Another beautiful song from the stable of Kishore Kumar. Lyrics, in Hindi for your pleasure, I had thought about translating this into English, but i couldn't do justice and so i will not try and mutilate a work of art..

मुख्डा:
कभी पल्कॊ पे आन्सू हैं
कभि लब पे शिकायत हैं
मगर ऐ ज़िन्दगि फिर भि
मुझे तुझ से मौहब्बत हैं

जो आता है वॊह जाता हैं
ये दुनियां आनी जानी हैं
यहां हर शए मुसाफ़िर हैं
सफ़र में ज़िन्दगानीं हैं

उजालों कि ज़रूरत हैं
अन्धेरा मेरि किस्मत हैं

[मुख्डा]

ज़रा ऐ ज़िन्दगिं दम ले
तेर दीदार तो कर लूं
कभि देखा नहिं जिस को
उसॆ मैं प्यार तो कर लूं

अभि से छोड कर मत जा
अभि तेरि ज़रूरत है

[मुख्डा]

कोई अन्जान सा चेह्रा
उभर्ता है फ़िज़ाओ में
येह किस कि आहटें जागी
मेरि खामोश राहों में

अभि ऐ मौत मत आना
मेरा अभि आना जन्नत हैं

[मुख्डा]

and so i go on to add songs to my travel playlist.

~*~

Not so long ago, i had mentioned to a friend the unique nature of Indian culture to assimilate alien concepts, particularly where theology is concerned. Thus, while the Hindu believes in trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh which are perhaps a notch below the all pervasive Shakti or "a cosmic power", it accepts all sorts of individuals to exist in the pantheon of gods and either assigns them some natural phenomenon or portrays them as a re-incarnation of God, of the trinity - almost always Vishnu, but still. Hence, Indra is a god responsible for the rains and hence the most powerful of the "lesser" gods and therefore the king of heaven - or whatever the equivalent concept is in Hinduism. On the other hand Rama and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu and bring a message of God to the people at large: Rama speaking about perhaps the necessity of the ruler to always ensure the well-being of his/her kingdom (or queen-dom) even at the cost of personal anguish and Krishna speaking of the role of duty and importance of love (in all its manifestations) for the happiness of the human being.

In my view, there are two components to this religious phenomenon. The Trinity and the "lesser" gods are there to make sense of natural phenomenon such as the weather and birth and death; while the re-incarnates are great personalities of ages past that made a difference to people's lives. Much as Gandhi did in modern times, is it not possible for there to be a Krishna and a Rama that brought more meaning to the population of their times?

Speaking about the latter category of gods, perhaps those personalities that worked within the rules of the Hindu tradition - accepting the vedas, the varna system and what not, were raised on a pedestal of god hood. On the other hand those that questioned this system and propagated a new system of belief - a new religion, if you will - were not always so highly praised. The Brahmins ensured that these were not a part of the Hindu system and their traditions were not destroyed - after all, it was to the benefit of the powerful, the Brahmin and the Kshatriya to ensure the continuance of the system that gave them their power. Hence, the "non-Hindu" great persons were not called gods unto themselves.

And here comes the great tradition of Indian and i say Hindu culture. The birth-dates of Rama and Krishna are widely celebrated in India in the form of Ramnavmi and Janmashtmi festivals. But the birth-dates of Budhha is also celebrated as Budh-purnima and increasingly that of Jesus - even by Hindu households. True, Budh Purnima is celebrated in more homes than Christmas is, but then Gautam Budhha was born in India and his teachings and his religion has existed among the people for far longer than Christianity has. How long will it take before the teachings of Christianity are also assimilated among those of the larger Hindu culture and the birth of Jesus celebrated among the common households in mufassil India?

The Catholic Bishop's council of India has released an Indianized version of The Bible which quotes "verses from ancient Indian texts like the Upanishads and Vedas to explain the life and teachings of Jesus Christ." I see this as a step in the direction that will assimilate the teachings of Christianity among that of the Hindu. along with those of Gandhi and indeed Mohammed. I strongly believe that Hindu society is secular in its ethos and when i say Hindu here, i mean the culture of the people living in the Indian sub-continent. It has assimilated and made its own the large influences that came its way over the centuries. Will not the more modern influences be similarly in-grained. After all, members of all religious faiths visit Mount Mary in Bombay as they do the Dargah at Ajmer Sharif and that at Haji Ali.

This will sound provocative to my non-Hindu friends and I apologize in advance - indeed, I believe that at some time in the distant future the gods and great persons of other religions will be praised in much the same way as the "native" gods of Hinduism are revered. Provided, that is, the culture of assimilation that is Indian remains in its essence and not replaced by the currents of fundamentalism that are increasingly buffeting the nation.

~*~

Imaging the sand of the... desert and imagine a trillion universes - not worlds but universes - encapsulated in each grain of that desert; and within each universe an infinity of others. We tower over these universes from our pitiful vantage points... with one swing of my boot i may knock a billion billion worlds flying off into darkness, in a chain never to be completed.

The nightlong battle came after one Indian soldier and four Pakistanis were killed Monday along the border between sections of Kashmir

कभी कभी मेरे दिल मैं ख्याल आता हैं
कि ज़िंदगी तेरी जुल्फों कि नर्म छांव मैं गुजरने पाती
तो शादाब हो भी सकती थी।

यह रंज-ओ-ग़म कि सियाही जो दिल पे छाई हैं
तेरी नज़र कि शुओं मैं खो भी सकती थी।

मगर यह हो न सका और अब ये आलम हैं
कि तू नहीं, तेरा ग़म तेरी जुस्तजू भी नहीं।

गुज़र रही हैं कुछ इस तरह ज़िंदगी जैसे,
इससे किसी के सहारे कि आरझु भी नहीं.

न कोई राह, न मंजिल, न रौशनी का सुराग
भटक रहीं है अंधेरों मैं ज़िंदगी मेरी.

इन्ही अंधेरों मैं रह जाऊँगा कभी खो कर
मैं जानता हूँ मेरी हम-नफस, मगर यूंही

कभी कभी मेरे दिल मैं ख्याल आता है.

She who is always in my thoughts prefers

 Another man, and does not think of me.

Yet he seeks for another's love, not hers;

And some poor girl is grieving for my sake.

        Why then, the devil take

Both her and him; and love; and her; and me.

The imperative of identifying citizens through communal categories has distinct sources. The first is the understandable proposition that the axis of identity might also define the lines of disempowerment and subordination. These forms of injustice need to be recognised. But the big mistake of secular politics, whether on caste or religion, has been to suppose that remedies must also reinforce the same identities, justice must be parcelled out along communal lines. Nirmal Verma once said something rather prophetic. So long as the distinction between minority and majority remained politically relevant, it would be impossible to prevent communal politics. The ideal ought to be to make what rights one has independent of the community to which one belongs. Each person should have the right to be who they wish to be, maintain whatever cultural identifications they wish, compatible with basic norms of justice. But what rights they have in employment, or against the state, should be independent of these identifications.[Emphasis added]

You have a fair point when you say that my self interest are determined by my background, caste and upbringing – after all, we are all conditioned by the experiences we have been brought up with. But I will turn it around and say aren’t the upbringing, background and caste driving the other side of the argument?

This holds for everyone who is supporting the caste/reservation argument and I am not speaking about you particularly here, after all I don’t know your background, caste or upbringing and frankly I don’t care; for the simple reason that I find the idea of caste abhorrent – in my definition of the caste system you are of the mercantile caste, same as me (being MBAs); or maybe of the intellectual caste, after all we are having this intellectual discussion. Point being, these concepts are no longer relevant in today’s world. The tragedy is that with the reservation system in place we are continuing the caste system instead of trying to eradicate it. I was discussing this issue yesterday with a fellow student (an American, someone not aware of the caste system) and her first response was: “this is institutionalized racism” which it is. And we should try and remove this form of racism instead of trying to modify it. It is abhorrent, no matter what.

As for the caste profile of Indian students at xxxx. I frankly have no idea of the caste of our fellow students. I never have cared for the caste of someone, not when I was in school (in provincial Etawah), not at IIT and I have no intention to find it out here at school. But since I understand what you are asking, I will add that the composition of the students at school or perhaps anywhere in US is driven by the availability of resources, guidance and ambition of each of these students. I don’t believe that everyone is born equal – all of us are different and even when two people have exact same access to resources, education support whatever – they will not do the same thing, or be successful if they do, however you define success. That said, it is critically important that everyone has access to the resources so that everyone has power to make of their life what they will. But people (using your own definition) have failed to provide these. That is what is lacking at this moment – you invest in providing access to quality resources to everyone regardless of caste, class or creed and you will have attained an equitable environment where everyone is at the position he/she can attain given their unique personalities. Not tomorrow, but maybe in a decade and you will have made the whole nation prosperous.

I will disagree with you that Dalits are a disprivileged class of people. There are Dalits who are economically strong and they are perhaps the most privileged of the classes around – they have reserved seats in quality schools, lowered barriers to entry – preferential treatment everywhere. But the poor kid from the village who happened to be bright but was born a Brahmin is denied this. If there has to be reservation, why not bar the “creamy layer”: those rich folks who have the resources and no longer need the crutch of a reservation? But it hurts them and they are too powerful to make this happen. By continuing to invest in building and sustaining a caste-driven, divisive society you are hurting national interest and not helping anyone.

~*~

Following this previous post, i received this ( response ). What follows is my long response. I do have a lot of time on my hands. If you do too - then read on:

I am disappointed. While you claim the elites to be comfortable with their full stomachs and air conditioned houses, you make the mistake of assuming that the elites are un-concerned. Bringing out some rhetoric – Gandhi and Nehru were the so called elites by your definition (there was no A/C then, but you know what I mean). And I believe you would agree that they were more socialist than most (myself included). In fact, if my history is right, it was Gandhi (an “upper class Baniya”) who spear-headed the campaign against discrimination. It was Raja Ram Mohan Roy (I believe a Kshatriya/Brahmin – I wouldn’t know) who launched the campaign against Sati and the overall overhaul of the Hindu customs. Point being that the elites can and do understand the public at large and want to make a difference. That said, I am well aware that not everyone is so disposed. We all, some more than others, suffer from the conditioning of our society. I am well aware of people who do follow the discriminatory practices in their social lives and I wouldn’t be surprised by orthodox people choosing to not, say, rent their apartment to people from certain categories. That said, I am also aware that the laws exist to punish such individuals and I am sure have sufficient teeth to actually make a difference.

In the end, so long as Mayawati was a person of integrity and character and working for the upliftment of the poor – I would be happy to support her. Unfortunately, that is not the case. You mention that “Mayawati,… Lalu and Mulayam mark a watershed for the better in the Indian politics” (emphasis added). I strongly disagree – they mark a watershed but not necessarily for the better. Presence of such individuals as Mayawati and Mulayam singh in UP politics and Lalu in Bihar have led to a drastic decline in the level of governance of these states. I am from UP – I know. As long as these politicians were advancing social change accompanied by the overall development of the state – it would have been great and I would have been the biggest supporter. But what really happens are caste calculations to win the maximum votes. The vetting of the hunger for power. The “simple”, caste-driven citizens in these states vote for a member of their community. Someone they believe they can trust to give them jobs, ensure uninterrupted power supply, access to good schools. When the numbers are weak these politicians go about wooing other castes, regardless of the “caste enmity”. I remember (not bothering to find the source, as I am sure you would remember) when several years ago Mayawati made statements essentially saying that “all these upper caste people should be beaten by sandals” – strong words those, but perhaps a political rhetoric? After all the latest campaign run by BSP in UP was in alignment with the “upper caste Brahmins”. You speak about a Raja Bhaiya but fail to mention that he was a minister in the Mulayam Singh government only 4 years ago or that Jamuna Nishad was a minister under Maywati who was accused of murdering a policeman while a minister or that he has 8 other criminal cases pending against him. Or that Guddu Pandit was also an MLA under the Mayawati’s party ticket.

In fact, you mention that Mayawati filed a tax return of 100 crore (or 1 BB) unlike the other honest people. I treat this as a slap in the face of the honest people. And I mean the literal meaning and not the sarcasm inherent to your statement. The honest people don’t make 1 Billion. In fact, the obvious question is how the hell does Mayawati – a public servant/politician –  make so much? As for “actually filing an income tax” – well she has to. Otherwise she will be barred from standing in the election by that excellent institution of chief election commission. To refresh your memory, every Politian has to declare his/her assets and since Mayawati’s assets have been going up over the years, she will have to file tax returns or she can’t stand in the elections. She will lose her power if that happens.

 I read this excellent piece while doing my research:

“In April, 2007 while filing her nomination papers for Assembly elections Mayawati had declared her assets to be worth Rs. 52 crores. While filing her income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09 she estimated her income to be Rs. 60 crores and had deposited Rs. 15 crores as advance tax. The actual income is likely to exceed this estimate at the end of this financial year. As such her name has been included in the list of a few topmost earning persons of India. Even before this Mayawati was embroiled in a case of acquiring disproportionate assets, covering the period of 1995-2003. This was when her declared income was paltry Rs 88.70 lacs. The interesting thing here is that the super sonic build up in Maya’s wealth has actually come after the filing of this case and that too in a very short period from 2004 -2007.

Now the question arises as to what are the sources of her income and what are the consequences of this amassing of wealth by her. It is also pertinent to discuss as to apart from Mayawati who else are the beneficiaries of this money game. What is the loss and gain of Dalits in this game of exchange of money? …..

let us judge Mayawati on her score on integrity. It is quite bold of Mayawati that she makes no secret of her hunger for power and wealth. She takes money during her birthday celebrations as gifts from her followers and well wishers. She takes it during elections by selling tickets to the highest bidder. There have been allegations of money being taken by her in various projects and schemes. Transfers and postings are also said to be an important source of corruption for the persons in power.…

It is a common knowledge that candidates are changed many times before the selection reaches the final stage. The main consideration is said to be the money. After getting the ticket they in turn invest a lot of money in elections by buying votes through party workers who are bound to be infected with corruption. This deprives the genuine party workers of the chance to stand in the election because they cannot afford to pay for party tickets.” (Emphasis added)

Maybe Mayawati means well but her hunger for power and money and that of Lalu and Mulayam has yielded to accelerated corruption in the region. There were recent reports of her handing out corrupt politicians/ministers from her party to the police and so forth and that is commendable. Perhaps she is trying to build up her path to prime-minister ship by starting to clean up her image. But in my view she has a long way to go before she has my respect for being worthy of the post of the prime minister.

Afterall, UP has barred organized retail – which we know hurts the poor more than it helps the mom&pop grocery store owners.

~*~

I find the argument on this post as well as the comment by Nilanjan very enlightening. I am a big supporter for improving the education conditions of the different communities in India. Per Nilanjan’s comment: “stuck with the idea that muslims need more representation in the IAS, the IIMs and so forth. Only a very elite class is represented here. There are more hindu elites and less muslim elites. Therefore the representation is skewed. But why is any representation required for anyone?” - i am wholly in agreement, why there be any need to have a representation for any particular community, religious or otherwise in any body? The different institutions should support a particular objective for which they have been created. IITs are created for technologists and engineers, IIMs for managers, IAS for administrators and the focus of these institutions should be solely on excellence in the sphere for which these have been created. IITs should produce the best technocrats out there, IAS for the best civil servant. Unfortunately, these institutions are seen by the public as a doorway to something else. Being an IITian, i know that the IITs are seen by the majority of the country as a path to an ensured and rewarding career. And perhaps the representation debate is skewed. In my view, this debate exists with the view to show a balanced view, in turn driven by the argument that people are equal and hence their proportion should be balanced in any institution. On the outset, this argument is completely logical; that is, until you factor in the specific social conditions. An argument has been made (refer to http://the-sin-nitesh.livejournal.com/74255.html) that there are enough people from the so called lower castes in the IITs and IIMs, i think that has more to do with the specific socio-economic conditions prevalent in these communities. A person from a poor background has less access to resources that are needed today to gain admissions into these elite institutes. Fact is that the majority of the poor belong to the so called lower castes and in this argument to the muslim community. The elite from these community very much utilize the necessary resources to maximize their gains from meritocratic institutions - i have some very good friends from IITs who are from Muslim/lower caste families. The argument then should be on how to improve the access to the resources that will bring these people to achieve the level of participation that is desirable.

Improving the basic education infrastructure is perhaps the best answer. Sam Rizvi has the right recommendations; and i would recommend the same to exist throughout the socio-demographic of the country - invest in basic education and create incentives for the teachers to work in the less privileged areas. Care should be taken, however, to not support one community over another - regardless of the community in question. Government should invest amounts proportionate to the size of a community in a neighborhood - be the neighborhood a Muslim dominated area, or a Sikh or a lower Hindu caste. If there is discrimination, the community that has been discriminated against will rise against it leading to havoc. A balanced approach with focus on execution should relieve this tensions in the years to come and improve the conditions of everyone in the community.

I also question any logic on continued segregation of communities - along civil laws. I don’t see a point of having different laws governing Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims and Christians. This whole framework leads to a divisive society and yields question on the nature of the law. A perhaps classic example is the question of the access to reserved categories for people with mixed religions (muslim mother with an SC/ST/OBC father or vice versa) and indeed converted population. A Dalit Muslim is as under-privileged as a Dalit Hindu - a civil law that is based on segregation of religious communities brings forth such dichotomies and makes a mockery of the secular nature of our country and the constitution. Perhaps worse, such a structure creates an incentive structure that can easily succumb to power politics. We see the perversion of politics along vote-bank lines and caste politics; are there similar perversions that have resulted in poverty among the muslims? I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on this topic, but i would seek a debate on it. I would argue, however, that any nature of divisiveness in the society is not good for the society as a whole and a common civil law should be enforced in the country - to bring truth to the claim of a secular socialist republic.

~*~