A beautiful poem reflecting the sentiment of the day. It is time for India to awaken.
इस बार नहीं>
इस बार जब वोह छोटी सी बच्ची मेरे पास अपनी खरोंच ले कर आएगी
मैं उसे फू फू कर नहीं बहलाऊँगा
पनपने दूँगा उसकी टीस को
इस बार नहीं
इस बार जब मैं चेहरों पर दर्द लिखा देखूँगा
नहीं गाऊँगा गीत पीड़ा भुला देने वाले
दर्द को रिसने दूँगा,उतरने दूँगा अन्दर गहरे
इस बार नहीं
इस बार मैं न मरहम लगाऊँगा
न ही उठाऊँगा रुई के फाहे
और न ही कहूँगा कि तुम आंखें बंद करलो, गर्दन उधर कर लो मैं दवा लगाता हूँ
देखने दूँगा सबको हम सबको खुले नंगे घाव
इस बार नहीं> इस बार जब उलझने देखूँगा, छटपटाहट देखूँगा
नहीं दौडूंगा उलझी डोर लपेटने> उलझने दूँगा जब तक उलझ सके
इस बार नहीं> इस बार कर्म का हवाला दे कर नहीं उठाऊँगा औजार
नहीं करूंगा फिर से एक नयी शुरुआत> नहीं बनूँगा मिसाल एक कर्मयोगी की
नहीं आने दूँगा ज़िन्दगी को आसानी से पटरी पर
उतरने दूँगा उसे कीचड मैं, टेढे मेढे रास्तों पे
नहीं सूखने दूँगा दीवारों पर लगा खून
हल्का नहीं पड़ने दूँगा उसका रंग
इस बार नहीं बनने दूँगा उसे इतना लाचार
कि पान की पीक और खून का फर्क ही ख़त्म हो जाए
इस बार नहीं
इस बार घावों को देखना है
गौर से थोड़ा लंबे वक्त तक
कुछ फैसले और उसके बाद हौसले
कहीं तो शुरुआत करनी ही होगी
इस बार यही तय किया है
Acknowledgements : Thanks to Pavan Jha for introducing me to this poem.
I just finished watching the presidential debate. Here is a scribble with some initial impressions...
Even though I have been rooting for Barack Obama since the day Hillary was out of the race, I must say John McCain made more sense today than he ever has. Esp. when it came to foreign policy issues.
Indians, by and large have been quite pleased with Obama in the recent past. Infact they have been jumping up and down clapping their hands in glee. After all Obama has been after Pakistan's case with a vengeance and we Indians love it when Pakistan gets a rap from the world community. The same is story on the other side of the border. India and Pakistan at the end of the day are nothing but squabbling siblings who continually get taken for a ride because they cannot resolve their own issues.
However Obama's opinion that the United States should use force if needed to get Bin Laden out of Pakistan made my hair stand on the end. First is personal. I have dear friends in Pakistan and wouldn't want war to come to their country. At a political level this is scary because it displays the same egg-headed thinking that the US has the moral right to invade the sovereignty of any country to serve their agenda without as much as bye-your-leave. This also tells us that the US has no friends. They could shower you with funds one day and invade you the other. This is the attitude that led to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is the case that is being built against Iran and now Pakistan.
What we need to see clearly is that if the US under Obama gets into Pakistan the likelihood of the country degenerating into anarchy is almost certain. In such a scenario it is not only Pakistan, but India that is doomed as well. A stable and democratic Pakistan is vital not only for the good of the people of Pakistan but for India as well. What these leaders fail to see is that activities and statements like those that Obama made today, fuel fundamental forces and work against the well-being of the entire sub-continent. And say if they bomb Pakistan and don't find Obama there and decide he has migrated south to Kashmir. Will they bomb India next? The trail of destruction left behind to avenge 9-11 has long been in the zone of diminishing returns.
Obama's earlier statements of China being a threat to US, further fuels the doubt about the safety of interests of the sub-continent under his government. It can be argued that the sub-continental interests clash more than they agree. While there is a grain of truth in it, the bigger truth is that a powerful Asia is to our collective benefit. The Clintons understood our part of the world far better than either of the present candidates does. It would have helped to have Hillary on the VP ticket if not on the presidential one (think of it, if nothing else a debate between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton would have been a blast. Joe Biden took away half the fun by being a gentleman.)
In that respect, John McCain despite his condescending 'carry a big stick and speak in a low voice' came across as far more accommodating in matters of foreign affairs esp. vis-a-vis the sub-continent. Even though we all know that he is merely presenting the American definition of the carrot-and-stick policy.
At the end of the day, we do understand that a lot of it is posturing weeks before the election. However, I don't see much change in foreign policy whichever administration takes power. Iraq or Iran, Afganistan or Pakistan..Natha Singh/Prem Singh - All in the same thing!
With his pockets empty and his kitchen fires cold, Uncle Sam has only blustering bravado left to sell. It is apparent he not ready to give up his big bully tag just of now.
There is a marked double standard that all Americans practice when it comes to their public figures. For a society that does not think twice before filing for divorce, isn't it strange that politicians don't have a chance to a public office if they have been divorced?
So, it is official now Obama is the winner of the democratic race. Hillary Clinton heads towards accepting the vice-president nominee slot. A historic bid for the white-house comes to an end (I know not the white-house just as yet, but as intense if not more).
The results don't surprise me. Clinton's tenacity in the last leg does - mildly. Over the frenzy of the democratic race of the past few months one thing has become quite apparent, this historic battle was not purely about race, gender and creed as it was pitched to be. It was as much about the attitudes, aspirations and prejudices that survive and thrive in what is considered by many to be one of the most progressive democracies in the world.
Lets talk of prejudices first. Extensive grass-root survey on why not him? or why not her? has yielded some interesting insight. Mind you, this is not the informed, analytical opinion that rests on the understanding of Obama's excellent speeches or Clinton's impressive track record. This is the 'tabloid fodder' opinion that usually makes or breaks a campaign.
Why Not Him: He is inexperienced. Has no clue of the travails of the white-house. You would not like to wake him up with the 3AM call. His wife is not proud to be an American. He thinks all Pennsylvanians are gun-totting red necks... Why Not Her: She is manipulative. She is power-hungry. She is will do anything to be president. She stood by her husband despite the Lewinsky Scandal. She preferred to spend mother's day campaigning instead of spending it with her daughter (refer to power hungry). She is as superficial as Aishwarya Rai, her smile does not reach her eyes (our desis have an opinion too :))
Do you see a pattern emerge there? If Clinton was a man, would any one of those points genuinely count? Why is being power hungry considered a sin for a woman and ambition for a man? Why would you blame a woman for standing by her errant husband. Should one not praise the strength of her character? Prejudices are things that laws can only reign in, never fix. So they will remain. What emerges in this case is that in the US it is far easier to be anti-woman than be anti-black.
And that takes me to the second part of my observation on attitudes and aspirations. These attitudes might be prevalent world over, but they emerge very strongly in US politics. There is a marked double standard that all Americans practice when it comes to their public figures. For a society that does not think twice before filing for divorce, isn't it strange that politicians don't have a chance to a public office if they have been divorced?
Bill Clinton was in the dog-house for having an affair while in office. If that was a criteria for losing a job a large chunk of the population world-over would be jobless. OK, so it was not so much about having an affair, but getting caught in the act right? So you are basically impeaching him for being stupid? I am told it's not even that, it's lying under oath. Point taken, but what is more harmful a lie, Clinton declaring under oath that he did not have an affair(normal human reaction for anyone caught with their pants down) or Bush declaring with conviction 'There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq'? Should we have not impeached Bush for not only leading the country on a wild goose chase but also for murdering a country and sacrificing so many American lives in the process? Has he not failed in his job as president as opposed to Clinton whose failure was more personal in nature? To me Clinton deserved a hard knock on the knuckles (mainly for using the white-house for his pursuits, if he had done what he did outside.. none of our business) and Bush impeachment.
If you look around, Clinton was not the only one with a roving eye. JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Look at the French. They have no problems what-so-ever :). The French ofcourse never had any puritanical pretences but, closer to home in India, Nehru was a known womaniser, but our nation continued to revere him. And the less we say about 'Mahatma' Gandhi's experiments with celibacy the better. Yet, it is Clinton who has made history in this respect. The generation of Americans that turned a blind-eye to JFKs distractions has long given way to the far more demanding modern American. An American who expects his leaders to stand by all those values that he himself discarded long ago.
Which takes me to the moot point of this piece. In this era of specialisations, is it practical for us to expect our politicians and heads of state of be sarv guna samppan- impeccable human beings in all aspects?. We all have human failings. How can we expect our leader to have none? Isn't that too lofty an ideal to aspire for? A man could be a bastard in real life, yet run the country with honesty, integrity and acumen that makes a good president. On the other hand another human being could be the perfect family man, yet be corrupt, ineffectual and weak. A politician's job is to run the country. Period. And as long as he does that job well and keeps to the laws of the land shouldn't we mind our own business?
I know the halo around Obama's head as just got stronger, but now it is the time to remove that halo, to conquer the need for seeking an aura. Time has come to de-saintise politics.
