why i do what i do

i cling onto and i know i am wrong

for every attachment has to end

i fear solitary and at same throng

am i inwardly insufficient to pretend

i say 'you are mine' and i possess you

do i have nothing deeper, more vital

i was incongruous with my environ

as if i am making a moribund immortal

in search of miragical treasure

why do i travel inconsequent errand

have i no idea of the pain and displeasure

which failure subtend

my first poem..

why dont you come back to my arms

where i feel most secure without any harms

for all sweet memories that stand

to bear them now is beyond my command

your one innocent smile

which vaporizes my anguish

your one serene touch

which soothens my bullish

what a happy happenstance 'tis with you

even scorching sun milds for a few

i hanker for you and i do it often

as my despair doesnt soften

Reinterrograting Savarkar

First comes first. Credit for citing the 1857 Sepoy-mutiny as The First War of Indian Independence - 1857, which was the title of the book written by him, goes to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. By all accounts it is now a known fact that the insertion of the word "first" is a later interpolation. TheSavarkar Samagra mentions it as Atthharahasau Sattavan Ka Svatantrata Sangram (ie. The War of Independence of 1857). Variuos historians such as Harindra Srivastava and Varad Pande(a Savarkar admirer), writing about Savarkar in a much later period included the words "Indian" and "first". Dhananjaya Keer, author of a hagiographical biography of Savarkar cites the title as The First Indian War of Independence - 1857. Going by the original title, cited in the Marathi(Atthharahsau Sattavanche Swatantrya Samar) and Hindi versions of the Savarkar Samagra, it is clear that the title isThe War of Independence of 1857.

This signifies that the critics of Savarkar are unaware and blatantly add this as a fact while bashing him as a Hindu fanatic.

Savarkar's account of 1857 is replete with instances of "white flesh" being slaughtered. It is a theme that is a constant refrain throughout the text. It is important to note that Savarkar's politics was one that divided the world between 'friend' and 'foe'. It was not material who the 'foe' was as long as an enemy could be found at all times.

While killing was the chosen instrumentality, the essence that circumscribed Savarkar's account of 1857 was the establishment of 'swadharma' or one's own religion and 'swarajya' or self-rule. It has to be pointed out that 'dharma' in this instance means religion and does not have the other philosophical connotations that are also associated with the term.

Savarkar argued that there was an inextricable link between swadharma and swarajya. He further refines the link to argue that "swarajya is worthless without swadharma, and swadharma is powerless without swarajya".

Savarkar strongly admitted that words like revolt, revolution, rebellion and revenge, therefore were legitimate in order to remove injustice and bring about parity and justice. Revolt, bloodshed and revenge were at once the instruments of injustice and of bringing about natural justice. Revenge, therefore, was the establishment of natural law and justice. From this axiom, Savarkar derived a principle of nationalism. He claimed that wherever nationalist wars were fought, in such places revenge for injustices that the nation suffered were taken by killing the prepetrators of injustice of another nation.

Even those who differ from his conception of Hindutva seem to acknowledge his nationalism, patriotism and commitment to the cause of India's freedom, often overlooking the model of retributive violence and its philosophical justification that informs much of his conception of nationalism and patriotism. Along with a critical view of Savarkar, there is also the need to examine the content of such terms as "nationalism" and "patriotism", used frequently these days to justify inflamed states of emotion and violence in the name of abstractions.

Clouded Reparation

In the opening soliloquy to Shakespeare’s Richard III., Gloucester, who subsequently becomes King, says:

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,

Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;

I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty

To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;

I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,

Cheated of feature by dissembling Nature,

Deform’d, unfinish’d, sent before my time

Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,

And that so lamely and unfashionable,

That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;

* * * * *

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,

I am determined to prove a villain,

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Richard seems to say nothing more than ‘I find this idle way of life tedious, and I want to enjoy myself. As I cannot play the lover on account of my deformity, I will play the villain; I will intrigue, murder, do anything I please.’ So wanton a cause of action could not but stifle any stirring of sympathy in the audience, if it were not a screen for something much more serious. And besides, the play would be psychologically impossible, for the writer must know how to furnish us with a secret background of sympathy for his hero, if we are to admire his boldness and adroitness without some inward protest; and such sympathy can only be based on understanding or on a sense of a possible inner fellowship with him.

I think, therefore, that Richard’s soliloquy does not say everything; it merely gives a hint, and leaves us to fill up the indications. When we complete it, however, the appearance of wantonness vanishes, the bitterness and minuteness with which Richard has depicted his deformity make their full effect, and we clearly perceive the bond of fellowship which constraints us to sympathy with the miscreant. The soliloquy then signifies: ‘Nature has done me a grievous wrong in denying me that beauty of form which wins human love. Life owes me reparation for this, and I will see that I get it.

I have a right to be an exception, to overstep those bounds by which others let themselves be circumscribed. I may do wrong myself, since wrong has been done to me’ – and now we feel that we ourselves could be like Richard, or that we are already a little like him. Richard is an enormously magnified representation of something we can all discover in ourselves. We all think we have reason to reproach nature and our destiny for congenital and infantile disadvantages.

watch your laugh

They say 'A man is known by the company he keeps ' . I say that can be dubious as choice of company is often governed by several factors which most of the times are beyond one's control. So what can be the other criterion? I prefer laughter to be the best medicine yet again. Its not only easily comprehended but fun to observe.

But the million dollar question is how to draw someone's psyche out of his laughter. The cause effect thesis is of help here. People laugh due to many reasons, and intrestingly most of them are related to others. By simply noticing the cause of their laughter, a lot can be concluded about their personality traits. Like a person who laughs when some one slips on road while walking or giggles on someone's misfortune, is certainly not the kind of person you would like to share your time with. In the same manner people enjoy teasing the other fellow intentionally. Despite of boasting about the civilized world we have created around us, we wont let a single occasion go in vain when we can deride the vulnerable. 'One man's deficiency is another man's reason to smile' seems to be the rule followed. From the sheer joy of hurting animals to ridiculing the differently abled, we just dont resist the ecstatic feel.