फेसबुक पर

एक बूढी अम्मा ने फेसबुक पर पोस्ट लिखा - बुढ़ापे की त्रासदी के बारे में। फेसबुक 'कवर' की तस्वीर में तीन बेटे दिख रहे थे। उन्होंने बहुत सामान्य सी बात लिखी। बुढ़ापे में बच्चों द्वारा उपेक्षा का दुःख, अपने ही घर में पराएपन का दुःख, मुँह खोलने पर अपमान का दुःख। उन्होंने बस दुःख लिखा।

बहुत सामान्य सी बात।

पिछली पीढ़ी ने अपना सुख न्योछावर कर अपने बच्चों को आधुनिक शिक्षा दी। आधुनिक संस्कार तो बच्चों ने यूँ ही सीख लिए, बस यूँ ही। पता ही नहीं चला कब। कुछ तन से विदेश चले गए, बाकी बचे मन से पराए हुए। अब एक पूरी-की-पूरी पीढ़ी अकेले और निराशा भरे बुढ़ापे की ओर है। अखबार में यदा कदा बड़े बंगलों में बूढ़ों की एकाकी मौत की खबरें आती हैं। ये भारत के "बेबी-बूमर्स" की पीढ़ी थी। औद्योगीकरण और उदारवाद के बाद सफेद बाल और व्हील चेयर लेने वाली पहली पीढ़ी। अस्सी-नब्बे के दशक में पैदा बच्चे अभी ठीक से समझ भी नहीं पा रहे कि उनकी पिछली पीढ़ी के साथ हो क्या रहा है।

समाधान मुश्किल है।

बूढी अम्मा के यक्ष प्रश्न को सोचूँ तो ये पाता हूँ कि यदि समस्या को परिभाषित किया जा सकता तो समाधान भी बनता। कभी बेटे की गलती होती है तो कभी बाप की। कभी सास की तो कभी बहू की। और कभी सिर्फ परिस्थिति की। एक औरत जो अपनी जवानी में अपने बूढ़े सास ससुर को प्रताड़ित करती थी, खुद के बुढ़ापे में अपने बहू बेटों को कोसती है। एक बहू जिसे अपने बूढ़े माँ बाप से अपार सहानुभूति है, उनसे भी ज्यादा बूढ़े लाचार सास ससुर उसे जीवन पर बोझ लगते हैं। मानव रिश्तों की कोई डोर सुलझी हुई नहीं है। आप किसी एक पक्ष की ओर झुक नहीं सकते वरना दूसरा पक्ष शोषित होने लगता है। तो समाज तंग आकर ऑंखें मूँद लेता है। इसे मूक समर्थन समझना भूल है क्योंकि वो छिपकर सिसकियाँ लेता है।

निष्कर्ष क्या है?

मेरा निष्कर्ष ये है कि चुकि हम भारतीयता को छोड़ने और पाश्चात्य संस्कृति को अपनाने का हिमालयी निर्णय ले ही चुके हैं तो समाधान भी उसी में है। जब देश विकसित होगा तो उसमें "सामाजिक सुरक्षा" का प्रावधान होगा और तब बूढ़े और कमजोर लोगों को थोड़ी राहत मिलेगी। क्या यह हमारी भीड़तंत्र और जनसँख्या विस्फोट के बीच १०० सालोँ में भी हो पायेगा? नहीं मालूम। लेकिन जबतक नहीं होता ये मानव त्रासदी चलती रहेगी।

यदि आप अभी जवान हैं तो शुक्र मनाइए। हो सके तो बूढ़े माँ बाप की समय रहते सेवा कर लीजिए। आपका बुढ़ापा कैसे बीतेगा कोई नहीं जानता।

- राहुल तिवारी

[#History] Mughal Ruler Shah Jahan

The best thing about Mughals is that they are known today for what they built and what they ruined; but never for what they stood for.

If we think about what they stood for, we would be aghast. They had a history of cold blooded murders, execution of people from other religions, sons fighting war with fathers, and brothers killing brothers for throne.

Here, some history of Shah Jahan, of Taj Mahal fame: 

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/sangeet-som-is-right-foreigners-built-the-taj-mahal/20171017.htm

Some excerpts: 

Shah Jahan was born on January 15, 1592 in Lahore to Mughal emperor Jahangir and his Rajput princess Jagat Gossain, also called Jodh Bai, whose father was Uday Singh Rathor of Marwar. On the sixth day of his birth, the child was named Khurram (Joyous) by Akbar, and was handed over to Ruqaiya Begum -- Akbar's childless wife -- who became his foster mother when the little prince was four years, four months and four days old.

In 1607, when Shah Jahan was 16, he married Arjumand Banu Begum aka Mumtaz Mahal. Shah Jahan had two other wives. However, their children did not survive. Only Mumtaz Mahal gave him an heir. Seven of the royal couple's children survived, four boys and three girls: Jahanara Begum, Dara Shikoh, Shah Shuja, Raushanara Begum, Aurangzeb, Murad Bakhsh and Goharara Begum.

Shah Jahan went to war against his own father Jehangir. Shah Jahan was defeated and was imprisoned. Jehangir later took pity on his son and released him from prison. After Jehangir's death, his wife Nur Jahan passed on the baton to Jehangir's other son, Shahryar, and not Shah Jahan. Shah Jahan took Shahryar on in battle and killed him. He also killed his other brothers, Dawar Bakhsh and Garshasp.

Mumtaz Mahal died on June 17, 1631 while giving birth to her 14th child, Goharara Begum. Devastated by his wife's death, the emperor withdrew from public life for a week. Mumtaz Mahal was buried at Burhanpur on the banks of the Tapti river. Six months later, her body was exhumed and she was re-interred on January 8, 1632, on the banks of the Yamuna where the Taj Mahal was built. Initially, Shah Jahan called her tomb the Rauza-i-Munavvara (the illumined tomb). It was later called Mumtaz Mahal, then the Taj Mahal.

37 creative minds worked on the design on the Taj Mahal. 20,000 labourers toiled day and night from 1631 to 1654. Ustad Isa -- a Turk who either came from Constantinople (today's Istanbul) or from Shiraz or Isfahan in Persia -- is usually credited as the Taj's architect. From Turkey came Ismail Afandi, a designer of hemispheres and a builder of domes. To oversee the finances and the daily supervision of work on the site, the emperor chose Abdul Kari and Mukarrimat Khan, seasoned administrators from Shiraz, Persia. Master calligrapher Amanat Khan -- whose name is located at the base of the Taj's interior dome near the lines from the Quran -- was also a native of Shiraz. The lines, by the way, read, 'Written by the insignificant being, Amanat Khan Shirazi.'

Though he did not impose jiziya on the Hindus (the practice was abolished by Akbar) Shah Jahan, an orthodox Sunni Muslim, was harsh towards Hindus.

According to Abraham Eraly's book, Emperors of the Peacock Throne, '76 temples were destroyed in Benares and so were many churches in Agra.'

'Shah Jahan also prohibited Muslims from changing their religion but encouraged conversions to Islam by offering stipends and other favours to converts,' Eraly writes.

Eraly quotes Abdul Hamid Lahori, who wrote Padshanama during Shah Jahan's time and notes, 'Shah Jahan also issued an order that if a Hindu had a Muslim wife he could keep her only if he became a Muslim, otherwise he was to be fined and his wife separated.'

'He also directed that Hindus should keep to their own style of dress, tying their tunics on the left, unlike Muslims, who tied it on the right. Further Hindus were asked to discontinue practices which were offensive to Islam, such as the sale of alcohol, the cremation of the dead of the performance of sati near a Muslim cemetery.'

'He only mellowed down in final years of his reign and that too under the influence of his son, Dara Shikoh, and he presented a stone railing to the great temple built in Mathura by Bir Singh.'

Shah Jahan took ill in 1657 and shortly thereafter declared his eldest son, Dara Shikoh, as his successor. This was contested by his other sons and a battle broke out. At the end of the bloody campaign, Aurangzeb triumphed and got killed his all three brothers Shuja, Murad and Dara. After he declared himself emperor, Aurangzeb kept Shah Jahan in prison till death in 1666.

Taken from: 

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/sangeet-som-is-right-foreigners-built-the-taj-mahal/20171017.htm

[#Photo] Stray Dog on a Foot Over Bridge

Saw a dog descending on a footover bridge. Normally stray dogs cross roads by jumping over the divider. Why did this dog take the footover bridge? May be because he was trained to do so and had not been stray always? 

I watched the dog for a few minutes I could afford. He moved here and there not sure about where to go. After a while he sat down on a spot like this. Relaxed. And perhaps disappointed a bit. Perhaps remembering his old master? 

What was this dog's story? No idea.

- Rahul 

[#Greetings] Happy Diwali!

आपके दिलों में श्री राम और घरों में श्री लक्ष्मी का वास हो। दीपावली की हार्दिक शुभकामनाएँ! 

Happy Diwali!

- Rahul 

[#History] From European Migrant Crisis to the Rohingya Crisis - A Journey

A Refugee or Migrant Crisis gripped Europe in the summer of 2015. It was a humanitarian disaster; as thousands of refugees died on their way to safe heavens in Europe, with images of their capsized boats and dead bodies reported by media going viral on internet. Since 2015, 15 Lakh (1.5 million) refugees arrived in Europe by the sea. 15 Lakh was not a small number given the population in European nations. E.g. total population of Denmark is 57 Lakh and Switzerland is 83 Lakh. The migrants were mostly Muslims. According to a report from UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the top 3 nationalities of entrants of the over 10 lakh between Jan 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%). Around 60% were adult males. The demographic constitution of migrants made the European Christians worry a lot. It was said that with such large influx of Muslims, the demography of Europe would change forever. This caused some panic and corrective actions. But the migrants were determined. If one route was closed, they switched to another route. If one country tightened its doors, they tried to reach for another. They were determined, as they had nothing to lose and everything to gain, in their endeavors.

The interesting thing about this migrant crisis was that it never ended. It is still happening while we speak, in 2017. About 95,000 migrants reached Italy in 2017 so far and 9,000 migrants have arrived in Spain in 2017 from the same routes.

A lot of politics is changing in Europe due the migrant influx. At several places, anti-minority and far Right parties and leaders have gained popularity and power. People have started fearing Muslims in general, depicted in new terms like 'Islamophobia'. And there were reasons behind that fear. Most immigrants were coming from war-torn terrorism infested countries and there were no valid means to separate the persecuted from the persecutors. Intelligence reports indicated that large number of terrorists were entering Europe in the guise of refugees. Those who wanted migrants to settle in Europe labelled such reports as 'Islamophobia". But the data can show how terror attacks have increased in Europe in the recent years after 2015 when the migrant crisis began.

On New Year's Eve 2015-16 in Cologne, Germany, groups of migrant men assaulted about 1200 women during New Year celebrations. A report by the German Police Office on crime in the context of immigration found that immigrants were responsible for 17% of all theft, 10% of fraud, 11% of all violent crime, 8% of drug crime, 9% of sexual crimes and 15% of all crime resulting in loss of life. And after huge migrant influx of 2015, year 2016 saw a 53% rise in immigrant crime! Speaking of terror attacks - Paris, London, Brussels, Barcelona and beyond, one after the other European cities have seen clear increase in terror attacks and these are seen to be related to the migrant crisis of 2015.

Indians watched the European Migrant crisis first in horror, disbelief and gradually in the end, with a passive acceptance. "It happened since it was to happen that way" - the famous philosophy which has made Indians accept fate and move on for ages. Europe had anyway become too far and "foreign" to majority of Indians.

It seemed dust had just settled and European migrant crisis was to be forgotten as a historical event of the past. At that moment, something happened in India's backyard - Rohingya Muslims started to flee Myanmar and enter neighboring countries like Bangladesh and India.

Rohingya people are mostly Muslims while some are Hindus. By its constitution and law, Myanmar does not recognize Rohingya people as its citizens. They don't have equal rights as others, can't vote, because of obvious reasons that they are not citizens of Myanmar. According to the law, they are "stateless" people. Buddhists consider Rohingya Muslims as "Bengali Muslims" i.e. those who came from Bangladesh. Some Rohingya Muslims have formed militant groups and hence every once in a while Myanmar police and army attacks the Rohingya villages and reports tell about violations, abuses and violence against them. Rohingya are persecuted people.

There are several similarities between the European and Myanmar's Rohingya crises. Migrants in both crises were supposed to be persecuted people running away from homeland torn by violence. Both often took boats to travel in the sea while fleeing. Both were unwelcome in the countries they wanted to enter. Some among both were linked to terror and violent groups and hence were considered security treats to their hosts. And of course, both were Muslims.

Now there were also several differences. The Muslims fleeing Arab and African nations did not have any "roots" in Europe. But the Muslims fleeing Myanmar were supposed to have Bengali origin; and still Bangladesh did not want them. India tried to persuade Bangladesh to take those refugees.

Several European countries initially saw the refugees as "opportunities" since those could be used in doing low-end manual jobs which no one wanted to do. But in case of Bangladesh and India, these had already got enough poor to cater to; hence their "glass was already full" and the poor migrants were seen as economic "burden". Economic reason was one of the most important factors in other countries not welcoming the refugees; but not all. Most important was that those Rohingya Muslims were supposed to be linked to terror groups and hence were seen as "security threats".

The way European media tried to hide the crime and violence committed by the Migrants of 2015 was also a different case. On the other hand, Indian and Bangladeshi media were swift to show the "real face", the violent background and the crime history of the poor Rohingyas who were running for life. Hence, the national response and people's opinion in both these cases differed widely. India which is home to about 3 Lakh "legal refugees" and innumerable illegal ones, decided to "deport" the 40,000 Rohingya Muslims who were living in India illegally after crossing the Indo-Bangladesh border. What happened to India which has a long history of providing asylum to persecuted refugees to make an exception to Rohingya Muslims?

It can be discussed if the way European Migrant Crisis unfolded had any impact on India's response to Rohingya Muslims' plea to help. Perhaps the European Migrant Crisis has not yet totally "unfolded"; with the terror attacks so farhave been only a "beginning"; and hence it is too early to say if Indians learnt something from the European experience.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - it was said by George Santayana (16 Dec 1863 - 26 Sep 1952), a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist; born in Spain.

After a long track record of not learning from history, has India finally awoken? Has it started learning from not only history but also from events and crises in other countries? Only time can tell.

But somewhere, amidst all the discussions and debates on what should be done and how, there are poor hapless people who are suffering. Somewhere a refugee with a criminal history or not commits a crime, and a hundred other innocent ones suffer. History has been particularly ruthless against the weak. And refugees almost always happen to be weak.

All this concludes only in emphasizing the importance of "peace". "Om shanti shanti shanti," - an invocation of peace. Perhaps our forefathers knew the importance of peace. Perhaps we are supposed to preserve it at all costs.

- Rahul Tiwary 

[#India] Global Hunger Index and India Rank - 2017

Do not get fooled into believing that India is doing all great and is soon to become a Super Power. We are still a poor starving country where children suffer the most. And do not believe it is Government's job alone to make India what it should become.

Global Hunger Index is based on 4 indicators: % of undernourished population; % of children under 5 suffering from wasting (low weight-for-height); % of children under 5 suffering from stunting (low height-for-age) and % of child mortality.

In 2017, India ranks poorly at #100 among 119 countries; down from #97 last year and #55 in 2014 (when Modi ji came to power). A sinking feeling.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indias-hungry-children-even-north-korea-iraq-nepal-myanmar-are-better/articleshow/61050945.cms

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/global-hunger-index-india-down-45-ranks-since-2014-situation-serious-117101200345_1.html

[#Society] Diwali without Crackers in Delhi

I have always cherished vivid childhood memories. Most of those are happy and nice; while some are painful. I remember one Diwali which we spent at our grandfather’s house. I was very small at that time. Father was travelling long distance due to work. We were not really poor and I remember enjoying all Diwalis with plenty of firecrackers. But that Diwali was different. So, mother gave a 10 rupee note to one of my uncles and he took me to buy some firecrackers for me. In 10 rupees we could not get much crackers. I got malnourished ‘fuljhadis’, anemic ‘anars’ and rickety ‘rockets’. I felt really humiliated. The walk from the cracker-stall to our home was my ‘walk of shame’. I was very angry then and threw a lot of tantrums, but that did not change a thing. I remember during Diwali night, my rockets did not even go past the three-storied house of our grandfather. Afterwards we started going to the roof to burn rockets, so that the rockets could go a bit higher. What was wrong in that Diwali? Perhaps the ‘wrong’ was also wrong in so many other areas of our life. Firecrackers had become ‘status symbols’. People burned as many as they could afford.

Later when I grew up, I could afford to burn as many crackers as I wanted. But I did not see any value in it. So I burned some of those just for fun. I never went overboard. Growing older, I almost completely stopped burning firecrackers except a few just for name sake. Firecrackers were no longer ‘status symbol’ for me. I did not see value in producing so much smoke, so much noise and so much fuss about those. I think that was some learning.

So when did our festivals turn into occasions to show-off how rich we were? Just think about it.

The first Diwali was a spontaneous natural celebration of the masses upon return of their long separated beloved prince. Lord Ram was returning to Ayodhya with his wife and brother after 14 long years! It was a jubilation. People must have lighted earthen lamps, for there were no candles or electricity at that time. And for sure there were no firecrackers at that time. Gradually, shape and nature of this festival kept changing with the time. But earthen lamps have remained in vogue even after thousands of years since Diwali was first celebrated! Firecrackers came in between. Electric-lighting came in between. These were not the original tradition. And hence doing or not doing these does not make a difference in true tradition.

Diwali or Deepawali is the festival of light. Light as appearing from an earthen lamp. A poor man makes those earthen lamps. The same earthen lamp would be lighted in front of your gods in the temple inside your house. The same earthen lamp would also light in the homes of the poor. There will be no difference in the ‘light’. Just like there is no difference between our ‘souls’, no matter we are poor or rich. Just like the same supreme being resides inside all of us, no matter whether we are rich or poor. Festivals were expected to bring the best in our culture and tradition. Festivals based on our economic status do not bring the best in us.

Diwali is also equally about cleanliness. It is believed that Goddess Lakshmi travels on this night to all homes and if the home is clean and virtuous, she enters it. If home is dirty or inhabited by immoral people, she does not enter. Just look at the surrounding after burning loads of firecrackers. It is disgusting! No Lakshmi can live amidst so much trash, carbon and smoke.

Supreme court has asked to have a cracker-less Diwali this year in Delhi. It is a good step. What is not good is the fact that not burning firecrackers is not going to improve the air quality. And what would improve it is not happening at all. Do we see anything really serious being done to improve air quality? I don’t see any large-scale plantations, any new public parks, gardens, building better roads, increased cleanliness, better disposal of waste, etc. A dog dies on the road and decomposes by the side of it. Garbage including plastic is burnt for hours. Large scale construction happens without any attempt to prevent tons of dust being generated from it for months. Traffic is clogged resulting in so much pollultion. There is no effective and long-term management of pollution apart from cheeky schemes like ‘odd-even’ for a couple of months every year. Is it fair to stop firecrackers in Diwali singling it out as if it is the ultimate solution?

We can also notice the manner in which and for how long courts have started making laws in India. Government often has to behave like an opposition while the court rules us. Something is not right in this whole self-righteous “law making” trend.

Many are angry about why such things are done only against Hindu festivals. There are festivals like Bakri-Id which result in mass scale killing of animals; no court will try to stop it. The reason is an open secret. It is because Hindus are tolerant by nature. Just in a couple of months “New Year” will be celebrated which is a Christian festival. Firecrackers will be burnt all over, but court will not stop it. The fact that the court has tried to stop firecrackers at a Hindu festival is a testimony that we are expected to agree to it. We Hindus are civil, educated, well-mannered people who care about law. Alas, that is not true. Hindus are being made into the ideal citizen and the best of the lot, which we are not. No one is. So better make us an ideal citizen by educating us; instead of forcing a law on us.

That is the way I see it.

- Rahul Tiwary