मन....

प्राथमिकता 'इविल' की 'डैथ' की

लम्बे समय से मैं एक तर्क सुनता आया हूँ कि हम फलां विषय या समस्या के बारे में बाद में भी बात कर सकते हैं क्योंकि अभी राष्ट्र के सामने दूसरे आवश्यक विषय भी हैं. और यह तर्क हिंदू संस्कृति के संदर्भ में विशेष रूप से प्रयोग किया जाता है. यह सही है की राष्ट्र की प्राथमिकताएं सर्वोपरी है.  लेकिन प्रश्न है की इन प्राथमिकताओं को तय किस आधार पर किया जाता है.  उत्तर में एक स्वाभाविक तर्क सुनने को मिलता है कि महंगाई, भूख, भ्रष्टाचार, बेरोज़गारी, आतंकवाद इत्यादी अधिक ज्वलंत विषय हैं.  इसमें कोई दो राय नहीं की ये सभी अति महत्पूर्ण विषय है.  पर क्या अब तक कोई भी शासन इन समस्याओं को दूर करने में समर्थ रहा है? नहीं. ऐसी स्थिति में दूसरे विषय जिन्हे कम महत्वपूर्ण माना जाता है, कब कार्यान्वयन सूची में आएंगे? 

'प्राथमिकता' का यह तर्क मेरी समझ से परे है.  उदाहरण के लिए कश्मीर की समस्या का आज का स्वरूप, आज हिंदुओं के कुछ मुख्य मंदिरों के मुद्दों का विकराल रूप ले लेना भी ऐसे ही 'प्राथमिकता' के गान का परिणाम है. यदि सरदार पटेल की योजना से कार्य होता तो स्वतंत्रता के पहले दशक में ही ये विवाद सुलझ गए होते. लेकिन तब भी इस प्राथमिकता की दुहाई दी गई थी. यदि समान नागरिक आचारसंहिता स्वतंत्रता के प्रारम्भिक वर्षों में लागू कर दी गयी होती तो आज सामाजिक ढांचा सम्भवत: बेहतर होता.

एक विषय आजकल सामने आ रहा है वह है 'लव जिहाद' का. आज इसके विरुद्ध सामाजिक संचार माध्यमों पर बहस चल रही है. निसंदेह इस समस्या के मूल में विभिन्न धार्मिक मान्यताएं हैं, और इसी कारण यह विषय भी बुद्धिजीवियों की 'प्राथमिकता' वाली कार्यान्वयन सूची में नहीं है. किन्तु, यदि हम इसे धार्मिक दृष्टिकोण से न देखें  तो भी निश्चित ही यह समाज में स्त्रियों के प्रति किये अमानवीय दुर्व्यवहार की श्रेणी में आने वाले कृत्यों में से एक है. अत: यह एक सामाजिक व्यवस्था का विषय है जिसको सुलझाने में विलम्ब इसे और विकराल  रूप दे सकता है. यदि मैं अपने व्यक्तिगत जानकारी को आधार मानूं तो यह 'लव जिहाद' की आयु भारत में २५ से ३० वर्ष है. तो कब इस विषय को प्राथमिकता दी जाएगी?

यह मानना पड़ेगा की हमारा देश बड़ा है, जनसंख्या बड़ी है, विविधतायें बड़ी हैं. अत: हमारे राष्ट्र के सामने ज्वलंत विषय भी अधिक हैं.  हमारी आवश्यकता ऐसे तंत्र की है जो निराकरण शीघ्रातिशीघ्र करने में जुटे,  न की 'प्राथमिकताओं' के छद्म पाश में उलझा दे.  जिन विषयों को 'प्राथमिकता' के नाम पर टाल दिया जाता है, वह तो दिन प्रतिदिन और बढ़ती जाती है और एक दिन विकराल रूप धारण कर लेती है.  समझने कि आपश्यकता है की इस रवैये से निराकरण में विलम्ब होता है, जबकी जिन्होंने समस्या को जन्म दिया है वे तो अपने कार्य में लगे रहते है. कोई भी निर्णय देश, काल और पात्र के आधार पर ही तय किया जाना चाहिए ऐसा नीति कहती है. अत: शासन को 'प्राथमिकताओं' का मानदंड बदलना चाहिए और 'डू वाट एवर इट टेक्स'  की कार्यशैली को अपनाना चाहिए. ऎसी व्यवस्था बनानी चाहिए कि जख्म को नासूर न बनने दे और उसका निराकरण पहले ही कर दे.  अंग्रेज़ी में एक कहावत है 'निप डी इविल इन द  बड'.  यदि ऐसा नहीं करेंगे तो 'इविल' आज तक अपनायी गई 'प्राथमिकता' की कार्यशैली द्वारा पोषित ही होगा. 

हा !

हा !

जब जब इतिहास छुपाया जाता है,

तब तब कोई गौरव मिटाया जाता है II

जब मिथ्या के बल कुछ हथियाया जाता है,

तब एक सत्य झुठलाया जाता है II

कहीं जब दम्भ की पुष्टी की जाती है,

तब किसी स्वाभिमान की बली ली जाती है II

जब स्वार्थ-सिद्धी ही ध्येय हो जाता है,

तब हित-हत्या का कुचक्र चलाया जाता है II

जब किसी धृतराष्ट्र का अभिषेक कराया जाता है,

तब किसी पांडव को लाक्षागृह पहुंचाया जाता है II

जब जब कोई चीर-हरण होता है,

तब तब मानवता का पौरुष-मरण होता है II

जब अनर्थ समाज में सम्मानित होता है,

तब अर्थ कहीं चीत्कार कर रोता है II

जब न्याय-तुला का संतुलन खोता है,

तब विवेक भी दिग्भ्रमित होता है II

जब गौरव, स्वाभिमान, हित, पौरुष, अर्थ, विवेक खोकर भी जनमानस निश्चिन्त सोता है,

समझने में कठिनाई नही की ऐसा समाज निर्लज्ज, निर्वीर्य और नपुंसक होता है II

लेखन - विवेक सिंह

Shri Ram Temple : CONgress Will Not Build It.....................

It was 24 March 2013.  Mr. Rashid Alvi, then spokesperson of ruling Congress Party was in Kurukshetra to address a public meeting.  In his address, he spoke about various issues.  Shri Ram Temple was one of issues he spoke about. 

With obvious reference to The Ram Rath Yatra that began from Somnath on September 25, 1990 Mr. Alvi told public that NDA was in power for 6 odd years.  He asked in a sarcastic tone why did BJP not build The Ram Temple when it (NDA) was in power. Another question was why did BJP drop from their agenda the construction of The Ram Temple, after gaining power?

As a CONgress person, both the questions were valid for him; and so caught my specific attention. I thought his party has some plans regarding building The Ram Temple etc. etc.

Then he narrated an instance of Ramayana which is important to be mentioned here.  When Lakshman Ji was unconcious, Hanuman Ji went to get Sanjivani.  Ravan wanted that Hanuman Ji should not return until next morning so that Lakshman Ji dies in the absence of medication.  So he conspired and set one of his men on the way, pretending to be disciple (bhakta) of Shri Ram. 

While Hanuman Ji was returning to Lanka with Sanjivani, he heard someone chanting Shri Ram's mantra. Hanuman Ji stopped his return journey to meet this fellow.  This pretending-disciple-of-Shri Ram asked Hanuman Ji to take bath in nearby pond with an intention to kill his precious time by creating such hurdles. In the pond, Hanuman Ji was caught by a crocodile.  Eventually Hanuman Ji came to know the reality of this pretenting disciple, killed him, and started his journey to Lanka.

Then, Mr. Alvi said, "BJP is just killing time, and is not serious about building The Ram Temple at Ayodhya."  And he moved to next topic.

With obvious analogy to the story he narrated, reaching of medicine for curing Lakshman Ji is like building Shri Ram Temple.  The obstructions created by pretending disciple of Shri Ram is like delays done by BJP (as per Mr. Alvi) in building Shri Ram Temple.

As Mr. Alvi left this issue open, without offering any solution etc., some question came to my mind are: 

1. Does it mean CONgress will not waste anytime further and build Shri Ram Temple without any delay?

or

2. Does it mean CONgress will not devote anytime on the resolution of this issue as it is not interested in building Shri Ram Temple?

or

3. Does it mean CONgress will not waste anytime on this issue and has decided not to allow construction of Shri Ram Temple?

An Indian knows the answer very well.  This pseudosecular CONgress that filed an affidavit in Supreme Court stating Shri Ram was never born, can never be trusted.   

Of JR and DP - Tryst with Toilets

Mr. Dilip Padgaonkar (DP)has come up in support of Mr. Jayaram Ramesh (JR).  He is trying to clarify what Mr. JR actually meant while stressing upon the need of more toilets then temples.  Mr. DP also sees this just as an opportunity for BJP and RSS to make unneccessary hue and cry.  I wish this to be known to Mr. DP that a Hindu is not confined to the scope of any organization -  political, social, national or otherwise.  Even if BJP or RSS do not raise this issue, Hindu is still abused and hurt by the statement.  And if they raise it, well and good.  You and alikes have given them this opportunity.  Mr. DP quotes an example of Mr. Nehru calling dams as temples of modern India and nobody objecting to it.  This is childish of Mr. DP.  Can't he see the underlying beauty and meaning of this simili between a dam and  a temple.  A Hindu has been worshipping all the five elements (Panch Mahabhootas - Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Space) since ages.  Hindu considers these sacred as these create and support life.  Dams are meant to manage water and sustain nature, and so water will always be worshipped by a Hindu.

Mr. DP further tries to assuage Hindu sentiment and says that by temple, Mr.JR meant all religious places. Does he mean religious places of every religion ???  I doubt his silly logic (!).  Is this man trying to make fool of sensitive Hindus or trying to play mischief with words?  Can (and will) he and Mr.JR together make the same statement and mention other religious places also?  Actually  I do not want this to happen because I respect every religious place and want their sanctity to be maintained in true sense.  But I am sure they know it is impossible for both of them.

Mr. DP talks of natural urges etc.  May I ask Mr. DP in true biological sense if he considers anus more important then brain?  Mine answer is NO, because of the function they perform.  But are both not important? Yes both are important but at their respective locations and for respective function they perform.  They can neither be alternatives of each other nor comparable.  One part of body can not undermine the importance of other part's functions.  Therefore Mr. JR's statement and Mr. DP's logic, both are absolutely immature.

‘Extreme’ Colours of Religion……

It was a happy Monday morning when I saw newspaper headline about a political party planning to shed its ‘Saffron’ image.   I do not know whether its party’s policy matter or writer’s own understanding about party’s plan.  However, I questioned myself why shedding the saffron image!   On the other hand another political party has associated saffron with terrorism and made statements about it in the parliament and elsewhere.  Is saffron so disdainful?  Then why national flag has this colour?  And, if it is so respected, then why such a hue and cry about someone being saffron?  


Sanatan Vedic (Hindu) Dharma has holistic view about everything that exists in the universe.  So is true about colours.  Red, yellow, green, white and even black; each and every colour has got significance and are used in religious ceremonies.  Saffron is the sacred colour for the Sanatan Vedic (Hindu), being colour of fire.   The foremost hymn in the Rig Veda glorifies fire: "Agnimile purohitam yagnasya devam rtvijam, hotaram ratna dhatamam."  Saffron connotes to holiness and asceticism.  It marks the quest for light (Tamso Maa Jyotirgamay).  

Clearly, saffron is associated with noble means and purposes.  How could anybody ascribe this colour to demeaning motives?  The one who has associated himself with this colour in true sense cannot use it for selfish and ulterior motives. Simply stating, saffron is something to be imbibed in the character and ‘not-to-shed-off’.  

Saffron is not only the colour so misused and misinterpreted resulting in wrong notions.  Red, blue, green, white, associated with different religions, all have been abused.  Interestingly, as regards Hinduism, all these colours are sacred; and their significance is given below: 

1.    Red indicates purity and is most frequently used for auspicious occasions.  A red mark (Tilak) is put on the forehead.  Red attire is important part of marriage ceremony.   It is also the color of associated with Goddess Durga (Shakti/prowess). 

2.    Green is a festive color.  It represents life, peace and happiness.  It green stabilizes the mind. This color represents nature and is very soothing.  Green leaves and Durvaa (grass) are part of religious ceremonies.

3.    Yellow color symbolizes knowledge, learning, happiness, peace, meditation, competence, active mind and mental development. Lord Vishnu’s dress is yellow symbolizing his representation of knowledge. Lord Krishna and Ganesha also wear yellow dresses. Yellow colour also relates to spring festivals. 

4.    White is colour of purity, cleanliness, peace, knowledge and ‘Sanyaas’. Maa Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge, is always shown as wearing a white dress, sitting on a white lotus.  White color dresses are worn during of mourning because it gives peaceful effect and helps in consoling the aggrieved. That is why a hindu widows wear a white dress in mourning.

5.    Blue is associated with many natural entities such as the sky, the oceans, the rivers and the lakes.  Blue colour is associated with Lord Shiva to signify bravery, manliness, determination, the ability to deal with difficult situations, of stable mind and depth of character.

Evidently, saffronization or Hinduism is not against any religion.  No colour is alien for a Hindu.  Then why despise saffron?  It is better that correct words are used to describe the misusers and abusers of these colours rather then making a blanket statement.  The point is that everything has got a specific meaning and purpose and it should not be used wrongly leaving scope for misinterpretation.   A wrong use, use by wrong person or associating it to wrong deeds creates trouble for those who actually respect it.

 

FDI in Retail - Do We Need It

FDI has been allowed in retail, aviation and so many sectors. In today's globalized economic scenario, it is impossible to remain unaffected by the market forces. We as a nation also look outwardly to other economies for business and job opportunities.  A large section of our young intellectual power is working for other countries.  So, it is justifiable that others will also come to India for business. 

As regards the FDI in retail sector, the government may defend its decision.  However, important question is whether we need FDI in retail sector?  Do we, really? Shopping malls may provide a glamorous location for shopping but they are not a necessity for retail for a common man?   The majority of customer comes from middle class who has limited money and many social responsibilities to fulfill.  FDI is definitely not a requirement or solution for this. 

Another important aspect is the impact on social fabric.  The multilevel marketing industry (Amway and alikes) has already made a hole in this fabric.  Their strategy is to make money out of your personal relations. This is not an ethical approach to my view. Coming in of FDI in retail will make another blow in this.  In India its not just shopkeeper and customer relationship.  It is way beyond that.  The shopkeeper (grocer/retailer) is a part of social life, sorrows and joys, equally.  In marriages and other occasions, you may get things from him on credit.  If its a matter of social or religious cause, he will give you discount much more than expected.  This is his indirect contribution to your social or religious cause.   Also, the quantity is never a binding factor whether you want to buy some for one rupee or thousands of rupee, it is available.  You can not expect FDI's doing this.

One may argue that the foreign companies coming in India are aware of the social concerns and will take care of this. I find it difficult to buy this argument. The retail FDIs can offer things at fantastically alluring prices, may be even for 5 years, initially to catch the market.  Once they grab the market, the small retailers would not be there and then monopolistic activities may start. 

Economics is a service tool for social development, not the master.  The out come change in business environment is very drastic and deeply impacting.  For instance, in late 90's AKAI came in a big way with colour TVs at very-very affordable prices in India.  The kits were imported from China/Taiwan that gave the company economies of scale and it became a household name everywhere.  The company offered a smaller TV free with a larger size TV at very 'reasonable' price.  As a result of this, the black and white TV industry was badly and negatively affected.   In those days, no one would be interested to buy a black and white TV, not even in slum areas of metro cities,  simply because colour TV was available a very 'close' price.  Who was bothered about quality?  As a result black and white TV industry came to a halt rendering many jobless including those working in ancillary industries.  Though, at that time AKAI was owned/represented by an Indian, which later got transferred to another Indian company, the loss was already done.  Similar logical apprehension is with FDI in retail.

FDI should be welcomed on the areas where we do not have technology or resources and must not allowed where we do not really need this.