बेअक्ली

मंदिर में शिवलिंग के किनारे 
अल्लाह के काँधे पर सर रखकर 
शिव रोते हैं सुबक-सुबक कर 
ये हमारे बच्चों को क्या हो गया?
तुमने तो कहा था बस इतना ही ज़हर है 
संसार में, जो मेरे हलक़ तक है
फिर इनके भीतर ये ज़हर कहाँ से आया?
कौन लाया?
मेरे गले के तो सांप भी नहीं डसते
इनको डसना फिर किसने सिखाया?
कुर्ते से आंसू पोंछते हुए
शिव के, अपने भी, बोले अल्लाह
दोष अपना ही है
जो इन्हें दिल बख़्शा, और बेअक्ली भी
इन जाहिलों ने हमें एक से दो बनाया
मुझे अल्लाह और तुम्हें शिव
मुझे मस्जिद और तुम्हें मंदिर में बिठाया
जोइन्हें पत्थर बनाते
तो ये दिन न आते
यूँ खुद से खुद को न लड़वाते!

Breakdown of intellect

I am fed up with this sort of commentary which presents itself as a work of intellect but which has a clear partisan tone.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/building-a-culture-of-tolerance/article5893918.ece

In this article, the writer paints a picture in which the Hindus alone have to be blamed for the breakdown of tolerance in India, while tucking the name of Owaisi in between. I say this on the basis of the examples that they put forth.

Essentially, the article revolves around individual rights vs community rights. There is required a negotiation between individual rights and community rights for tolerance to prevail in a country as diverse as India. For example, a house owner who follows Jainism would find it difficult to rent his house to a Muslim who wants to eat beef.  Both of them want to exercise their religiosity. Whose rights should prevail in this case?

Instead of asking this, the writer suggests that the Jain owner is at fault and is perpetuating intolerance. Not only that, the writer suggests that there should be a law to prevent "this intolerant rental discrimination".

Yes individuals have rights,but they live in a community. And every community lives with certain norms, which one can call community rights. This is the reality. There will be clashes between individual rights and community rights, and this requires negotiations. . It is this one-sided verdict on the rightness or the wrongness of the community rights that breeds intolerance.

Yes, the Hindu community is to be blamed for caste based intolerance. But is it the Hindutva ideology alone that is to be blamed for rising religious intolerance in India? The writer fails to bring into picture Islamic fundamentalism or Christian Missionaries conversion acts.

Also, the writer is factually incorrect, when they say that the tribal community is non-Hindu. Large number of Indian tribes are Hindu tribes.

And therefore, it is no surprise that such an article found its way as the leading article in The Hindu's opinion page.

My Soundcloud stream

If you are checking out my blog, give a try to my SoundCloud stream. 

Here is the link:  Anand's SoundCloud

Headlines Today

BJP released its manifesto today. Here are some headlines in the leading newspapers describing the manifesto which caught my attention. They don't seem to make sense to me. Do they to you?

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/BJP-manifesto-may-stick-to-Hindutva-issues-but-leave-room-for-negotiations/articleshow/33350323.cms?

BJP's manifesto for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections is expected to reiterate its commitment to Hindutva issues relating to the demand for a Ram temple at Ayodhya, uniform civil code and Article 370 as articulated in its 2009 manifesto.

How is a Uniform Civil Code a "Hindutva" issue? Article 44 of the Constitution directs the States to formulate such a code.

Again, how is Art 370 a Hindutva issue? Art 370 which gives special constitutional rights to Jammu and Kashmir impacts the federal structure of India and national security, not in a good way. 



2. http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-2014/bjp-s-modi-festo-headlines-economy-downplays-ram-mandir-505385?pfrom=home-lateststories

The promise to work towards a Ram temple at a disputed mosque site in Ayodhya is mentioned only on page 41, that too with a rider that it would be "within the constitutional framework.

BJP manifesto says "BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of the constitution
to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.". 

How is "exploring all possibilities..." downplaying the Ram Mandir issue?


The manifesto was seen to reflect the loosening grip of the BJP's old guard backed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the party's ideological mentor, which believes that the BJP should not neglect its core constituency

If Ram Mandir, Uniform Civil Code and Art 370 were indeed "Hindutva" issues which find place in the manifesto, how was the manifesto seen to reflect the loosening grip of BJP's old guard and RSS?
Its amazing how RSS has "planted" its swayamsevak as the PM candidate when its grip over the BJP was getting loose?

By the way, the report does not mention by whom this manifesto was seen in such light.


3. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/BJP-puts-no-first-use-nuclear-policy-in-doubt/articleshow/33404303.cms

The article gives an impression that India will discard the "no first use" principle if BJP comes to power. However, the manifesto makes no such promise.

Yes, a clarification regarding the revision of nuclear doctrine of India as promised by BJP is required, but without coloring the vision.

Now compare the earlier link with this link to see the difference in reporting.
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xno41g9Q3UYykzPhv3guXP/BJP-election-manifesto-says-will-revise-Indias-nuclear-doct.html