We, the people.

Fundamentally, we the people are of two types: those who are life ward and those who are death ward. People who are life ward find life worth living. They are not troubled with so called basic questions of life. They are able to respond to demands of everyday situations because inherently they are endowed with the great jewel of life called “motivation”. People who are death ward find life a burden which must be carried. They delay & often complicate their responses to life situations…. Uncontrollably make wrong choices etc.…. Actually these are the people who have been wronged by life & consequently they want to rebel & revenge.  But being unable to find the real culprit they have an unconscious desire to punish --- either to those around or themselves.  

I have also seen people changing from one position to the other. People who were always death ward, when change to a life ward position become extremely enthusiastic, teachers, spiritualist etc. on the other hand people who were originally life ward ….. Full of everything that constitutes this world & the life …. When they change to other position that of death ….. are a tragedy. Only a few then can dare to explore the truth … the rest are shaken and confused. We have seen such examples around us and often we find it difficult to understand what really went wrong …

You become life ward when you are on the right side of life….that is when you are born & grow up  things fall in place the way they normally do … as a child we are given certain amount of libido or joy-de-vivre .. and in the course of our life it remains intact if not increased.

On the other hand when you grow up meeting one disappointment after another your libido is displaced. You either find the whole thing a big big bullshit or become cynical and trapped in a perpetual feeling of listlessness. In the Urdu language there is a lovely word for this position or state --- Afsurdagi. Vohi daireena bimari vohi afsurdagi dil ki .. said Iqbal the great poet … I can’t quite resist myself from uttering the complete couplet ;;;;

Vohi daireena bimari , hai afsurdagi dil ki,

ilaaz bhi iska vohi aab-e-nishat hai saaqui.

Nahin hai Iqubal na ummid apni kashta-e-veeran se,

 Zara si nam ho to ye mitti badi zarkhej hai saaqui.

Translated roughly it will mean something like this ….It’s the same old disease of being listless & feeling disheartened. O Saaqui! Its cure also rests with this water of life. Iqbaal is not hope less even if he is bestowed with an unfertile piece of land. For, if this land is slightly moist & wet it will bear much fertility.

When we do not feel like doing what we have said or wished, we are choosing death. When we keep ourselves withdrawn from the position of eminence, we choose death.  When we do not value ourselves, our wishes & our choices, we choose death.

When we welcome life’s demands & live up to them, we choose life. When we keep our words at all costs, we choose life. When we see & accept this life and this world the way it is, we choose life. Believe me it’s all a matter of simple conscious choice which we can always make. Right here & right now.

Life’s structure is made in such a manner that the type of choice you make now plods you to situations where you will make further choices of a similar nature again. That is if you keep withdrawn or have a receding attitude … life will bring you more & more such situations in which you will be avoided, not given your valid due & things like that and then you will keep cursing …. Why only me

On the other hand  when you choose & demand what is due to you from life , know your inner desires & stand up for them, more & more situations are brought for you wherein you can take a stand & demand for you what you want & of course what you deserve…. The structure is made like that ,,,, the life doesn’t listen to your logic ,,, it simple readjusts … repeat “readjusts” itself to the choices you make.

I exhort my dear fellow living beings who have gone into the trap of death.. to make … the first choice of coming out & begin at once demanding from life what is due to you.

On the other hand the fortunate(?) ones who are full of life are cautioned forthwith that the death is an essential part .. Which you can never part with ,,, as such it is wise to be equanimous when it comes in whatever form, because we don’t die only when we really do physically but there are situations quite deathlike in life ….even when we are full blown alive..

J Krishnamurthy - Freedom from the known.

J Krishnamurthy came in my spiritual life at a later stage. Contemporary of OSHO, JK was equally enlightened (Equally enlightened ! what a joke ) , but as was said he was an Arhat instead of a Bodhisatwa.. Arhat, the one who knows better but not advised to propound because he doesn’t have that facility of communication called ease. Bodhisatwa, on the other hand, can make people understand the message in their own language. It is said Osho was a Bodhisatwa whereas J Krishnamurthy was an Arhat.

Twice or thrice earlier I came across JK’s writings but they were dry & far flung. Osho was much easier & engaging. These two cotemporaries --- enlightened without doubt --- never saw each other face to face.

Anyway, recently I happened to read “Freedom from the known” by J Krishnamurthy.  A concise, pithy & stinging 130 pager can shake you inside out. Provided you read it twice or thrice. JK’s writing has to be gone through twice at least by any sincere seeker to get the real crux.  That’s what I feel .

The three most important messages given by J Krishnamurthy in this volume are :

1.       There is nothing to seek :

The whole stress, tension, confusion & lack of peace is movement from what “is”. Once you are able to see that there exists nothing, absolutely nothing, than what “is”, the turbulence ceases.  When we seek, it simply means we want to become something different than what or how we are. And invariably it is gong to be in future, not now. This non acceptance sort is what creates movement of mind & world.

If we stop seeking, we come home.

2.       There is nothing to fear :

JK opines that Fear has its origin in the memories created by a bad past or it is due to a probable future. Both are non existent at the moment. Hence, Right now there is hardly anything to fear. 

3.       Die to the past totally :

This is really a tough demand. Past exists nowhere except in our mind and in our memories. But, Can we get over the memory? Can we psychologically die to everything that is past now? This is really tough. But JK says, it is only a question of seeing & enhanced awareness. You can be free of your past once you are able to see that it doesn’t exist now. It’s gone in the nothingness. This is so simple that we miss it completely. It’s gone forever.  So why worry or try to relive it?

All that we know cannot conjure up the truth. The truth, says JK, is beyond what we know.  Do you see this?   

Whatever we have known & experienced is but past. The truth is ever new.  The now.  Do you see this? The truth is tremendous amount of awareness & one’s availability to the present. To what “is”!  

Rushdie , Hussein, Taslima.. et.all

I see a common paradigm, a pattern in Rushdie, Hussein, Taslima et.all. They are all iconoclasts. They did not refrain from attacking the established beliefs and dogma of the society. Take the case of M F Hussein who painted Hindu Goddesses in a derogatory manner in the name of art. Take the case of Taslima Nasreen who gave unbridled references to her private life in her autobiography. Her descriptions of atrocities on women in a riot-ridden village in her debut novel ‘Lajja’, were provocative to say the least. What midnights children could not achieve for Salman Rushdie was amply accomplished by Satanic verses. That is, huge publicity & controversy. .


(In fact, I could not turn more than four pages when I started reading ‘The midnights children’. Of course I am no connoisseur of literary works.)

The pattern here is all of them seek and attempt for publicity.

Now I would like to take an absolutely queer reference here. That of Poonam Pandey. She is a nationally known figure today. Not for any merit but for reasons we all know about. So in a way, Rushdie and co. are Poonam Pandeys of a different field. Willing to strip if it serves their purpose of getting attention. I am reminded of one more literary figure in this connection. Mr. Rajendra Yadav, a noted figure of Hindi Sahitya, who has successfully kept himself controversial over all these years.

We may criticize these people but hardly can we deny that we are interested. Great Khushwant Singh attempted the same plank in eighties (of course earlier too) and circulation of the illustrated weekly soared to great heights. We all want to be titillated and better if it is in some form of controversy.

The point here is not that we all seek attention. It is already a fact however much we may deny. Attention, recognition, acceptance, even approval is the basic need of everyone. Even a plant or a pet can not grow healthy if it isn’t bestowed upon enough attention.

The point here is, not many people dare!

I personally feel that merit comes later. Prior to it is the issue of daring. The common pattern here is not that all of them sought publicity but that all of them dared too! They attempted to give expression to their innermost desire. They ventured at the cost of being ridiculed, opposed, denigrated or rejected. That makes the difference. Things do not come in shape by mere merit & talent. Life demands daring. Sometimes daring brings all other things in tow. 

Who is most communal in India?

Congress seems to be on the wrong side of fate in its second tenure. It is making such mistakes and that too in succession that for the first time in independent India’s history, it really seems to be confused. First it goofed up the issue related to the age of Gen V.K.Singh. And now a terminal mistake of stopping Mr. Rushdi from attending Jaipur Lit Festival. Mr. Rushdi has already come & gone a no. of times after ‘ The Satanic Verses’ was banned in India in 1988. Nothing happened. This time also he simply was an invitee of the festival & was coming around as a noted literary figure. People of India have already gotten over the satanic verses controversy.


But Congress, in the light of ensuing elections, miscalculated everything. They thought by stopping Rushdi, they will be able to score something with Muslims of India. Earlier these planks would work wonderfully because Muslims were having no other party to look up to. Hence any issue or non-issue related to Muslim faith, when given a communal shade, was a sure vote catcher. But now things have changed substantially. There are other parties who have played the same card and played it rather smartly. As a result the Muslim community of this country has realized the necessity to see through the claims & games of such political parties.

Congress, especially the kinds of Digvijay Singhs etc. are not willing to accept this reality. They are just not able to see beyond minority/majority.

Now that you have stopped Salman Rushdi from even video conferencing, people of this country are asking what was wrong with so called fundamentalist organizations when they opposed MF Hussein. After all it was also a case of hurting the religious sentiment of a community. You see, a government can not act in a partisan manner.

The Congress has exposed itself blatantly by showing a soft corner to the fundamentalist elements of one community. Now its cover of being a secular party will never have any sympathizers. Fools of course will have their own choices.

In my view Congress has been the most communal party of India. Others have only reacted to its vote bank politics.

Do we need so many political parties?

The Indian polity is at a crucial juncture today. There are so many political parties & so many different combinations that there is no clarity as to who stands where? Time & again it is proving counterproductive for the health of Indian Parliamentary System.


Ours is a multi party system. Given to the diverse culture of our country, probably, we have adapted the multi party system so that enough representation is made for the regional aspirations. However it is now creating a bottleneck for every progressive step.

There are regional parties in North, South, East, West, … who are at best traders & brokers. Their sole idea of politics is to score some seats here & there & then trade heavily for the support they will offer to the ruling party.

Then there are pocket parties like Shivsena, MNS, NCP, AIADMK, Lok Janshakti etc. whose agenda more or less is governed by one man’s agenda who happens to be the Supremo.

Does India need so many political parties at all? After all, a political party is supposed to be formed on the basis of an ideology. It is expected to have a clear stand on all the issues of national importance. It must have, at the minimum, an economic as well as a foreign policy model for the country.

US, UK, & some other good democracies have two party system. Both these parties have clearly defined ideologies & a clear political stand in all matters of national interest. Hence it is easy for the general public to chose. It’s either A or B. There are not any hung parliaments. There are not any individual agendas over the national one.

We can not have only two parties but we need to see how many more we need? The politics of coalition is no politics at all in my view. It’s the politics of convenience rather. It’s a politics of blackmail too. Did CPM support congress for any ideological alignment in the previous tenure? Or even today, Does Mamta has any ideological alliance with the Congress?

In my view, Indian polity should have 4 parties at the most because India has seen four types of thoughts after independence:

Left & Extreme left: Primarily represented by CPI & CPM who are driven by Marxist principles.

Right & Extreme Right : It is a mix of Hindu Nationalism + Religion + Opposition to Minority politics of Congress. The leading protagonist is BJP. Others are like Shivsena etc. There is also what is generally called as Sangh Parivar.

Centre : Represented by The Congress Party. Nobody knows exactly what it is but it is partly left & partly right, so to say. The best definition in my view would be “Anything that keeps me in the Centre of power is my ideology. Whatever gets me vote in the elections is my ideology.”

Socialist thought proposed by Dr. Lohia : It is different than socialism. It is possibly least talked about & much less understood. But this was an original thought. In the international parlance, the word Socialism is used more or less interchangeably with Marxism & Communism. But Dr. Lohia’s Socialist party was absolutely away from Marxism or Communism. This may not be known to many. At least I was mot knowing it myself before I went into depth of it. Dr. Lohiya was an original thinker & his was an ideology born out of ground realities of India. He, from the very beginning, believed that both capitalism as well as communism would prove counter productive in the long run for India. And he was dead against the Nehruvian kind of Socialism (or Congressism), in which the daily expense on PM in those days was Rs 25000/- per day when the average expense of a common man was “three anna’. (He had raised this issue vehemently & Nehru had to demure with some flimsy explanations in the parliament).

In my view all the parties will belong to one of the four above. Every party should see which ideology is nearest to them & they should align themselves to it.

But given to the kind political parties are & the fact that they have tasted blood after being coalition partners they will never let this happen. However, sooner or later this will be a necessity. It will be same necessity like Jan Lokpal & the way to get it also will be “Public Movement “ only.

Who is afraid of Lokpal

Who is afraid of Lokpal ?


In fact the whole political class is unwilling to bring the Lokpal. They are all afraid of a strong Lokpal. It may seem that Congress is soft & BJP is aggressive yet it is just a matter of political convenience that BJP is putting up such a facade. Had they been in power things would have been radically different.

The whole issue of Lokpal has three aspects:

1. Why politicians are so afraid of a strong anti corruption body on whom they may not have any control?

2. What Team Anna is up to ?

3. Whether a Lokpal as envisaged by Team Anna will really be able to curb corruption?

It’s anybody’s guess as to why politicians are so afraid of a strong investigative agency.

Elections are fought over borrowed money. There are pre pole alliances with a ulterior motive. Many a businessmen see elections as an investment opportunity. They lend money to political parties in order to reap rich returns afterwards. There is also a third angle – that of the bureaucrat. The bureaucrat comes into picture once a party’s government is established. The businessman asks favors from the politician, the bureaucrat facilitates the avenues & all three of them prosper at the cost of public money. This is the type of corruption which has basically taken root in the independent India. In defense deals, in blue chip licenses, in the award of Government contracts, in the allocation of industrial or civil lands, you name it. Everywhere you will find this vicious combine at the root.

Now if there is a strong & independent agency in place, this combine may not work. The syndicated &, almost organized way of usurping public money will be threatened. There may be early arrests. There may be timely filing of charge sheets. There may really be a logical conclusion and punishments in the scams like CWG, Adarsh , 2G, Bofors, Chara Ghotala, and so many of them which were simply investigated & are being investigated even today.

This is what makes them afraid of the idea of Lokpal.

The possibility of manipulating the course of enquiry is the major way out for the politician today. As of now, the chief investigative agency is under the government & the government is dependent on the support of allies. Hence anyone who has the right connections can easily manipulate, mislead or delay the course of investigation. In fact for a very long time no progress will be possible however big the scam may be. Today, no Politician worth his salt is afraid of law. That there is no respect for law is already known, but what is really annoying is they are not even afraid. You just see the body language of some of our politicians. Audacity is the word that is written all over. They have become such an artistic dodgers that they feel it would be almost impossible to nab them whatever they do. Hence, the very idea that someone can take action against them sueo-moto … or some authority is beyond their influence is just too frightening for them.

On the other hand team Anna has definitely given rise to a very important movement in the country, but they do not seem to have a vision. Their actions so far have put them in the category of “Reactionary” at best. Theirs is a strong Anti-Government Stand. They have proposed a Lokpal who will be above every constitutional body but there are not enough checks if this Lokpal acts pre judicially. God forbid, if such a Lokpal becomes a Frankenstein later. Therefore, instead of combating with the government, team Anna would do well to take more pains about the provisions of their bill, organize public debates all over the country and make the people of this country more aware of their overall vision.

The Lokpal bill can happen through public participation only. It can never happen through politics or politicians. For 43 years or so it could not take shape because it has a direct conflict of interests with the politician. If it wouldn’t be so, long back it would have come into force.

The way to get a Strong Lokpal is to give a clear vision, hope and conviction to the people of this country that yes, it is possible to achieve a corruption free society in India.

Now, the million dollar question: Whether any such bill will be able to achieve its goal? That is, whether creation of Lokpal will really be able to eradicate the menace of corruption from the Indian society. Team Anna has made it clear that they do not expect Lokpal to be able to root out the corruption, but they definitely envisage it to ‘act as a deterrent’.

Actually corruption as a phenomenon is ubiquitous throughout the world. However, certain societies like the Europian ones (not all of them), have it to such a low level that the general public, by & large, is unaffected. People generally are sure that no one will take away their lawful due from them. On the other hand nations like Egypt, Libiya, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India are high in corruption index . North Korea, Somalia Afganistan etc. are toppers. Do you see a pattern here ?

Basically corruption erupts from insecurity. Corruption evolves out of low self esteem. Corruption is a result of ‘gross inequality’ in the society. Worse if it has remained for centuries. That’s what has happened to India too. We remained under threat for a very long time. Hence, when we got the independence, we became rampant. It was freedom to choose our own course but we turned it into the ‘freedom to become as much corrupt as possible’.

Hence no amount of law can curb the corruption in India. Of course a bill & thereafter an authority like Lokpal is a welcome initiative, but the real difference will happen only if India has a visionary leader. A second Gandhi sort, who can move the millions through his shear courage of conviction. We, as a country, badly need to regain our lost glory. We produce Kalmadis & Rajas because in the heart of our hearts, we are a very insecure people. We are a rich country, mind you. We do not lack resources. But we do not have enough equality. The opportunity for living & growing is not well distributed so to say. Hence we are often tempted to choose the short cut. People choose short cuts when the faith in the straight but longer rout is lost.

We need to attack this root cause. The menace of inequality & lack of equal opportunity in the Indian society. Then the corruption will automatically be taken care. And for this purpose we need a visionary leader.