need to go to exotic places or get away from home to enjoy honeymoon. It can be enjoyed at the comforts of your home also. In old times going out could make sense, clutter of people around all the time, fewer rooms to have privacy – but with ample space, privacy and no clutter of people around, people still prefer to go to different place for honeymoon.

If we think of the reason it is quite simple, the newlywed people need space and privacy to discuss various things and get to know each other well. This is the underlying motive behind going out for honeymoon. It was there in old days and it is still the same.

 

Do things really change? Or our perceptions and methods do? Does underlying meaning or motive of the tradition change?

 

 

 

Do Things Really Change???

 

We generally say as the time changes, most of things change, meaning of various things differ. While I agree to this statement, I also think that the underlying meaning to the things we have been doing since past – remain the same. It’s just the way of doing things that change, the perspective changes.

While the superficial meaning of marriage has changed, the underlying motive behind the marriage institution remains the same. In old times, marriage was to give security and have a partner in all levels of life. It was also to get a legal sex (illegal sexual activities were there in historical times too, just that they were very rare in numbers).

Today, as we are getting modernized, getting laid isn’t much of a fussy subject. We don’t need marriage to get laid (though extra-marital or pre-marital sex is still not a moral thing, though it has gotten legal now, of course a consensual sex). Today people get married to be financially secure (working couple is an example) or for various other things. But even then the underlying motive of marriage institution hasn’t changed. However modernized we get, we still need a partner in all aspects and levels of life.

2 + 2 will always be 4, no matter if we are in 1st century or 50th.

We mould things as per our requirement. Till 20th century asking for a bribe to do your work was a crime. And in 21st century, asking for a bribe and not doing your work is crime or let’s say immoral. (Because such crimes don’t get punished in India anymore, especially if the criminal is related to politics or politician)

But the immorality tag is still there attached with this activity. Asking for or paying a bribe was immoral till 20th century and is still immoral in 21st century. Though in 21st century we don’t consider it outrageous if our things are getting done.

In short, things don’t change really. Our perspectives do. Our methods do. But the underlying meaning, motive behind things don’t change. As we say truth never changes, though the perception about truths change for us.