Translate The Page

Sunday 1 September 2013

"Justice for rape survivors "

Please click on the link and join the cause
https://www.facebook.com/events/506327839451692/




"One more pedantic and "follow the law blindly type judgement has come and the young criminal in Delhi rape case has been sent to child reform home as a punishment for his heinous crimes.


Any crime of such nature is a crime of uncontrolled hormones. This lower court judge got confused between a person and his uncontrolled hormones.We have 2 interesting case wherein two persons, one a juvenile and another an old man of 74 committing same type of crime. Its idiotic to attribute such type of crimes to age.

But you need extra ordinary wisdom and insight to rise above the rest,but this lower court judge is no such type " - Rana Raj K Singh , Attorney at Supreme Court of India


And do we sit and watch silently ?? What baffles me more than any thing else why are our parliamentarians quiet , if they make amendments in Supreme Court ruling in R P I act
recently why not Juvenile Justice Act .Here I appeal to the blogger community who feel stricter laws need to be introduced in juvenile justice act 
Photo credits Google image search results



Saturday 18 May 2013

डोर (DOAR)


[ JLT :) ] Just like that .....




जरा सूनो तो
रुक कर चलो तो
 मेरी आंखों में डूब कर कहो तो
 मैं हुं तुम्हरे दिल की परी

 सहमे से कियुन हो
 नज़्रेन  चुरा कर
 मुंह यूँ छुपा कर
 कियुन यूँ चल दीये जैसे यह नज़्रेन कभि मिली थी ही नहीं

 बेजान यह सान्सेन
 कुछ कहना यह चाहें
 मगर मेरे दिल को बहलIए
 कहतीं है मुझ से
कियुन चल दी थी तुम उस की गली

बेख़बर थी मैं तो
दे बैठी अपना दिल तुम को
कह देते जो तुम मुझ को
तेरी रंगत  ही  नहीं है
जो कह सकूं मैं तुझे मेरे दिल की परी

 मेरा दिल उस को ही चाहे
जो मुझ से लिपटी पड़ी है
मेरी बहों में खड़ी है
जिस की रंगीन निगाहें कभि चाह कर भी मुझ से दूर न हो  पायें
 जिस की हर साणस है मेरे करीब

तुम थोड़ा झुको  तो
 मुड़ कर  देखो तो
वह  जलपरी तो  है  मुझ से बंधी  है
 तुम जिस डोर को पकड़े खड़ी हो कमज़ोर  है हर एक  उस की कड़ी

 क्या कहुं मैं
 कैसे करूँ मैं  दिल अपना  काबू
 यह कैसी मझधार है
 जिस का  न कोई  छोर है
 न कोई टोड  है
 न मैं बह पाऊँ
 न  मैं डूब पाऊँ
 उस में जो अपनी ही आंखों से झलकी है  फूलझरी


zara suno toe
ruk kar chalo toe
meri aankhon mein doob kar kaho toe
keh kar toe dekho
min hoon tumhare dil ki pari

samhe se kiyun hoe
nazren chura kar
munh youn chupa kar
kiyun youn chal diye
jaise yeh nazren kabhi mili thi hi nahin

bejaan yeh saansen
kuch kehna yeh chahen
magar muskura kar
mere dil ko ruhen
kahti hain mujh se
kiyun chal di thi tum us ki gali

bekhbar thi main toe
jo de baithe apnaa dil tum ko
keh dete joe mujh ko
teri rangat hi nahi hai
joe main bulaoon mere dil ki pari


mera dil us koe chahe
joe mujh se lipti hai
meri bahon mein khadi hai
us ki rangeen nighen
mera dil us ko chahe
wohi toe hai meri dil ki pari

tum thoda juko toe
mud kar toe dekho
woh jal pari hai mujh se bandhiवह
tum jis door se tum mujh se bandhi hoe
kamzor hai woh , uski her kadi



Sunday 14 April 2013

Life ( captured on paper by a student )

There is abundance of talent on our streets , most of it goes ignored either due to lack of resource or ignorance  and only few are able to come forth and share it with the world .  It must have been 1 a.m when I landed in Chandigarh and my eyes couldn't have missed those busy fingers trying to capture life of a porter in deep sleep at the bus stand . For him it's an every day routine to spend few hours at the bus stand and capture life on paper but for me it was an overwhelming experience to flip through his art book and click some pictures.
                                         








                                     

                   


.




Wednesday 29 August 2012

In defence of Rama

Once again we  have Suresh ( http://www.jambudweepam.blogspot.in ) as a guest blogger on random. A little longer than a usual post , I did have a choice to post it in two parts but it would have lost its essence  and here it goes " In defence of Rama "

                                                 




It is ironic that the only Puranic male character who has some claims towards striking a blow for male-female equality is the one character that needs defending against accusations of Male chauvinism. In an era where chastity was imposed only on women and born to a man who was well-known for the multiplicity of his marriages, Ram is the only character who accepted and lived by the idea that chastity was as applicable to men as to women.

Three major accusations are raised against Ram. Firstly that Sita had to follow him to the forest; secondly the Agni-Pariksha and lastly the abandonment of Sita when a Dhobi took exception to Ram taking back Sita after her long incarceration by Ravan. Lots of ridicule has been heaped on Ram - for the last two in particular – and, largely because feminists seem to have swallowed – hook, line and sinker - the spin put on these acts by male chauvinists of later days.


There is another male character that followed Ram to the forest – Lakshman. He was also married and, yet, his wife Urmila is not the subject of any diatribe for not having lived up to her wifely duties. Even though it was at Lakshman’s behest, if Society had thought of this as a wifely duty, there would have been a hue and cry about this fact. The fact remains that (a) there was no duty imposed on the wife to follow her husband like Mary’s little lamb (b) It was Sita who insisted on following Ram to the forest because she loved him too much to stand the separation and (c) Ram dissuades her from following him citing the hardships that she would have to face but is unable to sway her.

So, when a husband of today seeks that his wife follows him wherever he went a la Sita, the proper retort is that, “If you were Ram, I’d love you like Sita and follow you. But if you were Ram, you would love me enough not to ask me to follow you into hardship!” Unfortunately, the standard reaction is to heap ridicule on Ram!

The one thing that is discounted when it comes to the other two incidents is that Ram loved Sita. He goes mad with grief when Sita is abducted. When, on the battlefield, a Maya Sita is slaughtered he drops his weapons and feels that pursuing the battle further is pointless. That, in fact, gives the lie to the statement he makes before the Agnipariksha about fighting the battle only for his honor. If it is difficult to swallow the idea of a man loving his wife, think then of the fact that Ram never remarried after putting Sita aside and lived a life of chastity till the end.

Ram was not only a husband. Ever since Bharat met him at Chtrakoot, he knew he was to be the King. The King was expected to be an upholder of Social values – no matter how unjust they may be for order is better than anarchy – and if he is seen to have bent the rules for his own benefit he leads to anarchy. “Yata Raja Tatha Praja” as the saying goes!



To have accepted Sita without a qualm would have lead to people in his country considering that the King did not respect the rules by which Society abided. Further, for a man who had practically just got off the chariot of the King of the Gods, it need not be difficult to believe that the God of Fire would not harm his beloved since she was chaste.

Much is also said of the way Ram abandoned Sita merely because a dhobi told his wife, “I am not Ram to accept a wife who lived in another man’s house”, especially with reference to the fact that Sita had already proved her chastity by going through fire. Again, the decision was not based on what Ram thought of Sita or what he would have preferred to do. If one were to assume the fact that he loved Sita to distraction, he would have loved to have his children born in his palace and lived around him or, even, that he would have preferred not to live in total abstinence, it would be easy to understand that his own preference would have been to ignore the dhobi. What, then, caused him to set aside his beloved wife?

In an era of no you-tube, no TV, no Facebook ot Twitter, the people of Ayodhya could not know of the Agnipariksha except through the words of people close to Ram. In any case against the powerful, proof positive would be difficult to obtain to prove a person guilty. The rulers of then were expected to live by a harsher standard of justice and accusation was considered sufficient for punishment – the “Caesar’s wife has to be above suspicion” phenomenon. In the event that Ram had ignored the dhobi, it is not difficult to see how the people of Ayodhya may have considered Sita as less than chaste over a period of time and started citing that as an example for their own transgressions of the law.

It was Ram the king who had to decide to put off Sita much against Ram the husband’s preferences. He lived by the law that the ruler has to put the good of Society above his own personal loss. If that is difficult to swallow as an explanation, consider the fact that he had to later sentence his beloved younger brother – Lakshman – to death for transgressing an order under unavoidable circumstances. If, indeed, one had to think of Ram as unfeeling it is nonetheless true that he was no male chauvinist – after all Lakshman was not female.

We live in times when it is considered acceptable that people in power use their power to save their kith and kin from the results of their own transgressions and, thus, find it difficult to understand why a ruler could punish his kin – when he knew they were innocent. The idea that Society suffers a moral malaise if the ruler is even thought to have set his own preferences above the law has, unfortunately, become totally alien to us.

Accusing Ram of chauvinism is not only unjust, it is unproductive as well. Our Society is still largely composed of people who revere Ram as God incarnate. By accepting the male chauvinistic spin on his actions and heaping ridicule on him we only preach to the already convinced. It is best to propagate his sense of male-female equality and his attitude towards the duties of a ruler, as indeed was probably intended by the writers of the Puranas.








photo credit google search

Tuesday 17 July 2012

beeghi beeghi palken

भीगी भीगी पलकें
यह रात अजब सी
कियूं मेरा दिल रोने लगा है
कैसी यह मझधार
मुझे काया हुआ है
आँखों में मेरे
यह कैसी नमी है
दिल की धड्क्दं भी
कुछ थम सी गयी है
भला यह कैसी हवा चली है
तेरे साँसों की खुशबू
कहाँ खो गयी है
कहाँ तुझ को दूंडून
कैसे कहूं मैं
मेरे दिल  का हाल


copy right (c) alka narula
photo credit lifeofmuslim.com

Monday 16 July 2012

akele

my attempt to write a musical short story



यौन ही चली थी रास्ता नया था
समझी नयी मैं
काफिला नया था
रस्ते में एक मुसाफिर नया था
आँखों में उस के मेरा नाम लिखा था
बाँहों में ले कर कहने लगा वोह
तुम एक पारी हो मेरे लिए बनी हो
उस की साँसों की महक में खो गयी मैं
मेरी आँखों की नमी हवा हो गयी एक पल में
उड़ने लगी मैं एक पतंग बन गयी मैं
उस की बाँहों में गुहल कर खो गयी मैं
कुछ पल के लिए पारी बन गयी मैं
बिजली जो कोंढ़ी थर्थार्हत हुई जो
मेरी पाजेब की रन झुन खो गयी एक पल में
मेरी होंठों की मुस्कराहट रोंद गयी एक पल में
न कोई मुसाफिर न काफिला था
रास्ता मेरा काँटों भरा था
हर तरफ धुआं धुआं था
चल पड़ी मैं अकेले
खो गयी मैं धुंए में
मेरी आँखों की नमी लोट आये एक पल में

copy right (c)alka narula
photo crdit graphicsleftovers.com

Wednesday 4 July 2012

DOES SUFFERING NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF COMPASSIONATE GOD


Today i have the pleasure to have Suresh as a guest blogger on random.Though he needs no introduction as his writing speaks for him still i would like to give you a brief introduction,Suresh is a a chemical engineer, purely on the strength of a certificate, and IIM-B finance MBA – both by certificate and expertise. Having worked for 16 years in the area of fertilizer subsidies and policy-making and consulted for a couple of years thereafter he is now the master of his own time. He started trekking at 44 and is now addicted. Books, music, trekking, travel and, now, blogging have ensured that his life is far more interesting than climbing the corporate ladder would ever have been.To read more visit http://www.jambudweepam.blogspot.in/
Thank you Suresh for being my guest and for this lovely post.

When my mother was semi-paralyzed because of metastasizing cancer, it was inevitable that thoughts of how a Compassionate God could cause such distress to a person, who had never in thought, word or deed hurt anyone. It is a common phenomenon that when you see the innocent, the naïve and the good in distress, you start questioning the existence of God or, at least, his compassion.
Those, who believe in God, certainly say piously that the ways of God are unfathomable. Inevitably, however, they attempt to fathom them in every significant incident of their lives. The unquestioning belief that ought to exist in the face of something beyond your understanding somehow eludes our rational selves. We can believe that imaginary numbers exist, even though the very name places them in the realm of the unfathomable, merely because we call it mathematics – which is seen as the epitome of rationality. But God, somehow, is seen as merely a human with superhuman powers and, thus, His actions are seen as something that ought to be subjected to rational human analysis.
Almost all religions exalt the character of a person. Consider a world where there is no want – physical, social or emotional. Would you find a person coveting something that is not his? Consider a world where there are no negative consequences to any action? Would dishonesty be at all necessary in such a world? Would courage? Consider a world where there is no unrequited lust. Would you find rapists or eve-teasers in such a world?
All the virtues that we exalt are necessary only in a world that has pain in addition to pleasure. Good character is worthy of respect only when the concerned person upholds it in the face of adversity. In fact, adversity is the crucible in which a person’s character sheds its dross and turns pure gold – or, of course, sheds the gold and turns pure dross! The true measure of a person can only be known – even by himself – in the way he reacts to untoward incidents in his life.
If you think of joy and sorrow as necessary to test and/or establish a person’s character, then you could conceivably think of the world as a testing ground where souls are adjudged by God. Given that there is a plausible reason for why God permits suffering, the existence of sorrow – of whatever intensity and inflicted on whichever soul – does not necessarily negate the existence of God.
Going strictly by the above measure one may think of God as being present but does it also give reason to think that He is compassionate? Not necessarily! God, as in the above rationale, is a stern Judge but not necessarily a compassionate Father. We shall have to seek elsewhere for reasons to believe in His compassion.
 * * * * * *
I need to reiterate that the ways of God must necessarily be considered unfathomable. When we talk of the Creator of the Universe it would be presumptuous to assume the capability to read His mind. I seek to postulate His reasons for what happens in the world around us merely because we seem incapable of resting content in the unwavering belief that He knows best. Cries of ‘Irrational belief’ and ‘Blind faith’ – in our own minds, if nowhere else - can only be silenced by advancing a plausible theory, however unproven and however far from the Truth.
The theory of ‘Prarabda Karma’ advances the idea that the suffering in the life that we lead is a consequence of our actions of previous lives. Thus, it is not God who inflicts suffering on us but we, ourselves, who have caused the suffering. In this case, those whom we see as naïve, innocent or good are expiating the sins of a past life when they may not have been naïve, innocent or good. This, theory, nonetheless leaves the question open as to whether God, in His infinite compassion, could not have pardoned the sins of the past and averted the suffering.
Think of a tribal child with a hole in the heart being operated upon by a cardiac surgeon. Think then of her parents being totally unaware about modern medical practices (if second grade Bollywood movies can think that tribals still exist who think of a matchbox as a miracle, it should not be such a great feat of imagination for you!). The parents are likely to view the surgeon as a sadistic monster, who cuts open little girls for his illicit pleasure when the surgeon, of course, is inflicting some pain (at least post-operative) in order to avert greater distress later.
The philosophy of Advaita thinks of all souls as part of God – or Brahman as it calls it. Achieving oneness with God is the sole reason why the dross needs be burnt off the soul. If one can conceive of the fact that the separation from such Oneness is a source of infinite distress to the soul, it is easy to understand why God permits human distress as a means of ending such separation. Like the surgeon in the example, God may permit the infliction of a relatively minor pain in order to ameliorate the greater one.
If, with all the limitations of the human senses and intellect, one can find a plausible reason for the existence of distress in the world, it should not be difficult to believe that an infinitely Compassionate God may have reason for permitting worldly distress.
In the end, the only path to God is one of unwavering Faith!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...