INSTITUTE OF MARRIAGE---SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS!

'MERI MARZI'--THE VIRUS THAT KILLS MARRIAGE?
    IIn the year 2005, I wrote a series of E-Mails to my daughter and son, just before their marriage. It included their spouses, too. The mails defined various facets of the 'MARRIAGE'. There were six mails in all. My son put them on his blog spot as 'DAD's WISDOM'. I forgot them. One day, as I was surfing his page, I saw them. I thought of putting them on SULEKHA so as to generate some debate on this greatest social institute, since time immemorial. It is under threat, because of "Individualisation" of HUMANS. There was a debate on this on SULEKHA a few days back. Can we save this institute which distinguishes between the 'SOCIAL ANIMAL' and the 'WILD ANIMAL'? I do feel the need to not only save it but revitalise it. Ofcourse, we can debate its future ETHOS, SHAPE and CONTOURS. Here is one of the shortest mail, just to initiate the debate. Read on:-*************************************************************************************** Hi Every one!
"Oh,God! He is here again".Did u say that? Well u better don't do that,for, I'm here to do the plain speaking.U know what is the biggest human vanity? It is sure outside ur vocabulary.'Because U people have been trapped behind the iron-doors of ur oversized egos n blinded by the self blinding logic of 'SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS'. Yes, this is the biggest human vanity.U want to accuse me of the same. Sure,go ahead.Welcome!
I tell u what. Have u heard of Bertrand Russel? How stupid of me to ask u this question? Isn't it? Anyway , who was he? No, sorry, he was not a 'computer driver' like U? Sorry again for addressing u as 'computer drivers' for want of a proper nomenclature for ur profession.But why computer Drivers? Why not Pilots, professionals,Operators Or so on? Tell me.
Ok, wait.Let me complete the tale of Russel.He was a great 'Thinker' n a 'Social philospher' of 19th/20th Century.Once his student asked him," Sir, would u like to die for the principles u hold so dear to ur heart".Russel thought for a while n said'" No, Never".Thestudent was stunned,"But, Why Not"? " Because, I MAY BE WRONG" was Russel's reply. This is the catch.U KNOW DRIVERS NEVER THINK THEY MIGHT BE WRONG. AND THOSE WHO EAT, DRINK N LIVE BY COMPUTERS INVARIABLY DEVELOP THIS 'KNOW-ALL ATTITUDE'.

'SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS' , U C IS AN ATIITUDINAL DISORDER ACQUIRED WHILE INTERACTING WITH UNKNOWN N ALIEN ENVIRONMENTS. It is the self guarding mechanism of the body which gets activated when u smell danger to ur self from something not known.U develop an attitude to be cautious in ur approach.Nothing wrong.There comes a stage when u become a slave of ur inhibtions n u do not allow this attitude to be shed.This prolonged inclination towards extra vigiliance leads to this disorder.This disorder causes distrust in partners;leads to self-seeking goals;indifference n intolearnance towards those who question ur wrong-doing.SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE FOUNDATION STONE OF A DEADLY VIRUS CALLED 'MERI- MARZI'. U know how? OK, hold for a while.
Have u read Thomas Harris? May be some of u might have glanced through his famous treatise on human communications. Don't tell me u haven't heard of the book,"I'M OK, U R OK!" ? Now what can I say if u haven't? Let me tell u, don't be afraid of reading. U know if u read one book a day(each book of 200pages) and u do it for ur life(Let's say for 100 years). At the end of it u would have only acquired 30% of the knowledge that is available in the word. This is the extent of ur ignorance n still u say u r MR/MS/MRS KNOW-ALL! Alright, let me talk about a bit on 'I'M OK;U'R OK'.
This books is a master on human communications. It says every person has in him three states i.e.Parent,Adult n Child state.He/She communicates from one of these three states.Therefore to keep the communication going u ought to b in the same state,otherwise the communications will break down.Main theme is that every human being acquires one of the four postures in life. These r :-one,I'm not ok ,u r ok; two, I'm ok,u r not ok; three, I'm not ok, ur not ok and four, I'm ok , u r ok. Best is, of course, the last one.The first stage is acquired in the infancy only,even before the age of five.Later,environments, education,experiences n
process of growing up which includes activities connected with both hardships n successes, convert him into one of the other three postures.The worst posture is of course 'I'M NOT OK, U R NOT OK'. This is the sign of a person having withdrawal symptoms and developing sicidal tendencies. The best, no doubts, is 'I'M OK ;U R OK'. It is invariably seen Children adopt the posture:-'I AM NOT OK; U R OK'.
This,if not corrected by the parents and the teachers, it leads to the posture i.e, 'I'M OK ; U R NOT OK'.This 'self acclaimed greatness' leads to self-serving philosophy of 'MERI MARZI'. And this is the greatest enemy of 'MARRIAGE'. Remember, in MARRIAGE'there is nothing known as 'MERI MARZI'. It is always 'HAMARI MARZI'. t**************************************8*******************************************************************************************
II hope it generates a positive debate on this social institute of great significance. we can reform it but must save it. Don't you agree. Have your take. THIS WAS THE FIFTH MAIL. I will post others in due course.

ENGLISH POEM-6 OLD ORDER CHAHETH----

OLD ORDER CHANGING YIELDING PLACE TO NEW!

“Hi, is anybody there?”

“Yes, what’s it dear?”                  “I am TIGER with a PIG on line.”

“We are children with 'Future Divine'.”

“How come in soldier’s uniform?”

“Violent earth, we want to reform.”

“I must say, it is a noble mission!”

“Tired of our elder’s sloppy vision!”

“Do you feel the earth is likely to explode?”

“Unless we eliminate the man-made gods?”

“Why do you have such negative thoughts?”

“Because ruffians fill the leader’s slot.”

“Hey, ‘Child-soldiers’ is not the answer.”

“But adults have become court-dancers”

“Do you dare to be ‘evil-busters?”

“This is the courage, we do muster.”

“Are you modelling on tigers of Tamil Elam?”

“Certainly not, they don’t figure in our plans.”

“Oh, you don’t want to become ‘Tigers’, dear?”

“No, No! We hope to be ‘Riders’ without fear.”

“Do children get spoiled if one spares the rod?”

“On the contrary, self-styled Icons are no Gods.”

“Well! Well!! Do not talk in spiralling riddles”

“You see, when the fame comes, the Icon fiddles.”

“Then, moral discourses must be a sham”

“Like a well-metalled road on a seeping dam.”

“Does the hole widen with falling bricks?”

“Innocence falls prey to emotional tricks.”

“How do you account for this value-erosion?”

“Obliging yes-man’s passport to promotion.”

“All right! How does this system operate?”

“Leaders look the other way when PA’s dictate.”

“But 'freedom-fighting' is a noble venture?”

“Frustration acquires an artificial denture.”

“So, freedom movements are losing their teeth.”

“Because, ‘globalisation’ is rising on its feet.”

“So, why are you, then, dressed like soldiers?”

“Along its path, removing human-boulders.”

“But I will not allow your hegemony, here.”

“The days of ‘brawn’ have gone, my dear.”

“I am the ‘tiger’ and you are but a child.”

“Submit gleefully, else we would be wild?”

“But, you see, I am not a human boulder.”

“Why do you carry past on your shoulders?”

“This is jungle, dear, not a human habitat.”

“Yes, we want to make this world flat.”

“I do not get it, what does it imply?”

“The notion of ‘nationhood’ is about to die.”

“What? Nationhood dying? It makes no sense.”

“It means borderless world without any fence.”

“Hey, what is so new? Our jungles are like this.”

“Soon the flattened world will have the bliss.”

“You mean to say the rules of jungles will apply.”

“In gender relations, it would be a staple diet.”

“Shut up! Do not utter a sheer white lie.”

“It is darkness when you close your eyes.”

“Come on, dears; check this moral down-slide.”

“'Flat world' will have no ‘groom’; also no bride.”

“Do you say marriages will have no social stamp?”

“Yes! Yes, it is on display on the ‘Western’ ramp.”

“Well! Religions will not approve this murky affair.”

“Where jungle rules matter, who would care?”
"Will religious 'heads' put down the shutter?"
" In lit up areas, dying insects do flutter ."
"You mean the role of religion will decline."
"You must know it is losing its glossy shine."

“Shocking, dear! It is shocking revelations!”

“Infallible will blast with inner implosion.”

“Is this our ‘future’ on your 'rifled' tray?”

“Draw your conclusions, whatever you may.”

“Then, how come you are making a loud noise.”

“As children of the ‘Future’, we have no choice.”

“Hey, you mean future has broken through?”

“Old order changed yielding place to new.”

“Are we, of the old genre, now history books stuff?”

“Well! Better you kiss reality now, it is not a bluff?”

“Can you give ‘the old’ some space to live?”

“Whirr……..whirr…….whirr………”(Line gets noisy!)

“Hey, do you hear? It is time to quit.”

“Whirr………..whirs……….whirr……”
”Hullo! Hullo!! Are we still connected?”

“Whirr…..whirr…….whirr……whirr…..”

“It will take time before past is resurrected”

“Whirr……..whirr…….whirr…………”

“Hey, ‘kids of the future’! Are you still there?”

“Caller please leave the line, your time is over.”

“Whirr…………..whirr………….whirr………”

HINDI POEM-18 धोखा नज़रों क़ा?

धोखा नज़रों क़ा?

क्या थे हम ए-दिलबर लेकिन तुम क्या सोच रहे हो?
आपकी नज़रों का धोखा, हमे क्यों कोस रहे हो?

प्यार के इस रंग में हम पार कर गए सरहदें,
बे-बफा तुम खुद ही निकले अब क्यों रो रहे हो?

------क्या थे हम ए-दिलबर लेकिन तुम क्या सोच रहे हो?

दिल तुम्हारा हो गया, हम संग तुम्हारे चल दिए,
लुट गई इस दुनिया में अब तुम क्या खोज़ रहे हो?

------क्या थे हम ए-दिलबर लेकिन तुम क्या सोच रहे हो?

ध्यान से देखो 'राज़ी" तुम जान लो गे सच्च को,
पर्दा हटा के देख लो क्यों मुंह को नोच रहे हो?

------क्या थे हम ए-दिलबर लेकिन तुम क्या सोच रहे हो?

ENGLISH POEM-5 COMPROMISE !

COMPROMISE

One ‘August’ evening,

Amongst –

Ladies and gentlemen,

Of –

A great esteem;

I –

Set at auction;

My –

Soul and dreams.

Eye brows got raised,

Vibrating –

Love and hate;

Resonating –

Deliberation and haste;

Shaking –

Frames above waist,

They added –

Only confusion to my mental state.

Some called their bid,

With –

Offers so insipid;

Others –

Merely talked hybrid;

Some-

Of the cost cribbed;

Faulting –

My make and build.

As a motion less hill,

With –

Only isolation and chill,

With –

Self generated frills,

I –

Thought of the principles,

My –

Mind possessed still.

Rigid in emotions,

With –

Cries of value –erosion,

I –

Created a commotion,

Halting –

An old man’s motion,

Who –

Prescribed me a lotion.

‘Compromise in life’

He shot –

“Between ‘truth and lies’,

Amongst –

‘Sects and tribes’

Between –

Husband and wife

Brings –

End to all strife”.

Caring his advice,

Shedding –

All emotional disguise,

With –

Lowering of price,

Once more –

I threw the dice,

And

My boss got enticed.

Faces grew pale,

Amidst –

An emotional gale,

With

Cries, sobs and wails,

But –

The deal I hailed,

As –

‘Reality’ over ‘Idealism’ prevailed.

IS MY CONSCIOUS DEAD?

IS MY CONSCIENCE DEAD?

I know the world does not run according to the teachings of school boy’s text books. Moralities encapsulated in textbooks and the actual contours of human conduct find a great chasm between them. Both are like the two banks of a river which run side by side but never to meet. The only link between the two banks is the flowing water, which varies its speed according to accompanying environments and geography. Similarly, human conduct flows through the two extremes of the desirability of IDEALISM and the practicality of REALISM. A French Philosopher, Francoise-de-Roche, had said: WE ACT ACCORDING TO OUR FEARS; WE PERFORM ACCORDING TO OUR HOPES. Thus, our conduct is basically a product of our hopes and fears. It oscillates, like the pendulum of a wall clock between ABSOLUTE RIGHT and ABSOLUTE WRONG. The inner space is the PERMISSIBLE LIMITS of our ZONE OF CONDUCT. This is what I say, LIVE LIFE AS IT COMES. I am not very sure, if JEAN PAUL SARTRE had this in mind when he propounded EXISTENTIALISM.

All the same, I can not and will not advocate that moral teachings be exorcised from the text books because they have no utility in the practical life. In fact, I insist they be taught with more intensity and zeal to ensure the balance in life. More you teach them, more a person is conscious of his acts. Yes, moral inhibition is needed to act as a brake on human mind. Let this be the hobnail on which he swings. I can not swallow the fact that life can be allowed to drift on one track of PRACTICAL NECESSITY. To checkmate it, the lessons of moral science are required to be stuffed into each child till he comes out of age. Let him follow his path, thereafter, as he likes. But before doing a wrong thing, he would always seek the approval of his conscience. I am of the opinion that it is the FEAR OF WRONG-DOING which keeps many under check in all their good, bad and ugly activities.

I am peeved at the fact that some of us are advocating shedding of the moralities because of difficulties in following them in practical life. You do not have to be 100 percent on the right side but at least the pendulum must swing to 60 percent level. Even if I am a liar, I can not imagine teaching my son to tell lies. Can you do this? I will always say, speak the truth. It is a different matter; he will observe me telling lies and pick up the nuances of the trade. After all, the education begins at home. The child learns from the practical example of his parents and the company he keeps. Didn’t the old wisdom say that never do a wrong thing in front of a child because in his impressionable age he picks up these traits. If you listen to THOMAS HARRIS, the author of ‘I AM OK, YOU ARE OK’, he advocates that the formative years are the first five years of a child. It is during this period the child adopts one of the four stages and postures advocated by Thomas Harris. It is very difficult to rectify him in the later age.

Can you approve of your child indulging in such acts as stealing, kidnapping and murdering? It is a separate issue that you start defending him after he is caught doing this. But suppose, he comes to you and says: PAPA, I AM GOING TO RAPE NEENA, MY CLASSMATE. Are you going to say: GOOD, GO AHEAD? Life is not of FILMI villains. However corrupt and a cruel father one might be, one can not give sanction for such ghastly acts—unless he has no conscience. I can tell you even criminals have their conscience. Vast majority of them get involved in the criminal acts due to circumstantial compulsions. There are a very few percentage of people, I reckon amongst the criminals, whose conscience might be dead. They are insane people. But, what worries me is, when sanity is thrown to winds deliberately by sensible.

Who are these sensible people? They are the ones who advocate PASSIVITY in the wake of wrong doing. Even MK GANDHI, the apostle of NON-VIOLENCE, did not preach this. I am shaken when a guy says that turn your eyes when you see some one breaking into a house. I am disgusted when I hear this guy saying let my neighbour be kicked in the backside by some miscreants but I will not go there. I am stunned when he preaches SYA (Save You’re A**S*) and let the wrong -doer do what he wants to do. He wants to save his dear life; to live comfortably with his wife and children for ever. He forgets that it might be the neighbour today but it could be his house tomorrow. What would he say to the powerful intruder, “Come dear, my house is at your disposal?” Would he be sitting idle if the intruder starts outraging the modesty of the woman folk? Won’t he shout for help to his neighbour? How would the neighbour come to his help? His inaction and passivity have already destroyed the poor neighbour. To me, such a guy is non-existent if his conscience is dead. So, what is he living for? Such people are living dead.

I know practical life demands a large number of compromises with your conscience. Yes, you must compromise. But you ought to draw your permissible limits. You must tell yourself, “THIS FAR I GO. BEYOND THIS I DON’T.” Your zone of conduct must be within your breathing space where you do not allow your conscience to die of asphyxiation. This is realism. It is to act within your limitations but act all the same. It is not PASSIVITY. But, to turn your face is. Judge yourself against this. Ask yourself: IS MY CONSCIENCE DEAD? The answer will tell you whether you are a LIVING DEAD OR DEAD BUT LIVING. Remember, everyone will die one day—now or later. But, for a fistful of materialistic gains or pleasures, do not kill yourself before biological death.

Why am I writing this, when I know not even 0.5 percent people on SULEKHA would read this? I have no lobbies and I am not even a recognised writer of some standing. Perhaps, I marvel at dishing out only rubbish that my writings get sidelined with a simple jerk of the shoulders. I know, I do not write ROMANIC POEMS, LOVE STORIES or CONTRVERSIAL STUFF to draw attraction, which is the golden rule to shine on SULEKHA. So what? Does it matter if it is lost in the heap of rubble daily thrown into Sulekha trashcan by Team Sulekha? I wrote this because I feel I must express myself even if no one reads or listens to me. I must do duty to my conscience. Am I on a high moral ground? No, certainly not. I am not a saint. I, too, definitely want to avoid inconvenience and discomforts but not at the cost of my honour, self-dignity and self-respect. Certainly, I do not want to be a silent killer of my conscience. Yes, I can compromise with reality and my moral standing within the permissible limits of my zone of conduct. I therefore, must spell out what I find is wrong. Does not GITA says: KARAM KIYE JA, FAL KI CHINTA MAT KAR EH INSAAN”-(Do your duty, Do not bother for the results; O, Man!). I am letting the load off my chest by writing this piece. Sometimes, I go wrong then, I must accept my mistake as a man. I might like to compromise because I feel it is one way of living in reality. But my compromise is according to the rules of my CONSCIENCE—which I won’t like to die.

HINDI POEM-17 (New-4) जलचर और थलचर!

EXPRESSYOURSELF CONTESTWEEK 19( JALCHAR AUR THALCHAR--A STORY OF EVOLUTION)

Apr 1 2008 | Views 733 | Comments (20) | Report Abuse

Tags: this is the story of evolutuin of life and creatures

जलचर और थलचर!
रेत के सीने में मचले है आज़ तुम्हारे पांव,
चूमने इनको आए है हम छोड के अपना काम;
लाल रंग से चमक रहे है नाखुन पांव के सारे,
क्या हमको यह करते है खतरे के कोई ईशारे?
उछ्लो मत,न कूदो यहां,औ प्यारी-प्यारी मुन्निया!
तुम इन्सानों से क्या भिन्न सागर की यह दुनिया?
सागर के सीने में होते उथल-पुथल नितान्त,
यहां भी लागू होता है 'डार्विन' का सिद्दान्त.

जीवन की शुरुआत सुना है, शुरु हुई थी पानी मे-
सच्च छिपा है यही क्या 'मतस्य अवतार' कहानी में?
जीवन गाथा 'थलचर' की, ऑक्सीज़न पे निर्भर है,
'जलचर'का जीना भी तो पानी के बाहर दुर्लभ है .

पानी कि लहरें हमको कहां कहां ले जाती हैं?
वक्त की बढती परछाईयां तुमको भी सबक सिखाती हैं;
ताकतबर की ताकत 'गर ज़मीं पे ज़ुल्म ढाती है?
हमारे यहां भी बडी मछली छोटी को खा जाती है;
चलो दिखाते है तुमको को इक बन्दर की तस्वीर,
सबका कहना उस से जुडी है इन्सान के पूर्वज़ की तकदीर;
किसी बन्दर को 'उत्पति' का किस्सा समझ क्या आता है?
'मतस्य अवतार' और 'नरसिहं' का अफ़साना भूल जाता है.


अपने घर में "राजी" आपका करते है हम स्वागत,
थलचर के हर प्राणी को हम खुली देते है दावत;
नाचो यहां और गाओ भी,हमे कोई नही एतराज-
मत करना दूषित औ थलचर! हमारा जल-संसार.

binagupta posted 4 yrs ago

rajee:
aapki kavita bahut kuchh kah gayee
really loved it and congrats for being the runner up
cheers
bina
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear lotuspetals,
thanks . i wish you a win in the next contest. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

lotuspetals posted 4 yrs ago

rajee congrats

for being runner up for contest-19-xpress urself........regards........aruna

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear downtoearth,
it was really great to read your observations. you have been very kind withyour appreciation. bohat achha laga. kindly visit my other poetic or non-poetic write-ups. it will be wonderful to read your observation and comments. i will be looking forward to it. please do keep coming. thanks. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear komlet,
thanks a lot for the kind appreciation. maza toh isi mein hai ki photos ko synthesises kiya jaye apne vichaaron, bhavnaon aur shabdon se. komlet ji, kisi photo par do chaar jumle likh dena kisi bhasha mein bhi har lekhak aur kavi ka kaam hai . magar do alag khyalon ya vicharon ya pratibimbon ko ek maala mein pirona hi asli challenge hai--main aisi hi baaten kuredata rahta hun.
i am happy that you liked it. please do visit again. regards. rajee.
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

komlet posted 4 yrs ago

rajeeji, dil se nikal hua ek ek shabd jamin hakikat se juda hai.............bahut achha laga.aapne jis sundarata se dono tasweero ko ek taar me piro kar puri kavita ki rachna ki hai - kabil-e-tareef hai, bahut sunder kavita or wo bhi apni matribhasha me...........maza hi aa gya......
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

downtoearth posted 4 yrs ago

dear rajee,
kya kavita likhi ha aapne, dono tasveeron ko jodne ki kadi bahut acchi lagi!
aur saath saath prakriti ke dooshan se bachaane ka sandesh, bahut khoob!
regards
dte
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear ehsaas,
thanks. yea i suppose the real challenge for awriter is to seek synthesis of the two photos through emotions and expressions. i tried to do this and continue doing the same. regards. rajee.
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear myutterances,
thanks for your wonderful comments and excellent observations. i am grateful to you for such pleasing remarks. i am delighted as you have really caught the essence of this poem which i thought might not be understood. thank you very much. please do keep coming. if you have time kindly read my other hindi and english poems too. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

Ehsaas posted 4 yrs ago

rajee
hamey aapki kavita bhaa gayi. aapney kitney sundar tarikey sey dono tasveer ko jodaa hain .
aapki kavita main anubhuti hain, ek sandesh hain .

my utterances posted 4 yrs ago

rajee kushwaha
you touched mythology, science, philosophy and presented a vision too in the poem. the thought is brilliant and the expression beautiful !! the poem addressed significant environmental issues and also gave the message of harmonious living. man needs to become aware before it is too late. cheers and regards.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear namita,
thank you dear. i thought the real challenge is to create a link in the two snaps. you see one can individually write on this snaps. but it is better to create the link. i am doing this. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

namitasachan posted 4 yrs ago

dono tasweero ko bahut khoobsooratee se ek lay me piroya hai aapne .pauranik sandarbho ke jikra ne kavita ko naye aayaam de diye hai ...bahut khoob
namita

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear aruna,
thanks for your appreciation. you would have now seen that my endeavours are to link the snaps. in both my entries, i have done this and i shall do it in future, too. in case i participate. regards. rajee.
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

hi sima,
thanks. your comments were the most appropriate. you had got the essence of the poem. you see the main ingredient of my entry is to seek a synthesis of two snaps. i have been trying to do this through my entries though i am a late comer to the contest.. but this is the real challenge. anybody who is writer can spin out some stanzas on a snap but what matters is you ability to create a link through words, emotions and theme. this is the challenge.
hey, please do not mind, i have not been able to visit your posts lately. i am doing today. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear madhavi,
thanks for recommending this entry. how i wish if you had posted your comments--whether -ve or +ve--does not matter. even -ve points coming from you would have been nice. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago

dear yash,
thanks for your nice words. i am clapping for an excellent contest you started. well done brother. you see i realised that essence of the contest you started was to synthesise the two snaps in one theme. if you notice, though i was a late starter i am trying to do this in my entries. you see one can write volumes on individual snaps. but what is important is to create a link with theme and words. i think this is the challenge of your game. thanks, dear. regards. rajee.

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

sima sach posted 4 yrs ago

rajee ji ,
kya kavita kahi hai aapne ,matsay avtaar aur bandar insaan kee utpatti ka jo udaaharan dekar aapne kavita me jo ras bhara hai ,vo to vaastav me hee kaabil-e-taareef hai. law of daarvin aur jal aur thal jeevan ko aapne jitani aasaani se apane shabdo me sameta hai ,vah sraahneey hai...aur kya kahoo.......fantabulous.......seema 

Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

lotuspetals posted 4 yrs ago

rajee..........wonderful........a master piece.........aruna
Reply | Delete | Block this user | Report Abuse

yash chhabra posted 4 yrs ago

is kavitsa ki tareef ke liye mere pass shabd nahi hai....hindi me itani sunder kavita aur wo bhi gurh arth liye hue...mai samajh sakta hun kitani mehnat ki hogi aap ne is rachna par....i am clapping for you...

HINDI POEM-16 ( New-3) याद मुझे आती है!

याद मुझे आती है!
शायर अर्ज़ कर्ता हूं-

कल देखा था कुछ आंखों ने,आज भी है यह देख रही-
जो राज़ है इनमें छिपे हुए,बहुत है उनकी गहराई;
बूढी है बेशक तो क्या,मुझे हर किस्सा समझाती है?
जो बातें ज़माना भूल गया,उन बातों की याद दिलाती है.     
      

                               ----क्योंकि---- 
   बात कल की यह नही,बात यह पुरानी है,
कई दशकों में बनी, मेरी यह कहानी है;
कुहू-कुहू कोयल जब,मधुर गीत गाती है,
प्यारे प्यारे मौसम की याद मुझे आती है.

नहर के किनारे वह,छोटा सा इक कस्बा था,
कच्ची पक्की गलियां थी,धूल भरा रस्ता था;
खेतों में सरसों यहां, पीला रंग लाती है-
उसी के सुनहरेपन की याद मुझे आती है.

कैसा वह बचपन था,क्या कहूं ज़माने का?
मन पे कोई बोझ नही,फिक्र नही खाने का;
साफ मुझे रखने को,मॉं जो रोज़ नहलाती है,
आज़ जब मैं मैला हूं, मॉं की याद आती है.

सर में 'गर दर्द हुआ,सर को सहलाती थी-
रातों को जाग के मुझे,लोरी वह सुनाती थी;
गोदी उसकी मेरी तब, हर थकान भगाती है--
मॉं की उस गोदी की याद मुझे आती है.

कलम से लिखते थे,फट्टी का ज़माना था,
स्कूल की कार्यशैली में,काम बस पढाना था;
कभी कभी मास्टर की छडी बरस जाती है,
आज़ भी जाने क्यों उस छडी की याद आती है?

स्कूल हमने छोडा तो 'एन डी ए' को चल दिए,
चार दशकों के लिए नसीब अपने लिख लिए;
रुक गई समय की सुईयां,दिशा बदल जाती है,
आज़ भी सन छियासठ की याद मुझे आती है.

चालू हुआ यूं फौज़ में अपने सफ़र का सिलसिला,
कोना कोना भारत का हमे देख्नने को खूब मिला;
शायद हम सपने में थे,बाहर दुनिया बदल जाती है,
सपने में मिले लोगों की आज़ याद् मुझे आती है.

उत्तर-पूर्व के वो जंगल,असाम की वो ब्रह्मपुत्तर घाटी;
नहरों-नदीयों का पंजाब,'सायचन'औ कश्मीर की वादी,
'यू पी''महू' और राजस्थान से भी अपनी गाडी जाती है,
पूना,बेलगाम,'नीलगिरी'के मौसम की याद मुझे आती है.

बदले वक्त की परछाईयां,कैद है मेरी इन आंखों मे,
ईमान क़ि बातें तो अब, मिलती है सिर्फ किताबों में;
फूंक दो यह किताबें आज़,जो झूठ ही सिखलाती है-
महलों मे रहते रहते "राजी",झुग्गी की याद आती है.

A SHORT STORY---WHEN THE STORM BLEW AWAY-4

WHEN THE STORM BLEW AWAY-4

STORY SO FAR:- Kindly read Part One, Two & Three.The links are:

http://rajee.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/12/when-the-storm-blew-away-1.htm

http://rajee.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/03/when-the-storm-blew-away-2-my-serialised-novel.htm

http://rajee.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/03/when-the-storm-blew-away-3-a-serialised-tory.htm.

THE JUDGEMENT

Amit leaned forward in his chair to listen carefully to each word being uttered by His Lordship in a husky, barritone voice. The judge had begun:

“ This case had generated more than required media interest, though I doubt it merits so much attention. But I suppose in the INFORMATION AGE, every one wants to create information out of information. We, as a society, are becoming slaves of spicy titibits which media excels in generating”, his lordship had taken the dig at new found ‘Media Activism’ as a rejoinder, probably, to counter media cocncocted phrase of ‘Judicial Activism’.

Amit told himself quietly, “ No doubts, we media-men poke our nose everywhere, whether most of us understand the issue at hand or not. Under the banner of freedom of expression, we comment on issues that the knowledgeable and informed persons can only pull their hairs at our degree and dimension of ignorance.” As he was thinking like this, the heavy voice of the Judge began to resonate his ears, once more:

“ I am a man of law. I do not go by emotions and human passion, certainly not by media created pyramid of reasons and counter-reason. It is not required and the law does not approve of it. All the same, one must remember, judges are also human beings. They ,too, have emotions—both positive and negative. They also react, over-react, and under-react on every piece of information finding its way into the ‘Gossip-Bazaar’of media. But all this is within our selves. Our emotions do not and can not spill out of us. There have been times when I got sick of irresponsible arguments. I never understand as to why each one of us views issues in an isolated manner and not in a holistic manner. Security forces only think of security; Media only of information; politicians only of politics and lawyers only of legalities. Why can not we debate in our inner-self about the impact of our intended act on the other limbs of society and the polity? Why don’t we define our limits to check us from being dubbed as irresponsible in pursuing single-minded objective? Shouldn’t we say, ‘ Thus far I go, for, territory beyond this is a prohibited area ?’ Notwithstanding our well-meaning intentions and motives, but as members of a civilised and a dignified society, we are lacking in self-discipline and self-restraints. Take this case.”, The judge said with a deep sigh and then continued:

“ I have tried my best to keep my personal feelings out of it. As a judge, my job demands a hard solid evidence to separate the chaff from wheat. I can not go by inferred logic and say, “ Lo, behold! It is QED.” That is a mathematician’s job. I am not here to enhance my judicial TRP to swim along with popular sentiments. Well! it is the domain of the TV channels and they are welcome to try all the tricks up their sleeves. As a judge and upholder of our laws, I must note that THE ERRORS LIKE STRAWS UPON THE SURFACE FLOW, THOSE WHO ARE IN SEARCH OF TRUTH MUST DIVE BELOW. I , therefore, had to do deep-sea diving in this raging sea of arguments and counter arguments; followed by counter-counter arguments and counter-counter-counter arguments. I had to sift the real evidence from the heap of non-evidence. I am bound by this evidence in coming to certain conclusions on this case. It might disappoint some and cheer up others. But as I have already said I am not here for a popularity contest”, His lordship stopped a while to take a few sips of water and then resumed.

“ My judgement runs into 148 typed pages. I am going to read only the operative parts of my judicial verdict. It is a unique case. Here, the law enforcement organ of the state was accused of violating the very code of law enforcement. The protectors of citizens were accused of taking lives of the honorable citizens. Alferd hitchcock, the doyen of Horror Movies, had said, ‘I AM NOT ANTI -POLICE BUT I AM AFRAID OF POLICE.’ Is it true in our case, too? Have the policemen become law unto themselves? Do they nourish a notion that they were above law? Then, the questions also rose in my mind as to how the enemies of the state are to be treated, particularly, those who had taken up arms against the state? The biggest question which kept nibbling at my conscience during the hearing was: Why should law and the constitution give refuge to those who not only disrespect it but refuse to accept its validity? The accompanying corrollary to this was: DO THE MEMBERS OF AN ORGANISATION, WHETHER NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL and LAWFUL or UNLAWFUL, WHO CLAIM TO KILL THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF YOUR COUNTRY IN A COLD BLOOD, HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHTS TO SEEK THE PROTECTION OF OUR COURTS? I must say that these were emotional questions. But law has no human sentiments and it has its own connotation of so called human rights—whether fundamental or otherwise.”

“ It should be by now obvious that it was not a simple case of double murder. I had to determine if it were law-enforcer’s own brand of justice or it were a murder most cruel and brutal. The death of two persons in encounter or police custody, either at KOLKOTTA or in Punjab was crystal clear? I had to look into the circumstances and assigned motives. This was very important in this case. Even the defendants did not deny the death of the couple? The question, and very important one, was not as to why did ‘the accused’ kill but how did it happen? This was the basic yardstick for my judicial pronouncement.”

“ I asked myself some questions and then answered them. These were: Was it a case of law enforcer’s own brand of justice after his frustration with passivity of the general public in providing witnesses? Is it acceptable? If not, Why not? What should the Law enforcers do? Allow the murderes and terrorists a free run? In my 30 years of judicial sevice, I have never found an accused and guility readily accepting his/her sin. Law lays emphasis on evidence and things have become so horrendous these days that to obtain evidence and a witness in militancy and terror infested areas, it was a nightmare for Law Enforcers. In the judicial parlance of dispensation of justice we continue to standby the maxim: let 100 criminals go scot free but not one innocent be punished. It is a very high moral principle of our legal system acquired from the British judicial system. Unfortunately, what happens these days? Virtually, now-a-days, this principle is made to stand on its head. Ironically,today, due to reasons of expedient witnesses and inept police, 100 innocents might get punished while rarely a single real culprit can be sentenced. Will it happen in this case, too? The question has been bugging my mind. I want to ensure it doen’t.” The judge stopped, surveyed the courtroom in an air of moral triumph for having shed the load from his conscience and began to gulp water down his dried up throat. Amit could feel an air of mental relief around honourable judge’s face. It was a kind of self –belief that says you were on the right track.

“As I pronounce my judgement, some questions will continue to haunt me. Over the last few years, after the incident took place on May 17, 1993, this case has been kicking dust not only in the media but also in the legal circles. Some distinguished members of legal profession have given their verdicts one way or the other.They have raked up moral, ethical,social,legal,political and security issues. I have heard and read a lot, both within the courtroom and outside, on fake and orchestrated encounters by police to eliminate anti social and antti national elements(ANEs). Definitely, in a free, civilised and a democratic society there was no justifications for such acts. But in certain official and administrative circles, this semmed to be the favourite response to deal with the the issue of non-responsive witnesses. All the same, whatever the difficulities in procuring witnesses, such acts can not be condoned at any cost .

I have, also, read about known terrorists organisations making vociferous claims on brutal killings of innocent civilians by their organisation members. We generally know about local members of such organisations, who carry out these gruesome murders. Are they justifiable acts on the grounds that the group or the organisation has not got its dues from the authorities? Does law of any nation permits individuals to attain their objectives or remove grievances through violence and terror? Does it sanctify brutal killings of innocents by these organisations? Unfortunately we do, because we do not take notice of vociferous claims of the heads of these organisations for taking responsibility of brutal killings?It happened in Punjab and Assam. It is happening in J&K. Militant organisations, within and outside India's borders, make claims of gruesome killings in trains, buses, temples and public places with much fan-fare. There is a sense of 'bravado' in such pronouncements.It silences future witnesses. Our security forces are, thus, handicapped. Orchestrated encounters are , therefore, a fall out of the lacuna in our code of criminal procedures, which is exploited by modern out-laws, murderers and criminals. The security forces can be hauled up for violating the law. However, due to inept and outdated policing system and lopsided clauses on ‘CrPC as well as Evidence’, it is extremely difficult to bring to book the organised terrorist and criminal groups who not only ridicule but mock at our social, legal, political and administrative systems. Not only the police but our legal system cries for dynamic reforms to make them more responsive to guiles of law-breakers. Why don’t we try out these organisations and their members in absentia?Why not take ex-parte decisions, if the accused fail to present themselves in the trial courts? It is a food for thought for our law makers and law enforcers” . The honourable judge made a forceful assertion of his point. Amit was further confused as to where the judge was heading. So far his lordship had not given any indication of the shape of things to come.

“ We often go by the edict that all accused are innocent till convicted. But how do we convict a person? The prosecuters have to provide evidence. The problem of the delivery of justice comes when evidence is muzzled, blocked or distorted. It is compounded when law-enforcers, whose job is to collect evidence, resort to adulterating it or ignore it. The worst problem is when the witnesses are silenced or co-erced to give mutilated evidence to save the accused. How about those who do not recognise the law itself? In such cases, what should the policeman do? Should the policeman allow the law breakers or the offenders of law to exploit the principle of ‘INNOCENCE BEFORE CONVICTION’ by silencing witnesses by threat, elimination or the money or Should he dispense his own brand of justice? Is it permitted in a liberal, democratic and a civilised society? Is the modern society, really free and civilised? Does a society, torn by militancy, terrorism and violence qualify to be called a civilised and a free society? Isn’t it allowing itself to be exploited by those who have no respect for its laws? How ironic, those who do not respect law, ultimately take the shelter of the judicial principle of innocent till convicted? There is definitely a case for making our laws and definitions more dynamic to remove these ananmolies. Police reforms is the cry of the day.” The judge had hinted at the shape of things to come.

“Take the instant case of the death of Bashir khan and his wife Sabina Bai. Both of them lived under disguised identity of Lakhmir Singh and Rashmi Singh in the Kailash Nagar colony of Central Kolkotta. Why should they have change their identity? Did their past haunt them? To their neighbours , they were a respectable couple and known as ‘Do-gooders’ in the locality. Evidence before me proves beyond doubts that they had a shady past. ‘Defence’ has reasons to state that they had connections with terrorist organisation of Punjab. If their old identity is correct, then police of Punjab had a large number of cases of extortion, murder and kidnapping against the couple. Could they be the victim of police outrage or harassment? This has not come from the prosecution or the POACHERS. Instead , they have accepted their old identity. This implies there was something fishy about their past before they came to Kolkotta and merged with the normal public. I know the past character can not be taken into account but it is important to look for the motives of Punjab police. As things stand today, they were a law-abiding couple living at Kolkotta but they had violated the law in the past. Again, I am not comfortable to know as to how a low-paid ex-constable of Punjab police could manage so much of funds and live in a posh locality. He owned a taxi and lived a comfortable life. Why did he leave Punjab police? I know the dead can not speak but neither the organisation fighting their case, the POACHERS nor the prosecution, has any viable reasons to explain this. But one can only conjecture. Yet I am not going to base my judgement on mere conjectures.”

“You see the law does not accept violence against the person of anybody unless it is carried out against the enemy of the state. It is a truism that law also accepts that anybody who had taken up arms against the state was her enemy. In the present case my job was to determine if the killed couple were an enemy of the state. Even if I accept their shady past and plethora of accusations by Punjab police, it has not been provem in my court that they had taken up arms against India. I do acknowledge that they had links with some terrorist organisations. But this could be due to the lure of money or sheer blackmail or anyother reason. Therefore, were the accused justified in eliminating the couple as they did on 17 May 1993? I am not deliberating on the fact as to where did the killing take place? It is immaterial for the purpose of this judgement? Fact remains that the said couple was killed. I have no doubts, it took place in Kolkotta. But was it a cold–blooded killing? This is avery important aspect of the case.” The honourable judge was now veering around to his final verdict.

“ Let me recount certain important facts. Firstly, Lakhmir Singh and Rashmi Singh are the same couple of Bashir Khan and Sabina Bai as has been alleged by the accused and not contested by prosecution and POACHERS. Secondly, the couple was killed by the accused, as has been alleged by prosecution and not denied by the accused. Thirdly, the couple had been peacefully staying in Kolkotta over the last few months before their death. Fourthly, Bashir Khan was a constable in the punjab police which he had deserted in 1991. Fifthly , there is adequate proof to suggest his links with some terrorist outfits. Sixthly, it has been proven that the killer squad of Punjab police came in a helicopter to central Kolkotta and engaged the couple in an encounter or probably killed them and took their bodies to punjab where they stage- managed an encounter to cover the incident. All this has been established by CBI, the investigating agency. The guilt of the five accused is proved beyond doubt. But why did they do so? How did the accused get the lead to kolkotta? Why were they provided helicopter by the state of Punjab? Evidence does suggest that Bashir Khan was probably involved in large cases of extortion and some cases of killing innocent people . There are indication of his involvement in the Massacre of bus passengers near Bhucho Mandi, Bhatinda in Punjab on January 15, 1992. But all this does not mitigate the guilt of the accused. However, it does go to suggest the motive. It does establish that there were no personal interests. Yet, the accused are also found guility of taking law into their own hands. Even if I accept defence counsel’s version that accused were arrested in Kolkotta and not killed here but in Punjab, it does not dilutes the gravity of the offence. On their own admission , the couple was in their custody. Therefore, safety of the couple-in-custody was their prime responsibility. They have dithered in their responsibility. I do accept their point that they were performing their duty and killing was incidental in the performance of that duty. I feel they might not be alone in this venture. They were provided helicopter to carry out this operation. I am sure very high level government decision should have been taken to carry out a swift operation to nab them , if not kill. I do not know why there was no central government agency coordinating and controlling such operations. If the central agency was involved, there would have been no gruesome murders and probably the dead couple would have been answering for their alleged crimes in some court of law. I hold the five accused guility of not only homicide but also taking law into their own hands. However I do give them the benefit of doubt that no one had any personal motive. It therefore mitigates the guilt to that extent. I sentence them to 14 years of imprisonment on all three counts. The defendants and the prosecution have seven days to appeal to a higher court. The court now rises for the day”, saying this the honourable judge quickly disappeared into his chambers, leaving stunned silence in the court-room. No one had expected such harsh punishment after the judge had been passing strictures on the media and human rights organisations. In fact, he had once asked the prosecutor as to how would he deal with a person who had been proven to be involved in cold bloded murder of 30 women, children and old men.

Amit felt while the judge gave his judgement based on his head but his heart was somewhere else. What the honourable judge did not say but definitely conveyed that he very well understood the compulsions and helpness of security forces in gathering evidence against faceless prepetrators of most heinous violence, who live in and terroise the very society which provides them human and civil rights while they mock at it. “What a dilemma for a democracy”, thought Amit.