Friday 28 August 2015

In wars military may win peoples always lose

First and foremost countries should not "celebrate" their perceived victory in wars. And if at all they want to they should hold solemn memorials rather than indulging in brazen chest-thumping and hollow 'loud-speakering'.  
They should remember the martyred souls and pay respect to those who lost lives because of some senseless political decisions and reckless military adventure.
They should meet the women war-widowed and children war-orphaned. 
They should talk to them and try to understand if they share nations' sense of "victory" or do they still pray if the war had not happened?

1965: Indo-Pak War 

When we (India and Pakistan) have decided to "celebrate" our respective "victory" in the 1965 war we should tell the citizenry there were no clear victors. There can be none in a war.
Who one regards as victor depends on which national anthem one sings, which flag one hoists, which day one celebrates as Independence Day: Aug 14 or Aug 15, and which man one regards as nation builder: Bapu or Quaid-i-Azam.
Who you regard  as victor in 1965 Indo-Pak war depends on which country you live in, which flag you hoist and which day you celebrate as your Independence Day: Aug 14 or Aug 15.  
If we have to "celebrate" our "victory" in the war let's tell our both countrymen 6800 army personnel (3000 Indian+ 3800 Pakistani) lost their lives. 
Since we hoist the Tri-colour and live on this side of the border let us tell our people and the world we were the victor. 
But let us also tell them the war widowed how many of our women, orphaned how many of our children and destroyed how many of our families.

What do we celebrate? 

What do we want to celebrate after all? 
The fact that we held some 1,800 sq km of of Pakistani territory and they held just 540 sq km of ours? Okay let's tell the citizen this fact.
But let's not stop here and tell them the end result: that after the ceasefire was agreed upon, with UN intervention, the two sides met in Tashkent. 
An agreement was signed. Both the armies, according to the terms of the agreement, relinquished the captured territories and withdrew to their respective pre-war positions.
Our then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastry did not return after signing the USSR-mediated agreement. He died in his hotel room there. 
So when the two countries "celebrate" their respective "victory" in the 1965 war they should tell their citizen: In the war 6800 families were destroyed, Indian Prime Minister lost his life (not in the war but just after it), tanks, aircraft were destroyed. 


What did we achieve? 


And all this achieved what? Kashmir remains unresolved till date. It was the prime reason why the war started. Pakistan gained 000 km of Indian land; India gained 000 km of Pakistan land. Back to square one. 
So if you want to celebrate the "victory" in this war tell the two peoples nobody won in 1965. "No one wins a war. One side just loses less." 
And if this sounds rather cliche let's tell them, "When two nation-states go to war one military may win but both peoples lose." 

Friday 17 April 2015

तुम्हारे सिगरेट मेरे दारू

"यार बहुत सेक्सी लगती है. जब तुम सिगरेट सुलगाती हो. और कश खींचती हो. तुम्हारी आँखें बंद हो जाती है. और गाल पे डिम्पल. बहुत अच्छे लगते हैं."   
वो उसे कहना चाहता था. लेकिन कह नहीं पाता. 
सिगरेट नहीं पीता था लेकिन मार्किट जाते समय दो-तीन बार वो उससे सिगरेट लेन को बोली थी. लड़कियों को मुश्किल होती थे सिगरेट खरीदने में उस इलाके में.
"चलो तुम सिगरेट पकड़ो मैं लाइटर जलाता हूँ." लगभग एक हफ्ते सिगरेट लेन के बाद आज पहली बार वो उसे बोला.
वो हंस दी.
"तुम भी पिओगे क्या आज?"
"नहीं. मैं नहीं पिऊंगा. मैं तुमको बस पीते देखूंगा."
उसे उसके बाल भी अच्छे लगते थे. छोटे थे. लेकिन ऐसे कटे थे कि देखने से पहले उसे अपनों बालों से आँखों को आजाद करना पड़ता था और कानों पे रखना पड़ता था. वो ये भी नहीं बोल पाया था.
लास्ट सेमस्टर था. क्लास की एक गेट-टूगेदर थी.
"सुनो. आज मेरे पास सिगरेट है. तुम लाइटर जला दोगे? " और वो उसे खिंच के बालकनी में ले गई. 
"ये क्या हो गया है तुम्हें. हिल क्यों रहे हो? पी लिए हो क्या?"
"हाँ मेरी जान. पी लिया हूँ. और तुम भी पीयो न. लाइटर मैं जलाता हूँ. बहुत सेक्सी लगती हो जब पीती हो. आँखें बंद हो जाती है तुम्हारी. और गाल पे डिम्पल पड़ जाते हैं."   
वो जोर से हंसने लगी.
"तुम हंसो मत डार्लिंग. आई लभ यू."
"अरे ठीक है बाबा. आई लभ यू टू. लेकिन तुम जाओ अभी सो जाओ."
"जब दारू नहीं संभाल पाते तो पी क्यों लेते हो?" अगली शाम वो पूछी.
"अरे सॉरी. सॉरी. पता नहीं क्या क्या बोल गया कल. नशे में."
सेमेस्टर खत्म. सिगरेट का सिलसिला खत्म. 
एक ही शहर में नौकरी करने लगे दोनों. और एक दिन मिलने का प्लान हुआ.  एक रेस्त्रां में.
"एक बात पता है?" वो लाइटर जलाते हुए पूछा।
"क्या?"
"मुझे तुम्हारे बाल बहुत अच्छे लगते हैं. जब तुम उन बालों से अपने आँखों को आजाद करती हो, कान को उनकं ग़ुलाम बनती हो और देखती हो. मेरी तरफ."
"तो आज तक बोले क्यों नहीं?"
"क्यूंकि डरता था."
"किस चीज से?"
"दिमाग में स्टीरिओटाइप बैठा था. लड़की है. सिगरेट पीती है. दारू भी पीती होगी. मुँह्फट होगी. कुछ बोल दिया और उल्टा सीधा मान गयी तो गरियाये देगी पुरे कॉलेज के सामने." 
"तो तुमको क्या लगता है नहीं गरिया सकती तुमको मैं अभी?" अपनी याद में पहली बार आधी पी सिगरेट उसने पानी में डाल दी और बालों से आँखों को आजाद करते हुए बोली.
"चिरकुट लड़का. पहले बोल देते की मेरे सिगरेट पीने के अलावे भी तुमको मेरे में कुछ अच्छा लगता है तो बिना मतलब हर शाम अपने फेंफड़े नहीं जलाती. अब चाभी दो."
"किस चीज का?"
"मैंने तो गाड़ी की मांगी. चाहो तो घर की भी दे सकते हो."
चल दिए दोनों. साथ में. घर और गाड़ी की ही नहीं अब तो तिजोरी की भी चाबी वही रखती थी.
उस दिन जो बील पे किया सिगरेट और दारू पे दिया गया उन दोनों का आखिरी बिल था.    

Monday 13 April 2015

दूरी = 1600 कीमी

"​वो गोल्ड्ने कलर वाली घड़ी क्या हुई? तुम आज-कल पहनती नहीं हो."
"अरे वो छोटी को दे दी न. पिछले दफा घर गयी थी तो वो पहन के कॉलेज चली गयी थी एक दिन. उसे अच्छा लगा. तो मैंने उसके पास हो छोड़ दी."
"तुम ऐसा कैसे कर सकती हो. तुमको पता है मैंने तुमको वो घड़ी अपने स्कॉलरशीप के पैसे से दी थी?"
"तो क्या हुआ. अब तो आप मुझे जब चाहें तब घड़ी दे सकते हैं. अब तो सैलरी है. आप भी न. कैसी-कैसी बात करते हैं. "
"ऐसा कैसे हो सकता है. जिंदगी का पहला स्कॉलरशीप था. अपने लिए कुछ नही खरीदा। माँ, पापा, भाई, बहन किसी के लिए कुछ नहीं। बस तुम्हारे लिए ही कुछ खरीद पाया. तुम ऐसे कैसे दे दोगी अपनी छोटी बहन को. उसे दुसरा खरीद देते."
"हाँ मैं दे दूंगी। क्यूंकि आपको नही पता है."
"क्या नहीं पता है मुझे."
"यही की मुझे इंजीनियरिंग कराने के लिए मेरे भाई-बहन के हिस्से से कितना काटा गया है. उनके लिए दूध का पैसा मेरे इंस्ट्रूमेंट में लगा, उनके सब्जियों का पैसा मेरे किताब में लगा, होली में उनके कपडे का पैसा मेरे लिए इंटरनेट कनेक्शन लेने में लगा. मेरा लैपटॉप खरीदने के बाद मेरी बहन को छह महीने दो सेट सलवार कमीज पे गुजारने पड़े. मैं आज यहाँ हूँ, और अगले हफ्ते आपसे मिलने आ रही हूँ तो उसके लिए मेरी बहन, भाई, मॉं, पापा सबको कम्प्रोमाइज करना पड़ा है. ताकि मेरी पढाई में कम्प्रोमाइज न हो. मेरे पास जो सामान है वो मैं उनको दूंगी। चाहे वो आपकी स्कॉलरशीप से हो, आपकी पहली कमाई से हो, आपको मिला हुआ कोई गिफ्ट हो या खुद आप ही हों. मेरी बहन को जो पसंद हो मैं उसको दे दूंगी. बिना आपसे पूछे. आपको करनी है शादी तो कर लो किसी और से. "
"क्या बोली? उसे पसंद हूँ तो मुझे भी तुम उसको दे दोगी?"
"ज्यादा स्मार्ट मत बनिए. मुँह देखे हैं अपना. उसको पसंद हैं तो. फ़ोन रखिये वरना नाक तोड़ दूंगी।"
"ये 1,600 कीमी दूर से नाक कैसे तोडा जाता है जी?"
"ये 1,600 कीमी  आने में कितनी देर लगता है?"   

Tuesday 17 March 2015

Let nature take its share of blame

We are forced into believing, thanks to activism of some, every disaster is our own making since we have inflicted irreversible damage to the environment. 
But are people responsible for all  the churning the environment undergoes? 
Are all the floods, the typhoons, the cyclones, the  hailstorm, the flash-floods, the avalanche, and so on triggered by the humans? 
In any of our expedition do we end up "plundering" and polluting the environment if we interact with it? 
Do we always end up dangerously stirring up the environment's internal ecological balance everytime we shake its hands. 
Have humans already stretched the environmental elasticity beyond the limit? And anything beyond is fatal for which humans are to be blamed?
Notwithstanding the palpable, measurable dis-balances some of human activities have injected into the environment, is it fair to entirely put the blame on them? 
Can we have somewhat different take on all that environment does to itself and to us? 
There can be no argument that the environment is a living entity.  The rivers, the mountain, the snows, the wind, the seas the oceans. They all have life. 
They breathe. they grow up. They live. They die. They have their own life-cycle. 
Hence their ups, their downs. Their surges, their ebbs.

​​Super Cyclone Pam
​ ​has hit 
Vanuatu
​, one of the 
world's 
poorest countries. 
President Baldwin Lonsdale, according to BBC,  said the storm had "wiped out" all development of recent years and his country would have to rebuild "everything
​".                                                                                                  Photo: BBC

Are we sure these living manifestations of environment don't churn themselves? After all a living thing churns itself.  
And does an environmental churning not result in a disaster for humanity? 
Why should we not believe environment's churning and turning, its internal balancing act (the effort to pull back from deviations caused due to its own course), its own life-cycle result in disaster for human. At least sometimes.  
By no means I deny the dreadful truth of environment change. 
It's a reality that I live here in Delhi. My city is among the most polluted cities in the world.  
My contention is this: Environment is a living entity. It has its own course. It shares the earth, the space with humanity. 
The two form the ecology. This gross ecology is a combined (and silent) responsibility of environment and humanity.  
What we call natural disasters are the result of disturbance to this ecology. And everytime this ecology is stretched beyond limit humanity is not only to be blamed.  
Sometimes it's humans', sometimes it's environment's.  
Human should learn to live within their own rightful limits, not encroaching into the others territory, which they often do. And this lends justification to passing the buck to the humans always.
We should not however conclude that all the disasters are man-made.  By doing this we presuppose environment is dead. Which it is not. Environment is not a dead entity which gets activated and furious only if humans poke it?
It has its own life. It can disturb itself, it can disturb us.  Let us discuss environment change. Let us accept this reality. 
But let us also recognise environment is a vibrant, a living entity. It can do things, it can undo things.  
Everytime there is an environment-human conflict we need not feel guilty. 
We should recognise that all the disasters are not nature's fury targeted at humans, they are resultant of its own course, at least some of them.

Friday 9 January 2015

I need a Smart City


They have promised 100 Smart Cities. I am asking just for one. The real one, the sensible one. The one with democracy, life and a bit more.

Where the democracy would be open, lively, ready to change, ready for change. It would be assertive, accommodative. 

But at no point in time, my City would be open to extremists. It would not let those in who think their religion is more important than reason, who think the supremacy of their religion is inverse to the existence of those of others.

In my City, they would not keep religious text in cupboard and guns in their hands. For my Smart City would be one where the dumb, who think their religion and their gods are so helpless as to they need to be protected with guns, have no place.

My City would not be for those who think they need to kill people to amplify their "legitimate" demands for a separate state. My City would not be one where students, teachers and journalist are killed for they are among the most untrained “fighters” to live in this battlefield —  World.

My City would be one where Words of Mass Destruction (WMD) are banned. By WMD, I mean words like riots, conversion, ghar wapsi,  temples, mosques, terrorism, Love Jihad, and….(you may add your own words).

My City would be one where we don't need to discuss 26/11, 9/11, NDFB (S), Peshawar, Paris. My City would be one where I dwell to live and not to die. 

My Smart City would be one where Love is sans Jihad. And where people have control on their lives and not on others’ death.