Take bread away from me, if you wish,
take air away, but
do not take from me your laughter.
Do not take away the rose,
the lance flower that you pluck,
the water that suddenly
bursts forth in joy,
the sudden wave
of silver born in you.
My struggle is harsh and I come back
with eyes tired
at times from having seen
the unchanging earth,
but when your laughter enters
it rises to the sky seeking me
and it opens for me all
the doors of life.
My love, in the darkest
hour your laughter
opens, and if suddenly
you see my blood staining
the stones of the street,
laugh, because your laughter
will be for my hands
like a fresh sword.
Next to the sea in the autumn,
your laughter must raise
its foamy cascade,
and in the spring, love,
I want your laughter like
the flower I was waiting for,
the blue flower, the rose
of my echoing country.
Laugh at the night,
at the day, at the moon,
laugh at the twisted
streets of the island,
laugh at this clumsy
boy who loves you,
but when I open
my eyes and close them,
when my steps go,
when my steps return,
deny me bread, air,
light, spring,
but never your laughter
for I would die.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Sanjay Dutt kept guns to kill his mad dog
Breaking news!! Why did then he never use this as his defense?
Let me explain on his behalf. Because he thought his honest confessions and his cooperation and respect towards the law of the nation in the last one and a half decade would help him get a mild punishment. But probably he never suspected that Gandhigiri had the ultimate locha on his brain. Otherwise, even an ordinary Indian knows that our legal system does not have any regards for honesty or good/bad public conduct. Otherwise, how can the goonda politicians continue enacting laws after killing innocent people in thousands, and even after breaking each others' noses in full public view?
What our legal system wants primarily are evidences and witnesses. It had evidence: Sanjay was found possessing illegal arms by the same Shanti Rakhyaks whose failure to protect ordinary citizens during the communal riots in Mumbai Sanjay implied as reason to keep the arms. He needed to protect his sisters. And it was no big deal. He probably knew that a former Punjab police chief presented a similar weapon to Saawan Kumar Tak and Sridevi when she came shooting in Chandigarh and which led Bollywood to look for AK 56s as trophies (Sinfully Emotional/Sujata Anandan/Hindustan Times/August 04, 2007). Gandhibhakt Munna, however, through his trial, never spilled the beans on others in Bollywood.
The judiciary had witnesses also: The confessions of the very masterminds who wanted to wipe out the city. What better people of integrity and character you need to multiply the devil's numbers?
What else? Justice Kode said "the character of the accused is very important while considering if they deserved relief under the POA Act. He pointed out that apart from possessing the weapons, Dutt was a close acquaintance of Anees Ibrahim and attended a party hosted by Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai." (HT Report)
Besides, Justice Kode found Sanjay an immoral person: "I must say for every citizen, laws of the nation shall be respected. If you don't, I don't expect you to be called a moral person," Kode said. (HT Report)
"Kode also observed it was an "eminently dangerous act" as the weapon possessed by Dutt was capable of mass destruction though the accused had not used the weapons." (HT Report)
"Regarding the nature of the crime, Kode said generally, crime happens at the hands of any one man but Dutt drew another person to commit a crime which showed "high element of criminality." Kode, however, said the crimes committed by Dutt and his friends Adajania and Nulwalla were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned" and did not cause any harm to the general public." (HT Report)
Let's assume that Justice Kode is blind to the facts (established by photographs and videos) that many other noble citizens earlier gave company to the D-gang. For Sanjay, a show-biz person, these interactions may be based on purely commercial ground and not on any ideological ground.
If Sanjay, with his weapon of mass destruction, can be a threat to society, what about the royal Raja Bhaiyas and saintly Sadhu Yadavs, who with their lakhs of mobley-motley crooked crews can wipe out the entire humanity? Don't forget that the fact of how many bullets were recovered along with the rifles from Sanjay's house is not yet out and without bullets, rifle can't be weapon of mass destruction!
Well, let's give the poor judge benefit of doubt again. After all, he is holding the Insaaf Ka Taraazu blindfolded!
And respect for the law? That's the funniest thing he could have evoked minus his wigs. Does not he read newspapers or watch TV? May be to avoid getting influenced by the trials by media!
Consider his remark on the crimes itself: these were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned". What was the judge then looking for? Counter evidence that Sanjay kept arms, albeit illegally, to kill rabbits or some mad dogs, an act which can't be called anti-social?
So, here is this poor blogger trying to provide him that. Yes, I can arrange for you, my lord, Sanjay's letters stating his motive for keeping arms. I can give you 15-years old letters written in 15-years old papers with 15-years old Sulekha inks and I can manage the stamps as well. Will that suffice? Should I pour a few drops of Sanjay's hot, maddening adrenalin too??
Let me explain on his behalf. Because he thought his honest confessions and his cooperation and respect towards the law of the nation in the last one and a half decade would help him get a mild punishment. But probably he never suspected that Gandhigiri had the ultimate locha on his brain. Otherwise, even an ordinary Indian knows that our legal system does not have any regards for honesty or good/bad public conduct. Otherwise, how can the goonda politicians continue enacting laws after killing innocent people in thousands, and even after breaking each others' noses in full public view?
What our legal system wants primarily are evidences and witnesses. It had evidence: Sanjay was found possessing illegal arms by the same Shanti Rakhyaks whose failure to protect ordinary citizens during the communal riots in Mumbai Sanjay implied as reason to keep the arms. He needed to protect his sisters. And it was no big deal. He probably knew that a former Punjab police chief presented a similar weapon to Saawan Kumar Tak and Sridevi when she came shooting in Chandigarh and which led Bollywood to look for AK 56s as trophies (Sinfully Emotional/Sujata Anandan/Hindustan Times/August 04, 2007). Gandhibhakt Munna, however, through his trial, never spilled the beans on others in Bollywood.
The judiciary had witnesses also: The confessions of the very masterminds who wanted to wipe out the city. What better people of integrity and character you need to multiply the devil's numbers?
What else? Justice Kode said "the character of the accused is very important while considering if they deserved relief under the POA Act. He pointed out that apart from possessing the weapons, Dutt was a close acquaintance of Anees Ibrahim and attended a party hosted by Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai." (HT Report)
Besides, Justice Kode found Sanjay an immoral person: "I must say for every citizen, laws of the nation shall be respected. If you don't, I don't expect you to be called a moral person," Kode said. (HT Report)
"Kode also observed it was an "eminently dangerous act" as the weapon possessed by Dutt was capable of mass destruction though the accused had not used the weapons." (HT Report)
"Regarding the nature of the crime, Kode said generally, crime happens at the hands of any one man but Dutt drew another person to commit a crime which showed "high element of criminality." Kode, however, said the crimes committed by Dutt and his friends Adajania and Nulwalla were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned" and did not cause any harm to the general public." (HT Report)
Let's assume that Justice Kode is blind to the facts (established by photographs and videos) that many other noble citizens earlier gave company to the D-gang. For Sanjay, a show-biz person, these interactions may be based on purely commercial ground and not on any ideological ground.
If Sanjay, with his weapon of mass destruction, can be a threat to society, what about the royal Raja Bhaiyas and saintly Sadhu Yadavs, who with their lakhs of mobley-motley crooked crews can wipe out the entire humanity? Don't forget that the fact of how many bullets were recovered along with the rifles from Sanjay's house is not yet out and without bullets, rifle can't be weapon of mass destruction!
Well, let's give the poor judge benefit of doubt again. After all, he is holding the Insaaf Ka Taraazu blindfolded!
And respect for the law? That's the funniest thing he could have evoked minus his wigs. Does not he read newspapers or watch TV? May be to avoid getting influenced by the trials by media!
Consider his remark on the crimes itself: these were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned". What was the judge then looking for? Counter evidence that Sanjay kept arms, albeit illegally, to kill rabbits or some mad dogs, an act which can't be called anti-social?
So, here is this poor blogger trying to provide him that. Yes, I can arrange for you, my lord, Sanjay's letters stating his motive for keeping arms. I can give you 15-years old letters written in 15-years old papers with 15-years old Sulekha inks and I can manage the stamps as well. Will that suffice? Should I pour a few drops of Sanjay's hot, maddening adrenalin too??
Monday, 20 August 2007
Let's be builders and not mere operators
A rare breed called arationals
There is no word called arational. I want to use it for what stands beyond the realm of rationality and irrationality. It does not deny the concepts of rationality and irrationality. But like the amorals, the arationals have their own scale of judging things. For conventional people, grown up with the ideas of rationality and irrationality, they may appear maverick at the best and mad at the worst. But their scale has its own intrinsic value and their judgments can't be denied of their truths. Let’s make things simpler.
What makes us conform to the rules and regulations of the society is the rationality of these principles. Those who do not see logic in these behave irrationally. But they do not have anything alternative to provide to the existing ones. They can be said rebel-without-cause in a very polite and sophisticated way, or can be bandied as social outcasts. Arationals on the other hand, won’t behave irrationally. They are merely free souls who can’t be shackled by conventional rules and wisdom. Because, they are the original creators of ideas and knowledge. Though their unconventional approaches in all the ages in history have caused conflicts with the existing wisdom, ultimately their ideas have succeeded to change the existing paradigms and have created alternative paradigm. Once these are accepted widely as perfectly normal and logical, the rationals take over the reins of the paradigm for the smooth functioning of the new rules of the game. Thus, rationals are mere operators, arationals or the mavericks are the creators or builders of new sets of rules, beliefs, practices or applications.
Arationals never had anything easy. It is more difficult in today’s conformist environment, where servility is the norm. Forget the Rang de Basanti generation. Majority of today’s youth do not even dare to choose their better halves. They can be rebellious only in the form of biker thugs. How can we get a handful of arational creators — the rebels with causes?
As I finished writing this piece, I had the opportunity to watch the film adaptation of Ayn Rynd’s novel Fountainhead.
The main accusation the protagonist faces is that he is not ready to surrender his being to the collective wills of the society. Should such a person be allowed to exist? This is what the protagonist said in his defence:
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision . The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.
No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered.
His truth was his only motive.
His work was his only goal.
His work -- not those who used it.
His creation -- not the benefits others derived from it -- the creation which gave form to his truth.
He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.
The creator stands on his own judgment; the parasite follows the opinions of others.
The creator thinks; the parasite copies.
The creator produces; the parasite loots.
The creator's concern is the conquest of nature; the parasite's concern is the conquest of men.
The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice.
The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others -- that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.
Look at history: Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots -- without personal rights, without person ambition, without will, hope, or dignity.
It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: "The individual against the collective."
Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man's "inalienable rights." It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.
Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy, as much of the earth has been destroyed.
I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me.
It was believed that my work belonged to others, to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent -- that it was my duty to serve them without choice or reward.
Now you know why a dynamited Courtland. I designed Courtland. I made it possible. I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of it seeing built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return.
I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life, nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine -- no matter who makes the claim!
It had to be said: The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard in the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others.
My terms are: A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake.”
We need more people with this kind of convictions to keep the parasites away at gutters.
There is no word called arational. I want to use it for what stands beyond the realm of rationality and irrationality. It does not deny the concepts of rationality and irrationality. But like the amorals, the arationals have their own scale of judging things. For conventional people, grown up with the ideas of rationality and irrationality, they may appear maverick at the best and mad at the worst. But their scale has its own intrinsic value and their judgments can't be denied of their truths. Let’s make things simpler.
What makes us conform to the rules and regulations of the society is the rationality of these principles. Those who do not see logic in these behave irrationally. But they do not have anything alternative to provide to the existing ones. They can be said rebel-without-cause in a very polite and sophisticated way, or can be bandied as social outcasts. Arationals on the other hand, won’t behave irrationally. They are merely free souls who can’t be shackled by conventional rules and wisdom. Because, they are the original creators of ideas and knowledge. Though their unconventional approaches in all the ages in history have caused conflicts with the existing wisdom, ultimately their ideas have succeeded to change the existing paradigms and have created alternative paradigm. Once these are accepted widely as perfectly normal and logical, the rationals take over the reins of the paradigm for the smooth functioning of the new rules of the game. Thus, rationals are mere operators, arationals or the mavericks are the creators or builders of new sets of rules, beliefs, practices or applications.
Arationals never had anything easy. It is more difficult in today’s conformist environment, where servility is the norm. Forget the Rang de Basanti generation. Majority of today’s youth do not even dare to choose their better halves. They can be rebellious only in the form of biker thugs. How can we get a handful of arational creators — the rebels with causes?
As I finished writing this piece, I had the opportunity to watch the film adaptation of Ayn Rynd’s novel Fountainhead.
The main accusation the protagonist faces is that he is not ready to surrender his being to the collective wills of the society. Should such a person be allowed to exist? This is what the protagonist said in his defence:
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision . The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.
No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered.
His truth was his only motive.
His work was his only goal.
His work -- not those who used it.
His creation -- not the benefits others derived from it -- the creation which gave form to his truth.
He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.
The creator stands on his own judgment; the parasite follows the opinions of others.
The creator thinks; the parasite copies.
The creator produces; the parasite loots.
The creator's concern is the conquest of nature; the parasite's concern is the conquest of men.
The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice.
The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others -- that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.
Look at history: Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots -- without personal rights, without person ambition, without will, hope, or dignity.
It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: "The individual against the collective."
Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man's "inalienable rights." It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.
Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy, as much of the earth has been destroyed.
I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me.
It was believed that my work belonged to others, to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent -- that it was my duty to serve them without choice or reward.
Now you know why a dynamited Courtland. I designed Courtland. I made it possible. I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of it seeing built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return.
I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life, nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine -- no matter who makes the claim!
It had to be said: The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard in the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others.
My terms are: A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake.”
We need more people with this kind of convictions to keep the parasites away at gutters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
