Our eyes met and the rhetoric hurt the most
All the memories of an innocence lost
Like the doe under the huntsman's gaze.
Pain is a passionate remainder of life.
He took all I had, grace, peace, honour,
Gave me misery and made me a mourner.
The good son has all he wants,
And repulsion is all I reap.
I crept up and hit him to astound
Blood coloured the sky and bathed the ground.
A body quivering with self-pity and pride,
I have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
An offering showed me whom the love was for,
Whom the grace of heaven showered down upon,
Who laughed when all around me turned to smoke,
Who sneered when my heart, in all its heaviness, broke.
Projections of the days before ensnared my senses,
My hand started trembling; my will was defenceless;
A surge of courage or was it fear astride;
A look of disgust and my conscience denied.
I crept up again and hit him to astound,
Blood coloured the sky and bathed the ground.
A body quivering with trepidation and pride,
I have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
I need to run so that no one can find,
I need a place to escape from my mind.
I see them coming to haunt me fast,
With a curse on their lips and hatred in their hearts.
I killed my brother for what you may never know.
The route my blood will take and flow.
I'm condemned for the rest of my life.
It's my destiny, my choice, my strife....
I crept up and hit him to astound,
Blood coloured the sky and bathed the ground.
A body shaking with humiliation and pride,
I have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
1, 2, 3 Go!
Ronenda just got into trouble for saying “tactless” and “uncouth” things about our ‘honourable’ members of parliament. Evidently, they did not like being called ‘headless chickens’ and they were within their right to protest. That, however, does not give them the right to stall any action taken in public interest just because they feel like it. No member of parliament has successfully explained why he/she is against the 123 agreement. Now why is that? Maybe if they took time off to actually read the agreement, they would attempt to see reason. Let’s put aside political malintent and assume that our netas do really care about the fate of the nation. Are their fears of infringement on India’s sovereignty well placed?
Let’s be Civil
The 123 agreement is a civilian deal. The Government of India saw fit, in its own wisdom, to ask the United States for help in the direction of nuclear fuel for civilian needs. India has a power requirement that far outweighs its current production capacity through conventional means. Nuclear power, for all of us who studied physics in school, is far more potent and will enable most of India’s basic power needs to be met. In case you did not know this, urban India is not the only India that matters. Most of rural India has, at best, erratic power supply that borders on meagre. This deal will empower (the pun is intended) the people of India. Streetlights will actually shed light on the roads, water can be pumped according to our needs, farmers will be able to use machinery that is more advanced and the whole nine yards.
Defend Yourselves
Now, since this is a civilian deal, it has no collateral impact on India’s defence programme. India can make a bomb and test it. Discussion on India’s strategic and defence facet is entirely out of the scope of the agreement. There is a clause in the agreement that categorically mentions that the agreement will not be a hurdle to India’s strategic programme. Therefore, India can continue to make a bomb with its own fuel.
There is nothing in this agreement stopping India from conducting tests and deploying the results into warheads. If India does conduct a nuclear test, it will not be any different from the time that she did under Mr. Vajpayee’s leadership. The opposition should remember this.
Right to Return
The United States has reserved its right to take back its nuclear fuel if India goes ahead and tests nuclear weapons. They will, although evaluate the circumstances it was done under. This is the bird over whose flight our political honchos are disturbed. They see a national conspiracy in this. Put very simply, the United States gives us fuel for lighting homes. We use their fuel for civilian purposes and continue making warheads with ours. The United States feels threatened and takes back its fuel. And, this is unacceptable, how? Why is India’s sovereignty threatened by this?
The deal states very clearly that return of the fuel is not an automatic fallout of any strategic nuclear test. Even if the United States exercises the right to return, it will be after much deliberation and discussion. India can conduct tests in special regional environments - say, if one of her neighbours has done the same. This is purely to restore the arms balance in the region. Right to return is one of the many options for the United States administration. For all you know, it might freeze all its ties with India. How would India like that then? This, as we leant after Pokhran, can happen even without the 123 agreement. Do we honestly think that The United States, which is always intimidated by nuclear strike capabilities (refer Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Syria, Lybia…) will sit comfortably when we conduct nuclear tests, agreement or not? My point is that the possible bilateral fallout with the United States over nuclear weapon testing can happen irrespective of the civilian agreement. Why not make use of the civilian agreement while we can?
Sovereignty
Freedom from external control - This is what we attained in 1956. Can 123 take this away from us? No chance! India has and will continue to have complete control over all its decisions, both internal and external. In fact, negotiating the terms of the agreement was a proof of that. The United States cannot interfere in any of our affairs as long as it does not affect them. They can request us not to test our weapons – they cannot ensure it. That is sovereignty. However, our sovereignty ends where theirs begins. If India is sovereign, so is the United States. If they feel threatened by us, they are in their right to exercise discretion over bilateral ties. How are we going to deny them that? We need to learn to respect each other’s sovereignty.
I am the first person to say that nuclear power can be used as a deterrent and the last person to advocate its use. It is a diabolical instrument of war – One that everyone can do without. However, its civilian uses are replete with possibilities. We should make use of this to improve the state of our internal development.
The 123 agreement does not restrain us from conducting nuclear tests. However, whether we choose an ostentatious show of military strength over unbridled civilian development is a question our ‘honourable’ members of parliament must answer. After all, the only place headless chickens go is in the soup!
Let’s be Civil
The 123 agreement is a civilian deal. The Government of India saw fit, in its own wisdom, to ask the United States for help in the direction of nuclear fuel for civilian needs. India has a power requirement that far outweighs its current production capacity through conventional means. Nuclear power, for all of us who studied physics in school, is far more potent and will enable most of India’s basic power needs to be met. In case you did not know this, urban India is not the only India that matters. Most of rural India has, at best, erratic power supply that borders on meagre. This deal will empower (the pun is intended) the people of India. Streetlights will actually shed light on the roads, water can be pumped according to our needs, farmers will be able to use machinery that is more advanced and the whole nine yards.
Defend Yourselves
Now, since this is a civilian deal, it has no collateral impact on India’s defence programme. India can make a bomb and test it. Discussion on India’s strategic and defence facet is entirely out of the scope of the agreement. There is a clause in the agreement that categorically mentions that the agreement will not be a hurdle to India’s strategic programme. Therefore, India can continue to make a bomb with its own fuel.
There is nothing in this agreement stopping India from conducting tests and deploying the results into warheads. If India does conduct a nuclear test, it will not be any different from the time that she did under Mr. Vajpayee’s leadership. The opposition should remember this.
Right to Return
The United States has reserved its right to take back its nuclear fuel if India goes ahead and tests nuclear weapons. They will, although evaluate the circumstances it was done under. This is the bird over whose flight our political honchos are disturbed. They see a national conspiracy in this. Put very simply, the United States gives us fuel for lighting homes. We use their fuel for civilian purposes and continue making warheads with ours. The United States feels threatened and takes back its fuel. And, this is unacceptable, how? Why is India’s sovereignty threatened by this?
The deal states very clearly that return of the fuel is not an automatic fallout of any strategic nuclear test. Even if the United States exercises the right to return, it will be after much deliberation and discussion. India can conduct tests in special regional environments - say, if one of her neighbours has done the same. This is purely to restore the arms balance in the region. Right to return is one of the many options for the United States administration. For all you know, it might freeze all its ties with India. How would India like that then? This, as we leant after Pokhran, can happen even without the 123 agreement. Do we honestly think that The United States, which is always intimidated by nuclear strike capabilities (refer Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Syria, Lybia…) will sit comfortably when we conduct nuclear tests, agreement or not? My point is that the possible bilateral fallout with the United States over nuclear weapon testing can happen irrespective of the civilian agreement. Why not make use of the civilian agreement while we can?
Sovereignty
Freedom from external control - This is what we attained in 1956. Can 123 take this away from us? No chance! India has and will continue to have complete control over all its decisions, both internal and external. In fact, negotiating the terms of the agreement was a proof of that. The United States cannot interfere in any of our affairs as long as it does not affect them. They can request us not to test our weapons – they cannot ensure it. That is sovereignty. However, our sovereignty ends where theirs begins. If India is sovereign, so is the United States. If they feel threatened by us, they are in their right to exercise discretion over bilateral ties. How are we going to deny them that? We need to learn to respect each other’s sovereignty.
I am the first person to say that nuclear power can be used as a deterrent and the last person to advocate its use. It is a diabolical instrument of war – One that everyone can do without. However, its civilian uses are replete with possibilities. We should make use of this to improve the state of our internal development.
The 123 agreement does not restrain us from conducting nuclear tests. However, whether we choose an ostentatious show of military strength over unbridled civilian development is a question our ‘honourable’ members of parliament must answer. After all, the only place headless chickens go is in the soup!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
A Father Remembered, A Son Forgotten
A dear friend and I had an argument a few days ago. The issue was Anil Kapoor’s new film – Gandhi, My Father. While I had the ‘I-told-you-so’ look, he stood defiantly in support of the Mahatma.Now, Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, was an exceptional national leader. I’d be a damn fool to contest that. My grouse with him was always to do with his ideology. I was, and am still, of the opinion that freedom cannot be attained by allowing the oppressors to bitch-slap you until they need you no more. However, that would be a topic for a later discussion. What I am going to write about today is about one of Gandhi’s greatest flaws – his personal life.
If my father ever treated me as Gandhi treated his son Harilal, I would think I was not his son at all. That was the extent of hopelessness that Gandhi injected into Harilal. He denied him education (that he himself got) and forced him to withstand the worst of his nomadic lifestyle. As a result, the young man became a wasted entity. Some people might say that it was the price one man’s family paid for a country’s freedom. I will agree. Gandhi’s excuse to leave his son as a country bumpkin was that he did not want Harilal to be portrayed as getting unfair advantage. He did not want Harilal to get a foreign education if other Indian children could not have it (never mind the fact that Gandhi himself completed his bar in Britain). Harilal paid the price for the maintenance of his father’s public image. Now, this was not Gandhi’s greatest failing.
His utter failure as a father came to the fore when he could not/would not explain his seemingly irrational decisions to his growing son. Growing up is hard. I grew up in a home of academics and disciplinarians. That was tough. Poor Harilal grew up in the house of MK Gandhi! I cannot even imagine the extent of his loneliness and difficulty in his formative years. Gandhi being the man he was, toured the country and fought battles with the British. I will not say that he should have been at home with his children. However, he should not have totally discarded his filial responsibility.
The animosity between Harilal and his father grew to such an extent that he converted to Islam to spite his father. What does that say about Gandhi? It is easy to preach “Ishwar Allah tero naam…” but what happens when your own son wants a shift in faith? Harilal converted to Islam because he knew that it would piss his father off like very little else. Gandhi vindicated this by disowning him in public. Which ‘great’ person will disown his son for a change in faith? Was this the true mindset of the Mahatma? Although Harilal’s was an immature act, born more out of hatred for his father than love for Islam, it, nevertheless, exposed Gandhi’s double speak.
While celebrating this, the sixtieth year of our independence, we may remember many martyrs. These men willingly chose to embrace their doom in the cause of attaining freedom. One martyr who will not be mentioned anywhere is Harilal Gandhi – The son who was forcefully sacrificed for the country.
If my father ever treated me as Gandhi treated his son Harilal, I would think I was not his son at all. That was the extent of hopelessness that Gandhi injected into Harilal. He denied him education (that he himself got) and forced him to withstand the worst of his nomadic lifestyle. As a result, the young man became a wasted entity. Some people might say that it was the price one man’s family paid for a country’s freedom. I will agree. Gandhi’s excuse to leave his son as a country bumpkin was that he did not want Harilal to be portrayed as getting unfair advantage. He did not want Harilal to get a foreign education if other Indian children could not have it (never mind the fact that Gandhi himself completed his bar in Britain). Harilal paid the price for the maintenance of his father’s public image. Now, this was not Gandhi’s greatest failing.
His utter failure as a father came to the fore when he could not/would not explain his seemingly irrational decisions to his growing son. Growing up is hard. I grew up in a home of academics and disciplinarians. That was tough. Poor Harilal grew up in the house of MK Gandhi! I cannot even imagine the extent of his loneliness and difficulty in his formative years. Gandhi being the man he was, toured the country and fought battles with the British. I will not say that he should have been at home with his children. However, he should not have totally discarded his filial responsibility.
The animosity between Harilal and his father grew to such an extent that he converted to Islam to spite his father. What does that say about Gandhi? It is easy to preach “Ishwar Allah tero naam…” but what happens when your own son wants a shift in faith? Harilal converted to Islam because he knew that it would piss his father off like very little else. Gandhi vindicated this by disowning him in public. Which ‘great’ person will disown his son for a change in faith? Was this the true mindset of the Mahatma? Although Harilal’s was an immature act, born more out of hatred for his father than love for Islam, it, nevertheless, exposed Gandhi’s double speak.
While celebrating this, the sixtieth year of our independence, we may remember many martyrs. These men willingly chose to embrace their doom in the cause of attaining freedom. One martyr who will not be mentioned anywhere is Harilal Gandhi – The son who was forcefully sacrificed for the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)