This Congress is not that Congress

Why am I writing this? It is for a purely personal reason. They say you don’t need to explain your stand to those who don’t understand or are misinformed or uninformed. I disagree. Your silence will only vindicate their stand. Coming back to the reason for which I chose to write on this topic. It results from a corollary widely accepted these days: ‘If you do not support the right-wing dispensation, then you’re a Congress supporter, led by Mrs Sonia Gandhi and her son Mr Rahul Gandhi. Also, it is in the backdrop of the decimation of the scam-stricken UPA in the last polls that such people judge and opine about previous Congress governments and even the organisation’s history before independence.

They say it has always been such a corrupt organisation and was run by the ‘Gandhi’ family. They, however, single out leaders like Sardar Patel and Lal Bahadur Shastri and try to highlight their so-called differences with Pandit Nehru to justify their claim that they were not like him. Like D.K. Baruah’s famous ‘India is Indira and Indira is India’, for such people, ‘Congress was Nehru and Nehru was Congress’.

Maybe the Congress is also guilty of letting the name of Pandit Nehru be maligned by the vested interests as they continue to seek votes in his name more than half-a-century after his death. They also successfully ignored the role of those leaders in building the party and the country whom the right-wing adopts as their leaders.

This write-up, however, is not to support either of the claims. As I said, this is for a purely personal purpose: To clarify my own stand that opposing Narendra Modi and the saffron camp and admiring Pandit Nehru or Mahatma Gandhi doesn’t make me a supporter of the Congress led by Mrs Sonia Gandhi and Mr Rahul Gandhi, or worse, of Mr Robert Vadra.

One may well argue that if you link the past of BJP and RSS with Mr Modi or are still against these organisations for the Ayodhya movement or Gujarat riots, then why not link Mr Rahul Gandhi to Pandit Nehru? The argument, however, has no base at all as the BJP still has those faces in its fold who were instrumental in the temple movement and the ensuing communal flare-up-many of them are Union ministers in the present Cabinet. Whereas there’s no point in linking Nehru’s legacy with this Congress as this Congress is not that Congress, literally.

In 1969, Mrs Indira Gandhi, after she was expelled from the party for indiscipline, broke the Congress into two parties and destroyed the old guard. With this move of hers, she disassociated the new Congress from its history of struggle against the colonial rule. To this date, this Congress is known as Congress (I). After that followed a battery of actions and decisions which established the difference between the old Congress and the new, led by Mrs Indira Gandhi and her favoured son Sanjay. Corruption and a dictatorial rule, carried out in the name of ‘restoring’ democracy and socialism, took the new Congress to a level where terming it a carrier of Pandit Nehru’s legacy was like the RSS associating a communist, Bhagat Singh, with itself.

It was this time when the ‘family’ or ‘dynasty’ caught hold of the party. Although, Mrs Indira Gandhi used to assist her father in his work when he was in office, the role of Mr Sanjay Gandhi was never of a mere assistance; he was always in control.

The very act of Mrs Gandhi of dividing the party was against the Congress’ tradition. As noted author Mr Ramachandra Guha, in India After Gandhi, quotes an independent observer as saying that ‘in contrast to the incremental approach of Nehru and Shastri, she represented something ruthless and new’. With the imposition of internal emergency in 1975, obviously to crush the JP movement and rendering the High Court decision threatening her chair ineffective, Mrs Gandhi lost all the credibility she was left with as Nehru’s daughter.

I had read somewhere that after the 1962 fiasco somebody had suggested Pandit Nehru to declare a state of emergency to stop the barrage of criticism. However, he preferred personal criticism to destruction of democratic values and rejected the idea.

That Mrs Gandhi’s actions were against the culture of Nehru and the old Congress is evident from a letter her fiercest opponent Jai Prakash Narayan wrote to her. ‘Please don’t destroy the foundations that the Fathers of the Nation, including your noble father, had laid down. You inherited a great tradition, noble values and a working democracy,’ wrote JP, expressing hope that her rule will not last long because, he thought, ‘a people who fought British imperialism and humbled it cannot accept indefinitely the indignity and shame of totalitarianism’.

But alas! He was wrong. Totalitarian rule seems to be extending forever, hidden under the cloak of ‘wish of the majority.’ It is the legacy of this totalitarianism that the new Congress, and even others who opposed it for the same, are carrying forward. None can be called a true inheritor of Nehru’s socialism. Socialism is an idea which is alien to all political parties now; even to those whose names have the word.

On the communal front too-precisely the reason for which one denounces the right-wing-the new Congress doesn’t come clean. Despite the division of the country on the basis of religion, the then Congress leaders intended to make a pluralistic and secular India. But the way a particular community was targeted after Mrs Gandhi’s assassination and the way her son and the new Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi downplayed it with his famous ‘when a big tree falls’ remark, showed how shallow was the addition of the word ‘secular’ to the Preamble by Mrs Gandhi’s regime in 1976.

In all the ways-nominal, ideological, moral, ethical and historical-this is not the Congress the Gandhians used to admire. It cannot place Nehru’s or Gandhi’s photograph on its banners. And just because it does that, its opponents should not draw those historic personalities in today’s political battle.

Neither of the camps, however, have the allegiance of people like me. There seems no one out there who can break this politics of fear and intimidation introduced in the world’s largest democracy, sadly, by Pandit Nehru’s daughter and grandson. To bring such people to the fore who can, India needs a massive electoral reform.

India’s daughter betrayed

The India that woke up to the dawn of December 17, 2012 was not the same India that went to sleep the last night. That night changed, or at least initiated to change, something crucial. The change was visible when a 23-year-old student’s unheeded cries for help, which were confined to a bus till last night, started reverberating in the form of angry slogans from India Gate to Raisina Hill the next morning. And the echo did not only contain the pain and anger of that young girl, but of the millions who went through the same ordeal as her in the past. Somehow that young paramedic was able to shake a people’s conscience. They were not ready to let it go in the history as just another case of rape among millions. Those who felt the pain came out in that winter morning to register their disagreement with the state of affairs; and they were many. When the water cannons and teargases failed to placate those common men and women, the government was forced to change the law against rape and gender-related violence.

That thousands of rapes happened in the country even after that is another issue, what was significant was that the incident initiated a discussion. It gave the issue the attention it deserved. People began to talk about rape. They started discussing patriarchy and the mindset which grows out of it. That things are no more the same became evident when a noted author had to publicly apologise for using the word “rape” humorously. “Rape” was no longer a synonym for humiliating defeat or insult or misery. Rape “victims” became rape “survivors”. It was asked why the law doesn’t allow a raped woman to be named? Why the women who are raped, often commit suicide? Why it is more “shameful” to get raped than to rape? What causes rape and why the raped woman is seen as a prostitute? Such questions found their way from feminist literature to the common voters’ dining table. And many rape survivors came forward to say that we’re not someone out of this world; we’re the women you see every day in different roles.

Some argue that a surge was seen in the number of rapes after the incident not because rapes increased abnormally, but because more and more women started reporting rapes, including marital rapes, rapes by friends, family members and acquaintances. It was one change that the incident surely brought to a society in which rape was seen as the end of life. The message that their crime will not go unreported dissuaded many of the potential rapists. And this was very important, as not all rapes happen in deserted streets. Statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau show that about 70% incidents of rape involve family members, friends and acquaintances of the woman. This severely contradicts the notion that women should not go out of home at night, as the walls of home do not guarantee safety.

More than two years after the incident, and about a year-and-a-half after the rapists were sentenced to death, a British filmmaker reviewed the incident in a documentary. The film showed the unrepentant rapist blaming the girl for the incident and even learned lawyers saying that if a woman goes out to watch a movie with her friend at night, she ought to be raped. The documentary was a message that the change was still in its very initial stage and that the mentality, which was being fought after the incident, is still prevalent.

It was good that such a film came, so as not to let the discussion subside. It again sparked the debate against patriarchy and the need for a radical change. It proved that even the capital punishment failed to change the rapist’s mindset and therefore something basic needs to be changed; only tough laws will not suffice.  

But, shockingly, the government of India chose to ban the documentary, accusing the filmmaker of flouting rules and cheating jail authorities by showing them an abridged version of the film and not removing the parts objected to by the officials.

This was a jolt to those who wanted the discussion to continue; who knew that not talking about the issue only has made the problem grow into a menace. Indian lawmakers argued that the documentary revisits the horror and will scratch the wounds of the girl’s family. Well, being politicians, they might think that a parent can forget such an incident, that too when they’re still fighting the case in the Supreme Court. Yes the movie revisits the horror, and it may again intensify anger, and that’s what governments fear the most.

The move has endangered the debate the incident had initiated. It is again putting the issue under the carpet. The film does not give a platform to the rapist to justify his crime; rather it shows the rapists, their family, the girl and her family as people and not just names in newspapers. The film has also not violated any law by naming the girl, and even if it did, one may ask, what’s so sacrosanct about the law? Isn’t the practice of not naming rape survivors endorses the so-called “shame” attached to rape? Doesn’t it serve as an example of the notion that if you want to shame a woman, rape her? It’s high time such bizarre laws changed. Why will the woman not name her? She will come out and will claim her right on her body. This, no doubt, is the most fundamental right one may ask for.

Rather, silencing the voices of dissent will encourage the rapists. They will again start feeling that they will get away as nobody will talk about it. And therefore, keeping the discussion, the debate going is important. India’s daughter will once again feel herself betrayed when a debate that gave her some hope for a change will be silenced in such a manner.

If democratic governments will offer such instances of intolerance, they will also fail the struggles to overthrow the Tsars or Louis VI or the British Empire. The governments which find the people mature enough to vote and elect their rulers, should not consider the same people immature enough to be violently incited by a film or documentary. Those who praised the people’s wisdom for voting them to power now doubt the same wisdom. What a paradox.

But the likes of those who braved water cannons and teargases on that winter morning will continue to push for reforms. The “powerful” regime should not think they can be cowed. They will continue to hit the wall till it is broken. They will not submit, nor will they retreat, as that half-naked little brown man with a bamboo stave had asked them not to.

Altercation due to gravity

It was sad to discover that people who call themselves “intellectuals” or “intelligentsia”- to be precise- were not able to draw a difference between Dinanath Batra and G. Madhavan Nair. It is not their fault. After all these years of preaching others to be broad-minded, they themselves have become so narrow-minded that they’re not ready to buy a definition of broad-mindedness other than their own. One word in praise of ancient Indian culture and they at once conclude that you’re praising Hinduism or its modern form “Hindutva” of RSS. Well, I do not intend to write for those who keep Aryabhata, Kanaad, Bhaskaracharya, Nagarjuna, Brahmgupt, Varah Mihir and Sushruta in the same category as Asaram Bapu. I also do not intend to write for those to whom, every scholar of Sanskrit or Vedic studies is a supporter of BJP or RSS or VHP.

To those who are objective, who believe that everything contains something good and something bad and who are not diehard cynics, I, as a student of Physics, as a son of a professor of philosophy and as a grandson of a professor of comparative religion, dare to say something.

To those who are still skeptical about my inclinations and think that I’m drifting towards the right of the Centre, I want to make it clear that I know there are scholars whose sole aim is to prove that ancient Indian knowledge was better than the Western knowledge, or that Indians thought about it first and not the Westerners. To such people and to those who think otherwise, I only say that knowledge has no nationality, caste, religion, race or political inclination. I’m unable to understand the necessity of proving that whose knowledge is better, ours or theirs, when both essentially say the same thing. Is Aryabhat’s gravity different than Newton’s gravity or is Einstein’s relativity different than Nagarjuna’s relativity? So why the debate that we thought about it first and hence we’re greater? Well, clearly, this was not the intention of Mr Nair when he said that Aryabhat knew about gravity before Newton. Although he might have said so without naming Newton at all and then perhaps a criticism wouldn’t have ensued.

But, habitually, the leftists pounced upon him without knowing what exactly he said. I’m happy that, till now, no one from the saffron camp has come forward to defend him otherwise the poor scientist would have been pulling his hairs.

Mr Nair is a renowned physicist and former chairman of Isro. He has contributed a lot in the Chandrayaan project and as he said, Aryabhat’s equation was used in Chandrayaan. He is a well-read man and if he said something then we should at least have thought about it before training our guns on him. I don’t know how many of those who are criticizing him and considering his statement to be Newton’s insult have read Aryabhateeya (Aryabhat’s book) or Newton’s Principia Mathematica or both. But those for whom life on earth begins with 14^th century Europe do not care about listening to others’ argument as they’re so busy in imposing their thoughts. They demean Aryabhat only because he was born in the India before foreign invasion and praise Newton only because he was born in the Europe which was awakening to renaissance. What Aryabhat wrote in Aryabhateeya and what Newton wrote in Principia matter little to them. Their mind is so full of prejudice and cynicism that knowledge finds little place to enter.

As a matter of fact, Aryabhat was not a religious leader. He did not praise any god in his book nor did he frighten people with heaven or hell. In fact, what he wrote was clearly opposite to the religious beliefs of those times. He can be considered as India’s Galileo because he broke the myth behind eclipses. He dared to say that Rahu or Ketu do not “eat” Sun or Moon as was widely believed at that time.

Aryabhateeya is a thin book with 4 chapters. In the first chapter, Aryabhat introduces his way of referring to numbers with letters. For example, the letter Ri represents 10,00,000. However, this method makes translation or decoding of his shlokas very cumbersome as Sanskrit shlokas consist of too many combined letters and it’s a mammoth task to separate them and draw a meaning in terms of numbers from them. This sometimes also leads to contradictions.

But, patient researchers, using this method, have even found the accurate radius of the earth and the distance between the earth and the sun implicit in the first Hymn of Purusha Sooktam.

Subsequently in the second chapter, Aryabhatt explains simple geometry and trigonometry with the formulae to calculate area of a square, rectangle and circle; perimeter; the method to draw circles, triangles and squares; formula to calculate area of a cone; to calculate length of a shadow based on the angle of depression it makes with the source of light; to compare similar triangles; the distance formula and Shulva Sutra (also known as Pythagoras Theorem); the formula of (a+b)²; solution of indeterminate equation of first degree and even the formula to calculate rate of interest.

In the next chapter he describes the calculation of astronomical time and it is the last chapter in which he comes to describe properties of the earth and space. He explains eclipses, earth’s rotation and its consequences (gravity being one), how the rotation of earth affects its radius, why we see the sun and stars rising in the east and setting in the west, 4 points in 4 directions on the earth who are at 90 degrees from the line of equator, and calculation of properties of the sun, the moon and other planets.

Can such a rich document be dismissed as a mere religious one which is based on religious superstitions? Well, I leave it the profound discretion of my communist friends.

Nothing in this world is perfect. This goes for all the ideologies. So thinking that our knowledge, our beliefs and our ideology are greater than those of our neighbours is not correct. Simultaneously, it is not correct to dismiss a thought only because it doesn’t suit your ideology. Everything enlightens us if seen from the right perspective. As famous Sufi Saint Kabir has said, “Saar, saar ko gahi rahe, thotha dehi udaaye” (Wise men imbibe the good from everything, and reject the bad).

(PS: Criticism with only logical arguments is accepted. Arguments like why should I believe that there was an Aryabhat existed at all? Why should I believe that he wrote Aryabhateeya and not some RSS leader in the 19^th century? Why should not you burn all such religious books which are sanskritising the society by promoting brahminical thoughts etc. etc. will not be entertained. But I can extend my sympathy to such people)

Delhi's daredevil verdict

So Delhites rejected an offer which even Barack Obama couldn’t, viz. Chalo Chalein Modi ke Saath (Let’s go with Modi). How many elections has India seen, even during the Nehru years, when the people left only 3 MLAs out of 70 in Opposition? They believed in someone who was relentlessly being defamed and being called “I run man” or “Bhagoda” by the opponents. On the other hand, they ruthlessly ignored that party and people who have recently grown all the more powerful and were winning elections after elections. Given the fact that a good portion of Delhi’s administration is shared by the Centre, such a verdict can only be called Delhi’s daredevil verdict. It is a daredevil verdict also because believing in a party that has no or little experience of being in the government is not always easy for the people. That too when the powerful PM launched a tirade against the party’s convener calling him "irresponsible”, “anarchist” and even a “Naxal”.

There must be some strong reasons why the people of Delhi ignored all the accusations leveled against the AAP and its chief and decided to give him a second chance. With my limited political understanding, I’ve decided to list a few reasons which took AK-49 to AK-67.

Face vs. No face

The BJP seemed confused when they were apparently seeking a face to confront Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi. Why did they need a face in Delhi when they were fighting all the previous elections in the name of Mr Modi, only they know better. They won in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand and performed well in Jammu and Kashmir without a face against the established leaders of the parties in power. The Prime Minister campaigned in all the elections and the party’s performance was attributed to his “charisma”. After winning the elections, local, lesser-known leaders were picked up to be the CMs of the respective states. When not having a face against Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Prithviraj Chavan, Hemant Soren and Omar Abdullah didn’t make a difference then how does it matter in the case of Mr Kejriwal? Was the BJP not confident? Perhaps they wanted to poach AAP’s voters by fielding a candidate who had a long association with the party and the anti-corruption movement, but it backfired.

In fact, the reason for BJP’s victory in all the elections was not actually Mr Modi’s “charisma” (although it contributed a lot), but the local workers of the Sangh Parivar. Only the social media campaign cannot bring so many votes. It was the word of mouth that spread in village after village against the incumbents and in favour of BJP’s policies that attracted the voters. And the local partymen played a huge role in ensuring such a high turnout in favour of the BJP. But what BJP leadership did in Delhi irked the local workers. They ignored those who were preparing for elections for over a year and made an “outsider” their chief ministerial candidate. However eligible the candidate might be, a victory without the support of local rank and file is impossible. And that’s what happened. During the campaign, when they realised that their decision was being proved wrong, they pushed Kiran Bedi on the backseat and the PM again took control. But this time it was too late. The voter had sensed the discontent in the saffron party’s camp and decided to junk them.

Negative campaigning

We’ve seen the Presidential-style campaign for Lok Sabha elections. We saw campaigns for various state elections. But there was something different in the BJP’s campaign during the Delhi elections. Voters could sense the arrogance of its leaders, including the PM. After the US President’s visit, the tone of Mr Modi’s speeches was even more changed. They put all their resources in defaming AAP and Mr Kejriwal. Ms Bedi mocked Mr Kejriwal for not being invited in the R-Day parade while she herself got a front-row seat. The common man was watching, and he could see the same attitude developing in the BJP leaders which caused the rout of Congress. On the other hand, the mufflerman’s camp was busy in going door to door, apologising for their mistakes, bringing out a well thought-out manifesto and refraining from personal attacks. In the end, the humble wins.

Toeing the Congress line

Like the Congress gives credit to the family and especially Rahul Gandhi for all the good works done by its governments and tries to find scapegoats for the setbacks, the BJP is doing the same by indirectly blaming Ms Bedi for their loss. Why don’t Amit Shah or Mr Modi come forward to take the responsibility of the defeat like they took the credit for all the previous victories? What happened to their “charisma” and “strategy”? Do they want to say that Ms Bedi was so incompetent that even Mr Modi’s “charisma” and Mr Shah’s “strategy” could not fetch votes? If Mr Modi and Mr Shah do not blame themselves for the loss, then their “mission” for Congress-free India would be in vain as they themselves would be behaving likewise.

Delhi’s daredevil verdict has put a huge burden on AAP’s shoulders. In a way, it will also help distract the people’s focus from Central government’s failures and they will be more concerned about AAP’s delivery. It is to be seen, now, that whether the Centre fulfills its promise of cooperating with the Delhi government. Whatever might be the future, the only thing required from the common people is pragmatism in reviewing the works of AAP. If they fail to fulfil a promise, the people should consider all the reasons behind it before blaming them.

गाँधी की हत्या के दोषी

गाँधी की हत्या कब हुई? गाँधी की हत्या किसने की? प्रश्न थोड़े अधूरे लगते हैं। सही प्रश्न तो कुछ ऐसे होने चाहिए: गाँधी की हत्या कब-कब हुई और किस-किस ने की? और इन हत्याओं के बाद भी क्या गाँधी जीवित हैं? यदि हाँ तो किस रूप में? क्योंकि नाथूराम की तीन गोलियों में तो महात्मा गाँधी के प्राण लेने की क्षमता नहीं थी। अपितु उस फाँसी के फंदे में ज़रूर थी जिसपर गाँधी की “हत्या” के अपराध में नाथूराम को मृत्युदंड दिया गया। वैसे उसके पहले भी गाँधी की कई बार हत्या हो चुकी थी। जब उन्हींकी पार्टी ने, जिसको उन्होंने ही आम जनता से जोड़ा था, उनकी एक न सुनी। आपस में लड़ रहे वह लोग जो खुद को गाँधीवादी कहते थे, कभी भी गाँधीवाद को अपने अहंकार से ऊपर नहीं रख पाए। वह आम लोग जो गाँधी की एक आवाज़ पर अंग्रेज़ों के बड़े से बड़े क़ानून की अवहेलना कर देते थे, उस दिन उनके बार-बार निवेदन करने पर भी अपने ही भाइयों के गले काटने से बाज न आए। तो फिर गाँधी की “हत्या” के लिए मात्र गोडसे को मृत्युदंड क्यों? और गाँधी नोटों और मूर्तियों मे जीवित नहीं रहता, ना ही प्रार्थना सभा में गोलियाँ खाने से मरता है। गाँधी तब मरता है जब गोडसे को फाँसी दे दी जाती है, गाँधी तब मरता है जब उसीके नाम पर जनता की सेवा करने का संकल्प लेकर कोई जनता से छल करता है और उसके लिए बेतुक़े तर्क देता है, गाँधी तब मरता है जब उसको राष्ट्रपिता मानने वाले देश का कोई व्यक्ति अपनी आवश्यकता से अधिक संसाधनों का उपयोग करता है और अपने भाइयों को भूख से मरने के लिए छोड़ देता है, गाँधी तब मरता है जब बात-बात पर उसीके अनुयायियों द्वारा खड़े किए गए दो देश एक दूसरे से भिड़ जाते हैं, गाँधी तब मरता है जब कुछ लोग धर्म को जोड़ने की नहीं तोड़ने का साधन बना लेते हैं। तो कौन-कौन है गाँधी की हत्या के प्रयास का दोषी? लेकिन इनके बार-बार मारने पर भी वह मरा नहीं। इसलिए नहीं कि उसकी मूर्तियाँ हर जगह लगा दी गई हैं लोंगो बताने के लिए कि वह कौन था। बल्कि इसलिए कि एक महिला अपने क्षेत्र पर हो रहे अन्याय के विरोध में 14 साल से अनशन कर रही है। गाँधी इसलिए जीवित है क्योंकि एक अश्वेत व्यक्ति उससे प्रेरणा लेकर अपने देश में रंगभेद का अंत कर देता है। गाँधी इसलिए जीवित है क्योंकि सत्य पर चलने वाले कर्तव्यनिष्ठ अभी समाप्त नहीं हुए हैं और तमाम विसंगतियों के बावजूद समर्पण करने या पलट कर मारने को तैयार नहीं हैं। गाँधी इसलिए जीवित है क्योंकि दंगो के समय अपने बेटों के मार दिए जाने के बाद भी एक महिला दूसरे धर्म के 11 बच्चों के प्राण बचाती है। गाँधी इसलिए जीवित हैं क्योंकि कुछ लोग आज भी बिना किसी लाभ की आशा के बस लोंगो की निःस्वार्थ सेवा किए जा रहे हैं। हम जैसे बुद्धिमान ऐसे लोंगो को मूर्ख कह सकते हैं। लेकिन सत्य तो यही है कि हमारे बटोरे हुए हज़ार-हज़ार के नोटों पर गाँधी का चित्र भले बना हो पर गाँधी जीवित तो ऐसे ही व्यक्तियों की वजह से है। हम तो उनमें से ही हैं जो प्रार्थना सभा में हाथ जोड़ कर उसपर गोलियाँ दाग रहे हैं। लेकिन वह उनसे मरेगा नहीं। हाँ, गोलियाँ चलाने के पक्ष में तर्क देने वाले को देखकर उसके मुँह से स्वतः ही निकल पड़ेगा... हे राम!      

सुख का मूल्य

खै़र, सभी सुखी तो नहीं रह सकते।

तो फिर कौन पिएगा यह हालाहल,
दूसरों को अमृतपान का सुख देने के लिए?
कौन करेगा अस्थिदान,
वज्र सा कठोर हो दूसरों की रक्षा करने के लिए?

किसी ना किसी को तो आगे आना होगा,
अग्नि में खुद को तपाना होगा,
बलि वेदी पर शीश चढ़ाना होगा।

क्योंकि बिना मूल्य तो कुछ मिलता नहीं।

कौन है जो दूसरों के सुख का मूल्य अपने दुःख से चुकाए?
खुद अशांत रहकर दूसरों के जीवन में शांति लाए?

क्या यह ईश्वर का दायित्व है?
या उनका जो 'सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः' की कामना करते हैं?
उनके सुख की भी, जो शायद उसके योग्य नहीं।

सुकृत्य का सत्कार

ओ दो शतकों तक पराधीन रहने वालों |
क्या किया विचार कभी तुमने इस बारे में ?
क्या भूल गये हो योग्य किया है पीने के,
गुड़ घोल घोल कर किसने पानी खारे में ?

सत्तावन से सैंतालिस तक पड़तालो तो,
केवल बलि, कुर्बानी दिखलाई पड़ती है |
पर सैंतालिस से इक्कीसवीं शताब्दी तक,
स्वाधीन ज्योति बुझती दिखलाई पड़ती है ||

हिंदू मुस्लिम पहचान बना कर चलते हो,
मानव पर ख़ुद को कहना तुम्हें नही आता,
क्या इस स्वतंत्र, स्वाधीन हवा के झोंके में,
मिलजुल कर रहना रास नहीं तुमको आता?

हो भूल गए मानव तुम उन अवतारों को,
जिनको शहीद कह कर हम आज बुलाते हैं |
क्या नित्य नहीं हम उन धरती के पुत्रों की,
शिक्षा और आदर्शों की चिता जलाते हैं?

भारत का ऐसा रूप सोच कर नही मनुज,
सबने मिलकर स्वाधीन किया इसको होगा |
पश्चात किंतु उन सबकी इस कुर्बानी के,
आदर हम सबने कितना उन्हें दिया होगा?

हर वर्ष मन कर कुछ थोड़े से दिन विशेष,
तुम देशभक्त सबसे अव्वल बन जाते हो,
क्या याद कभी उन भारत माँ के वीरों की,
तुम आम दिनों में अपने मन में लाते हो?

हाँ वही आम दिन, जब कर तुम सब लोगों के,
रिश्वत लेने में तनिक भी नहीं हिलते हैं |
कर भ्रष्ट देश को, "है मेरा यह देश महान" ,
कहने वाले हर देश में कहाँ मिलते हैं ?

कुछ नहीं कर सकोगे भारत के लिए मनुज,
तुम तो केवल मिथ्या का ही दम भरते हो |
दे प्राण किया स्वाधीन जिन्होंने भारत को,
सत्कार कहाँ उनके सुकृत्य का करते हो?