Just like that

Ansuo ka kya, kabhi bhi nikal jate hai,
Kabhi begano k apnepan se,
To kabhi apno k beganepan se.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Bahut hai aasan zindagee k sare kirdar nibhana,

Bas asaliyat me jeena padta hai,

Kabhi hansna to kabhi rona padta hai,

Kabhi paraye hote apne to kabhi apno ko khona padta hai,

Kabhi sapno me jagna to kabhi jagte jagte sona padta hai!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaj fir mil gayee wo beech bazar me,

Shayad khadee thi kisi k intezar me,

Puchh baitha us se fir ek baar main,

Kya aaj bhi pagal hai tu mere pyaar me,

Akulayee see khadi rhi wo jaise fansee ho majhdhar me,

Fir boli wo, kyu milte hai zakhm humesha sachche pyaar me,

Kya nahi hai aur koi gum is sansar me,

Na Jane kyu ruk jaati hoo isi mod pe har baar main,

Shayad yehi hai kismat meri k khush rahu tere intezar me!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

जब भी  वो मेरे साथ होती है ,

खुशनुमा दिन ,

और हसीन रात होती है,

शीतल उसका स्पर्श ,

और शहद सी हर बात होती है ,

अमावस सी बिछडन,

और पूनम सी मुलाकात होती है,

जब भी  वो मेरे साथ होती है ,

खुशनुमा दिन ,

और हसीन रात होती है l

वहम

वहम था अहम का,
एक चिंगारी ने सब जला डाला ।

वहम था सालों साल जीने का,
एक virus ने मार डाला ।

वहम था महलों पर महल बनाने का,
ज्ञण भर की धरती की कंपकंपी ने सब गिरा डाला ।

वहम था जवानी के जोश का,
बुढ़ापे ने रूला डाला ।

वहम था रिश्तों का,
गरीबी ने सब समझा डाला ।

वहम था कुर्सी का,
एक vote ने सत्तापलट कर डाला ।

वहम था रफ्तार का,
वक्त ने सब पलट डाला ।

वहम था जग जीतने का,
बच्चों ने हरा डाला।

वहम था अहम का,
एक चिंगारी ने सब जला डाला ।

The Right is right- India is Tolerant

The 2014 general election is one of the milestones in Indian political history. It will have long lasting effects on Indian political discourse. For the first time in independent India a "right wing" party came to the power with absolute majority. India lacks ideology based political discourse. It points towards under-development of political philosophy. Today's politics is by and large legacy of freedom struggle which was dominated by Congress. After independence Congress projected itself as "centrist" atleast in terms of economic policy by adopting mixed economy. Post liberalization economic policy of the nation and that of Congress tilted towards capitalism. Further with rise of BJP the party with  "right wing" ideology at national level, Congress transformed into anti-right wing party. It became the party with economic policies away from left and political ideology towards left. It supported united front government in 1996-97 also formed the government with support of left parties with common minimum programme in 2004. 2004 marriage of congress and left parties marked the convergence of centre and left . Due to Congress-Left dominance, elites with similar ideologies occupied significant space in intelligentsia. Perception had been created that right wing ideology is communal, retrograde, divisive etc. This caused right-wing inclined people refraining from publicly acknowledging themselves. Further damage was done by extreme right wing organisations committing sporadic incidences of violence. Though extreme leftist violence like naxalism failed to malign left, sporadic violence by extreme right maligned image of right wing considerably. Media had significant role in this discourse.

With Narendra Modi rising to national level Right wing got new direction. Mr Modi as someone who publicly acknowledged his ideology, almost whole of right wing rallied behind him. Further his development oriented and proven results in Gujarat made added to his followings. Though main stream media still adverse towards BJP and Modi, social media played significant role in propagating Modiji's image. His image of right wing progressive development oriented leader increased BJP seats from speculated range of 170-180 to 282. But public acknowledgement of of being Right still less prevalent. Perception of right wing needs to be improved. Many nations have right wing governments and they are working reasonably good.  There is no significant difference between economic policies of NDA and UPA. Both are for open economy with tinge of social welfare. Only difference is that NDA is yet to fall into traps of populism. Populism is mixture of appeasement and poor economics. Indiscriminate subsidies, loan waiver, reservations, freebies etc are contribute to populism. However bad for health of economics, it has been the most successful in terms of electoral gains. Most of regional parties in India are surviving on the oxygen of populism. Delhi and Bihar assembly elections prove that reforms are not welcome but populism is.

With regime change, elites were also to change. Efforts have been made to prove current government as extreme Right. Erstwhile elites and irresponsible behaviour of main stream media has been main culprits. First it was propaganda of "Attacks" on churches with a message that current government was attacking minorities. It was not mere co-incidence that such incidences were at peak at around assembly elections. Detailed investigations revealed that such incidences were in nature of theft, some as trivial as cricket ball going inside churches and there was no significant rise in such incidences when compared year on year basis. Whatever be the truth, damage had been done. Further Ghar Wapsi and love Jehad blown out of proportion with single agenda to deride the Right. Conversions are going on daily in our nation, then it was not understandable why Ghar Wapsi was made such a big issue.

Second half of 2015 was very important for BJP. First Bihar assembly elections were due, which were significant for BJP to increase its tally in RS. Secondly positive environment for doing business was to be consolidated. Further for permanent seat in UNSC India has to convince the world that it was complying with modern ideas of secularism, liberty etc. Politics is much of perception game let it be domestic or international. "Church attack" like propaganda was more than expected in such scenario. Every person has certain political ideology and as said before many on intelligentsia of left-congress era belonged to anti-Right group. Award Wapasi was started by the writer who has close family links with royal family of congress. This fact strengthens the suspicion that this propaganda was politically motivated. Also few of "intelligentsia" of award wapsi gang had campaigned against Mr Modi during elections. It leaves no doubt over political motivation of the whole exercise.

Three incidences cited by "intelligentsia" to support claims of intolerance  are Kalburgi murder, Dadri incidence and Hariyana Dalit children's burning. First two happened in non-BJP ruled states and law and order is State subject under our constitution. Therefore major chunk of accountability lies with state governments. Further in Hariyana case, forensic investigations have revealed that fire was from within the house. Also prompt action has been taken in all the three cases. Data suggests that there has been no significant increase in violent crimes/communal crimes after NDA coming to power. Also none of the "intelligentsia" of "rising intolerance" gang have been harmed. Further they cite Beef Ban forgetting that beef ban is nothing new, Constitution has called foe taking steps to ban salughter of cows and milch animals and the same has been done in many states. Therefore all claims of rising intolerance seem to be hollow without substance.  This gang has gone to extent with equating RSS with IS and India with Hindu Taliban. If differential behaviour of these people in aftermath of 1984 genocide, 1989 bhagalpur massacre, multiple terrorist attacks, innumerable Fatwas issued, etc are compared with their stand today, hypocrisy will be ashamed of.

Further after failing to substantiate claims of rising intolerance these people cite freedom speech and personal opinion, conveniently forgetting that defamation is one of the grounds of reasonable restriction on such freedom. By calling the nation "intolerant" you are defaming the government of the day, insulting Indians who are living peacefully. Now award wapsi has ceased, claims of intolerance are on decline for two reasons- first BJP has lost Bihar (Objective achieved)  and Paris attacks (Now people know what intolerance is).

The moral of story is that nurturing of "intelligentsia" to make them politically biased is the worst thing a government can do. Political parties will come and go, but government and governance is continuous process. Media as fourth pillar of democracy should be responsible in reporting. Finally truth will prevail- India has been the most tolerant place ever in the history. There is no place where such diversity exists is evidence of our tolerance. 

कीमत

गर मिल जाए मंजिल सबको ,
तो मंजिल की क्या कीमत,
गर लहरों से ही मिल  जाए साहिल,
तो तैराक की क्या कीमत,
गर मिल जाए मोहब्बत सबको,
तो तड़प की क्या कीमत,
गर अक्ल आ गई सबमें,
तो हमारी क्या कीमत।

Terrorism may be secular but Terrorists are communal

Yet another brutal attack in Paris took place yesterday. Places of attack were so designed to give impression as an attack on western world. One such place was football stadium where match was being played between France and Germany, while another where American band was performing. It has been termed as attack on human civilization.

Mass killings have been rampant throughout the history. However in contemporary world, such barbaric killings are not that prevalent. Most of such killings are due clash of two cultures. These are to decide supremacy of one culture over another. In modern world concepts of secularism and tolerance have contributed in tackling these cultural wars.

After any such incident we are reminded by "intellectuals" and "media"  that "terrorism has no religion". This statement seems to be correct in order to avoid discrimination of any single community especially in diverse societies like India. Media and intellectual bias is evident in such commentary. Sporadic incidents with alleged involvement of Hindus had caused then Home Minister of India to coin the phrase "saffron terrorism". Further few incidents in recent past had caused large propaganda of "intolerance" in our country with few returning awards to protest "rising intolerance". One columnist has gone to extent of calling India as Hindu Taliban while another historian comparing RSS with ISIS. These are two extreme stands taken by intelligentsia. It is unfortunate to have such biased opinions in main stream media. It leaves root question, the question of cultural fanaticism unanswered.

Coming to the phrase "terrorism has no religion". While it can be granted that terrorism has no religion but can we also say that terrorists have no religion. If they have no religion then why this violence? what it is for? for money? power? No, these violent incidences are for establishment of supremacy of certain ideology and perpetrators of such crimes are fanatic followers of such ideology.

Coming to philosophical discourse regarding religion, what exactly is religion. The word religion is derived from Latin word "religare"which means to bind. Hence religion is defined as a faith or belief that is followed by a set of people. When we use word religion then our concept is limited to known religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. But religion is beyond these existing religions. Even scienticism, secularism, humanism, environmentalism etc can be called religion based upon above definition. Thus saying terrorists have no religion is flawed concept.

Another distorted concept prevalent in India is that of secularism. In our country it is interpreted from religious tolerance to freedom of faith to minority appeasement. Actual secularism implies indifference towards religion in public discourse. This meaning of secularism has been left way behind in the history of modern India.

Now if any act is done to establish supremacy of certain culture or faith then can it be called secular? Is it possible to commit such act without having staunch belief in ideology? Answer is bog NO. Next step is whether interpretation of religious texts by such extremist groups is correct or not. Common sense says that no religion can preach killing of innocent people. Merely non believing in particular faith doesn't make a person guilty at all. Having said it, non believers have no right to mock the faith of a particular community. Such acts of mocking acts as provocation.

It is only when believers and non believers respect each others faith then only violent crimes happening in the name of religion can be stopped. But repeating a line that terrorists have no religion is like turning blind eye to root cause of such extremism.

State Anthem

हम उस राज्य के वासी हैं,
जहाँ लालू की सत्ता है,
जिंदगी महंगी
और मरना सस्ता है,
भ्रष्ट हैं मंत्री से संत्री,
सरकारी तंत्र खस्ता है,
फटेहाल हैं बसें,
गड्ढों में रस्ता है,
स्कूल में मास्टर नहीं,
अस्पताल में डाक्टर नही,
जमाना हम पे हंसता है,
न नौकरी न चाकरी है,
युवा हमारा परदेश बसता है,
न बिजली है न पानी है,
जीते जी नरक पहुंच गये,
ऐसा हमको लगता है,
हम उस राज्य के वासी हैं,
जहाँ लालू की सत्ता है।

New Era in Indian Politics

Indian Politics has traveled a long way from monopoly of Congress to coalition era. Initially coalition era was most difficult phase with hung assemblies, parliament multiple governments in short span of time, and mid term elections. In last one decade barring some exceptions there has been decisive mandates in favor of one party of pre-poll alliances. It is sign of maturing coalition politics. It has given stable governments.

2014 general election has been another milestone in Indian politics. It made difference on two counts. First it was quasi-presidential in nature. People gave decisive mandate for Mr. Narendra Modi, the prime ministerial candidate of BJP. Secondly it marked transition from coalition politics to "anti-establishmentism", with later being more important and long lasting impact. Bihar assembly election 2015 marking the first major victory of anti-establishmentism.

India has parliamentary system with first pass the pole method. Although BJP got around 33% of popular votes, it secured more than 50% of seats in Loksabha. In Loksabha 2014, opposition was largely fragmented. Vote share of unified opposition was much more than vote share of BJP. This prompted  opposition parties to come together and fight BJP and Modi charisma. India has lack of ideology based party system. Therefore coming together of these parties is not difficult. Only obstacle has been personal rivalry. Since there are no permanent friends and foes in politics, this issue has been relatively easier to address. Unified opposition was first tried in assembly by-elections explicitly in Bihar, implicitly in UP. Further Delhi election where it was implicit understanding between cadres of Congress and AAP that gave excellent results. Bihar election was first major test of unified opposition. Final tally of assembly election results were in tune with seat projections based upon vote shares of grand alliance in general election 2014.

However such unified opposition has inherent weaknesses and contradictions. It is prompted by opportunism rather than ideology. Its disintegration is inevitable. After success in Bihar there would be more consolidated experiment in UP. Electoral politics has become simple arithmetic.

Strategies employed by unified opposition is anti-establishmentism, that is to oppose party in power and blame it for every wrong. In Delhi and in Bihar all problems of the country were attributed to newly elected government at centre. Modi government has been on right track to focus on institutional. infrastructural reforms. Such measures take time to yield results. In Delhi and Bihar actual anti-incumbency was directed towards BJP.

Bihar elections also signifies caste based voting pattern. It is unfortunate that caste based political discourse is still rampant. Vote share of two alliances are in consonance with caste based vote bank of respective parties.

Bihar election, though regional in nature has national percussion. Unfortunately these results will dampen the long term economic reforms being undertaken. Firstly it will decrease the stature of PM Modi in parliament and within his own party. BJP's strength in RS will be further reduced. Reforms with legislative requirements will be difficult to go through. Further Mr Modi may shift focus from reforms to short term populist measures. populist measures, though bad economics yield good electoral results. Further investor confidence will suffer setback in light of dampening reforms.

It will require statesmanship from Mr Modi to continue with long term reforms irrespective of regional losses. In my opinion he is staunch patriot and he will continue with reforms with more focus on long term gains rather than short sighted populism. He has to sacrifice states to earn Statesmanship.

Reservation, Social structure and Merit

India has been diverse and complex society. Complexity and diversity in Indian society is explained by sociological development, invasion by foreign powers and cultural hybridization through thousands of years. As a result India has become home to various religions, sects and castes.

Caste system is not new concept to Indian society. Traditionally Indian society has been divided into four classes through system of Varnashram. Basic concept behind Varnashram was specialization in the fields of education, administration, business and labour. If under this system, status of individual were to be decided based upon qualities rather than birth, then it would not have been distorted. However, with advent of time Varnashram system became hereditary and caste discrimination ensued. Caste divides became so wide that upper caste people used to avoid contact with lower caste people forget about inter-dining, inter-marriage etc. Caste discrimination reached to the lowest in the form of untouchability.

Two champions of social equality of modern India Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar had contrasting views regarding caste system. While Gandhiji was in favour of varnshram, Ambedkarr was for abolition of caste system radically. Gandhiji did not find fault with  caste system but he faulted untouchability. Gandhiji wanted to bring parity among all castes by providing equality of status and was against hereditary nature. Ambedkar found caste system to be root cause of discrimination. This conception of Ambedkar compelled him to denounce Hinduism and accept Buddhism.

Our Constitution makers tried to abolish caste discrimination by providing fundamental rights under Part-III of constitution under articles 14, 15, 16 and 17. Further they thought these fundamental rights to be insufficient to bring parity, they introduced affirmative action in the form of reservation to uplift the backward classes. They provided time frame of ten years for upliftment of socially backward classes.

Argument behind reservation has been that socially backward classes have limited access to education and resources. Thus people with similar capabilities perform differentially due to differing facilities. It has been well accepted argument. With passage of time reservation has been extended to Other Backward Classes.

Reservation became strong electoral issue with no political parties daring to opine against reservation explicitly. With RSS chief opining about revisiting current reservation model, new debate regarding reservation is expected to take place.

Lets examine current reservation policy. Two major questions should be asked. First, whether reservation in current for has provided desired results? If not then why? Secondly, Is current reservation model just?

Lets us examine current reservation model in the context of first question. Answer is partially yes. Reservation has uplifted certain communities if compared to their social status at the time of independence. However upliftment of few communities was not objective of reservation policy. It was abolition of social discrimination. Social discrimination is still rampant in our society. Nowadays this discrimination is not only based upon caste but on socio-economic status also. Many people belonging to backward classes still living under ignorance. They are cut off from main stream. Development has not touched them. Further once a beneficiary of reservation the individual progresses and subsequently his children are equally privileged as compared to upper class people. Now the people who did not get benefit of reservation at the previously are not as privileged as beneficiary off reservation. This causes distorted competition among reserved category people. Thus people who have not got reservation previously are unfairly left out of reservation and thus reservation in current form has failed to bring social parity. This has created gulf even between people of same class. Further with involvement of electoral politics, caste system has consolidated. In many states caste based political parties have flourished and still voting pattern has unfortunately been on caste lines.

Coming to second question whether reservation has been just in current form. Answer is big no. Privileges a student get in to form of schooling, access to books, coaching etc. depend upon economic status rather than caste. A son/daughter of a well earning person has access to modern schooling, updated books, and coachings etc. However children of not so well economically are not so privileged. If former belongs to reserved category and later to unreserved category then merit system is distorted. Under current reservation model if former performs poorly then also he will succeed in the competition rather than later. Here basic argument of reservation falls flat. Merit system has been distorted by current form of reservation. Here justice suffers. A child of farmer belonging to upper class has equal right over resources of nation as child of a professional belonging to reserved category. This distortion has caused many upper class people to demand reservation. Latest example being that of Patels in Gujrat.

What should be the way forward? Reservation can not be indefinite affair. Injustice it is causing will over the time cause social unrest. It has be revised. Constitution provides for affirmative action for socio--economic backwardness. Answer is in the constitution itself. It is time that we should reconsider whether caste is only criteria for assessment of socio-economic backwardness. Socio-economic assessment involves education, profession, income, place of living etc. Socio-economic census should be done to ear mark beneficiaries of reservation. And such list to be revised periodically, say every 10 years.

Further reservation should be made one time benefit. If father or mother has been beneficiary of reservation for higher education and employment then children should be kept out of reservation. This is only way we can get rid of reservation.

Also primary education should be made robust enough that reservation becomes unnecessary stuff. Very recently the custodian of constitution, SC has directed government to abolish reservation in higher education.  Unfortunately because of caste consolidation and caste based voting has caused lack of political will for even debate reservation policy. The day is not far when social revolt will be against current unjust model of reservation. Protests by jats, gujjars and patels are just starting tip of iceberg of unrest.

उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि मटन में taste  नहीं है,
बकरे बिचारे की जान चली गयी, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि निकम्मा है साला।
बिचारा दिन-रात काम करता रहा, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि प्यार नहीं करती मुझसे वो,
आँख लग गयी बिचारी की तेरे इंतज़ार में, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि अन्यायी है उपरवाला,
तुम्हे औकात से ज्यादा दे दिया उसका क्या?


तुमने कहा कि जान ले ली डॉक्टर ने,
कितनो की बचाई होगी उसने, उस का क्या?

तुमने कहा कि लूटता है डॉक्टर साला,
जवानी खर्च दी उसने पढ़ाई में, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि गाय काट क खानी है हमे,
गाय को देवी मानते हम, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा की बहुत अकड़ है साले में,
कितने पापड़ बेले हैं उसने, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा की बोलने की आज़ादी नहीं है देश में,
दिन-रात गाली मिल रही है प्रधानमंत्री को, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि तानाशाह है वो,
लोकतान्त्रिक चुनाव जीत के आया है, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि अनुभव नहीं शासन का उसे,
चालीस साल से राजननीति में गुज़ारे है उसने, उसका क्या?

तुमने कहा कि और आरक्षण चाहिए,
५०% वाला कलेक्टर और ८०% वाला चपरासी ही, उसका क्या?