दोस्तों के मम्मी पापा / Doston ke mummy papa

दोस्तों के मम्मी पापा 

मेरे ऐसे होते थे: 

एक की मम्मी, सबकी मम्मी,

एक के भैया, सबके भैया 

एक की छुटकी, 

सबकी छुटकी 

एक के चाचा, सबके चाचा 

जाने कैसे होते थे? 

गलती कोई करे 

डाँट सभी को पिटती थी 

और कोई भी डाँट देता था. 

डाँट के सर्वाधिकार, 

सब अभिभावकों  के पास सुरक्षित थे. 

एक के घर पर अच्छा खाना 

एक के घर पर मोटर कार 

किसी की मम्मी बहुत "कूल" 

उनसे करते मन की बात. 

याद नहीं रहता था 

खेले कहाँ, खाया कहाँ

रात को मम्मी 

यहां वहां से 

ढूंढ ढांढ कर लाती थी. 

अब मेरा बच्चा छोटा है 

उसके दोस्त आते हैं 

मैं घुसते ही हाथ मुंह धुलाती हूँ 

और फिर धीरे से मुस्काती हूँ. 

डाँट के सर्वाधिकार 

अब भी 

सब अभिभावकों के पास सुरक्षित हैं. 

एक की मम्मी, सबकी मम्मी 

एक के चाचा, सबके चाचा 

कालचक्र के कुछ पहिये 

पुनरावर्ती पड़ाव भी पाते हैं. 

***************** 

English translation (not the best) 

The parents of my friends 

were funny. 

Everyone's mother 

parented everyone. 

Mothers, fathers, elder brothers, 

younger sisters 

uncles, even

were shared. 

I wonder how... 

The errant name did not matter

everyone got a dressing down 

by any parent 

who happened to be passing by. 

All parents 

reserved the rights 

to scold at will. 

Someone had great food at home

Someone had a car

Someone's mom was super cool

to whom we opened our hearts. 

We never seemed to remember 

to inform our parents

where we were. 

Mom found us at dusk 

(I never quite figured out how) 

Now, my child is young 

And the children come running 

straight from the playground

I rush them to the washing area 

insisting (sternly) that hands be washed. 

And then smile 

All parents

still reserve

the rights 

to scold at will. 

They still share 

mothers 

homes

toys 

Some cycles of time

stop at recursive stations. 

 

Elections 2019 - Why did Modi win?

Elections 2019, the BJP has come back to power with a much larger majority than in 2019. 

A lot of people on my timeline today are confused. How did Modi win? So I've tried to create a table that kind of explains the perception of both sides. In case it helps anyone.

Disclaimers: 
1. This is a purely personal analysis.
2. My own political views and biases are as under:
 A. Indian National Congress: My hatred for the INC is deeply personal. I will release that hatred after justice is served for breaking up my family in 1947, and then for subjecting us to religion based violence in 1984.
B. Aam Aadmi Party and BJP: I don't think of the Aam Aadmi Party at all. They are not on my thought radar. About the BJP, I am positive but wary.
C. All others: What others?

The Father of the Nation

Over the last few days, in elections, a dead subject was dusted and brought to the public discussion again - Nathuram Godse - the man who killed Gandhi. An actor called Kamal Hassan called him India's first terrorist and labelled him Hindu. Then Sadhvi Pragya called him a patriot and all hell broke loose.

I am glad that this happened, because when Godse got the spotlight, it directed the spotlight at Gandhi too.

One of my friends shared a video - Why Godse killed Gandhi. While the facts mentioned in the video were all true, they did present rather a propaganda version than the full thought process of Godse.
I tried looking for it on YouTube but didn't get it.

Here is the full text of Godse's submission to the Court - May it Please Your Honour. Read it. 

Coming back to my favourite topic, the Partition and the role of the Dynasty and the man in this sordid saga.

• Gandhi appointed himself as the SOLE Negotiator on behalf of India. 
• 
  
• He then negotiated the following: 
• Burma secedes as an independent nation. 
• Muslims get a separate country, but India will still host the Muslims who want to stay. 
• 4 of the major water carrying rivers of India go to Pakistan. 
• Nanakana Sahib, the holiest place of the Sikhs, goes to Pakistan. 
• Buddhist universities go to Pakistan. 
• 
  
• Someone said that no one could predict the mass violence that happened in 1947, and therefore, Gandhi cannot be held responsible for not planning for it. Religion based violence in India started as early as 1937, when the propaganda began. In 1942, India witnessed the first mass riots based on religion. In 1945, the partition of India was finally confirmed, solely on the basis of unending violence between the two communities. How can one not predict mass violence in a movement that will affect millions? THAT, imho, was Gandhi's greatest failure as a leader - he neither used his own foresight, nor allowed people who might have had foresight, to plan for, and avert this mass violence. 
• 
  
• He did not insist on non movement. The Muslims should create an Islamic country, but they must grant safety to the Hindus and Sikhs. The Muslims can move because they fear the Hindus (that was the public discourse - that Muslims cannot live safely with Hindus in majority. No one spoke, at that time, about there being any threat to Hindus on account of Muslim majority). OR, the rights of Hindus, who were the major land owners in these places, should have been protected. They should have got adequate compensation for the lands that they were leaving behind. How can the state usurp the property of its people like that?
• 
  
• He then subverted all internal democracy within the Congress by insisting that his nomination, and not the election of all the State committees, should become the PM. Then, he insisted on 55 crores being sent to Pakistan even as it was attacking our army in Kashmir. 

Gandhi sure IS the father of a nation - but that nation is Pakistan. Pakistan came into existence only because he failed - as an interlocutor between the Hindus and Muslims within the country, AND as an international negotiator on behalf of India. 

Therefore, I agree with this. In fact, it states exactly what I think: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKxheGoXf5c

The fathers of my nation are: 

A. Patel - who united 586 princely states into a single country and gave us ONE country, not 586 princely states. 

B. Ambedkar - who gave us the strong legal foundation on which this country still stands. 

C. The millions of people who went to jail, leaving behind starving wives and poor children and ailing parents. They died for the motherland. They really, truly, are the fathers of this nation. 

About that post..

After the elections of 2019 were over, i wanted to write a long post about the current hate mongering in India and how i think this is campaign part II of the Congress. The first part of this campaign was run before independence, and that led to the partition of the country.


But I was told very sternly by my meditation to not write such a post. In fact, to not even mention it. I was confused. Of late, I have come to realise that one is just a channel. There is incredible freedom and joy in this realisation. And anyway, that sternness meant no action at all. But I wondered why. People are losing their lives, and if they can only see that this whole campaign is just a smokescreen, maybe 2 ppl will be saved. So why not?


This morning, I was told why not. In opening up about the Congress, I was coming from a place of fear and hate. There was this need to save lives, but there was a greater fear - terror, almost - of a second partition. That was what i wanted to avoid through writing that post - the second partition, and the violence inherent in that.


Now I realise that we cannot make people realise these large waves. And we cannot come from a place of hatred and make a difference. The reason that people become even more dogged in their convictions when confronted on social media, is that everyone comes from a place of hate. In that place, no one wants to open their hearts and listen or absorb. Like the proverbial wind and the sun story, the harder the wind blows, the closer one hugs one's shawl.


The way to make a person receptive is to start by being receptive. I view your actions as indifference and even criminal, because you are encouraging hate mongering without realising that one is a puppet in a much larger drama. You view me as steeped in the past and unwilling to move on. Fair point.


Now that we are aware of each other's prejudices, lets also accept that both of us believe that we are basing our views on pure facts, and not on some biased interpretation of those facts. Perhaps we have chosen our facts carefully, to validate our own prejudice, and perhaps we have subconsciously interpreted the facts to suit our own bias.


Now, lets talk. I will always be scared of the Congress, and I will always hate them. They have proven, time and again, their ability to divide people and rule because of that. That is my bias.


What will help me remove that bias: I would welcome facts that prove a time when the Congress moved to unite people who were earlier in conflict with each other. I would also like to see the dynasty come clean on its actions. If it does, and if it is suitably punished, I promise to not punish the party for the actions of the dynasty.


What is the fact check that I have done to arrive at my biases?
Oh, plenty! The reason I could identify this as campaign part 2 was that i had read campaign part 1 so carefully. Half my life was spent in asking the question - Why was i born in Delhi and not in Shekhupura. Why was Punjab steeped in terror? How did it happen that even the British could not divide the Hindus and Sikhs, but independent India could? These are events that have affected me personally, so i know a lot about them.


What is your bias? What would help you overcome that bias? What did you do to arrive at your bias?

Things I dont understand about the world

When you are uneducated, you do mob violence. When you are educated, you do entitled hatred. Which means, basically, you still do the same thing, but now you put yourself on a pedestal while doing it.