I’m occasionally writing for Moneylife. You can find my articles here. http://www.moneylife.in/author/ravi-kiran.html
Recently wrote about Net-Neutrality.
Part 1 – http://www.moneylife.in/article/net-neutrality-debate—i/41098.html
Part 2 – http://www.moneylife.in/article/the-net-neutrality-debate—ii/41116.html
Before that I wrote about the government’s direct role in the Bhopal Gas tragedy..a perspective unexplored by the mainstream media.
Every man faces these two questions day in and day out.
1.How will I earn my next meal(living)?
2. Will I be free to earn it?
The first question is a personal problem; each one has to figure it out for himself. One will get a meal depending on how well he applies his mind. But before one answers the first question, he should get an answer to the second one. ‘ Will I be free to earn my living ?’, is a question individual poses to the society. Hence, it is for the government to answer, and to answer it affirmatively: “yes, you are free to earn your living” But look at our system. Rapes, murders, riots, bomb blasts – which stop man from moving freely and achieving what he wants to achieve – are a routine affair. Then what is the government doing? It is busy answering the first question: Food security, employment guarantee and what not! Second question has become an option. Instead of the government’s job to see that you are free to earn your meal and good to keep the earnings with you, it is providing you the meal and taking away your freedom. If one is sensitive enough to grasp the situation, he will know that we are not living in a free society, but in one big jail. But the government is not some extraterrestrial object. We are electing it. It is a reflection of the dominant thought process in the society. There is an urgent need to reverse this perverse norm.
Recently, the Gujarat high court acquitted six men accused in akshardham attack case after they had spent 11 years in jail. The court pronounced that they were innocent. This is horrible. 11 years in jail for no mistake of theirs? And imagine, how many such cases are still lying in the jail.
For some “how will I get my next meal?” is a fear..but it gives you the opportunity to go out and earn it. If you don’t have the necessary skills to earn immediately, at least you can borrow or even beg. But imagine living in the constant fear of who will come and rob me/rape me/ jail me? Which fear you would rather have? In the first case,you are in control of yourself, you are still the master of your life. In the second, you are simply being treated as a slave. These activists who protest every time there is a crime, demanding special laws and compensation, you will not see them in ordinary times talking about bringing objectivity in the police and the judiciary through reforms. When the discussion is on freebies, you will never hear them say “No, we don’t want this. First protect everyone’s right to life, liberty and property?” Then why do they outrage now?
Let each one earn his living. Let the government’s job is to ensure that one is free to do so.
Tailpiece: The Uttar Pradesh government, which is now under severe criticism for the horrific crimes that are happening in the state, instead of improving the police, distributed free laptops as part of its election promise. Not one in the media questioned this.
After the Delhi police presented its evidence against the three cricketers that were booked in the spot fixing scandal, I joked that BCCI should ‘ban towels’. But by asking for a ban on the IPL, a few took this joke to an other level. You kind of expect this behavior from emotional fans, but I found that the journalists and commentators associated with the game from whom we expect some objectivity were also equally emotional and superficial in their analysis. Which prompted me to write how I see this issue.
BCCI
Board of Cricket Control in India(BCCI), the name gives you a false impression that it has all the authority to control cricket in India, but the fact of the matter is, it is merely a private organisation. Just like ‘India Cements’ doesn’t mean it has the sole authority to produce cement in India. Technically speaking, BCCI has as much control on cricket as Vodafone or Airtel has on telecom industry. Hence it is answerable to only those who subscribe to their product/service and not to the whole of India. Since BCCI likes to cash in on the nationalism factor in cricket, they rarely assert this private status position unless encountered by a legal issue. So calling for a ban on the IPL is as stupid as asking a mobile service to shut down for its poor connectivity. At the end of the day, the IPL or even the game of cricket is a consumer product from the BCCI.. just stop consuming it. Nobody is shoving it down your throat. No body is putting a gun to your head to watch the game. However, you as a consumer can file a case against the BCCI if you find a breach in the terms and conditions(if there are any) for the services you have subscribed to.
Match-Fixing
Match-fixing is a big issue. But for whom? If there is a flaw in the iPhone, the company that produces it should be worried and not the whole world. In the same way, match-fixing is BCCI’s headache. Onus is on them to clean up the mess to regain the trust of its audience(if they want to). As a cricket fan you can expect to see quality cricket, but can you demand it? I don’t think so. For now, you have only two options: either you continue subscribing to this broken product or quit watching it altogether. How did we get to this situation ? Why are we at the sole mercy of the BCCI? The answer is lack of competition in cricket. Not on the field, but off it.
Competition
After India’s early exit in 2007 WC, which easily was the lowest point in the Indian cricket of that decade, something unprecedented happened. A new private cricket league by the name ICL was announced. It didn’t start out as a rival to the BCCI, but it got BCCI really worried. They feared competition from the new league and used all their power to quash the league, and was successful in doing so. If they were simply using their money power, I wouldn’t have had an issue as that is how business competition works. But because BCCI is served by the Govt. biggies it was using state power…thus making it an unfair competition. ICL might have failed, but it forced the BCCI to increase cricketer’s match fee from 16,000 a match day to 35,000 and then eventually to start a league of its own, the IPL, which would earn big money even for club class cricketers. That is just a sneak-peek of what real competition can do. If the quality of iPhone is not good, can we demand the company to come up with a better one? We sure can hope or request them to come up with a better quality version soon, but what really drives them to produce one? Samsung, i,e ‘Competition’ in the market. One can also look up the example of “World Series Cricket(WSC)”, a private league from Australia in 1970s, to know how it helped revolutionalize the way cricket is marketed, and its influence continues to be felt even today. The concept of helmet was a direct result of this league
” Englishman Dennis Amiss sported a motorcycle helmet when batting in WSC, and he was quickly followed by many other players. Protective cricket equipment developed rapidly, and by the end of WSC,virtually all batsmen in WSC and official Test matches were sporting some form of protective headwear.”
Conflict of Interest
N. Srinivasan is both the president of the BCCI and the team owner of the IPL franchise team CSK. I don’t understand why the media or the public should have a problem with this..if any, it is the other IPL team owners who should have an issue. But the real conflict of interest the media rarely talks about is – how a govt. representative can head or be a member of a private org.? By allowing this we created a state controlled monopoly. How can anyone think of putting up a competitive league against the BCCI as long as they have these govt. biggies as it’s board members. They might say that it is just a honorary position, but can we allow Kapil Sibal(telecom minister) to be a honorary board member of Vodafone? Will the other telecom companies be okay with it? If not then how can we allow it in the BCCI?
Government’s take over
People are also suggesting that the govt should take over the board. But it being a private body is the only reason why cricket is miles ahead of other sports in India. When you can’t run on state funds, you explore innovation and ensure that there is quality in the product you deliver to get profits. That is the difference between, say, a hockey board and a cricket board. Though it started off as a fully private body, once the BCCI started getting profits, seeing its riches, political biggies got involved in it. They started lending the state power to it(in terms of subsidies). Today, its a govt’s crony…but still better than any fully state controlled body like hockey. So the only solution is stop giving them any undue benefits from the state in the name of “helping cricket”. This will allow competition which will correct the flaws…not court rulings.
One of the most poorly researched articles.
I will show you how poorly you grasped the article and how you are a racist.
The basis of creation of the separate state has already been discussed and debated multiple times on television. For starters, Telangana has a different culture. Secondly, the representation of Telanganaites in various government offices of AP is negligent. Thirdly, Gentleman’s Agreement was not honoured. Fourthly, except Hyderabad and its surroundings, rest of TG was grossly ignored. I can list out much more reasons, but I will stop here.
Not once the parliament discussed this issue to form a basis. “Telangana has a different culture” so do many other regions in the state and also in other states. Still its okay to divide it on that basis, provided, you define the parameters to what constitutes a ‘cultural difference’ and apply it consistently through out the country. “The representation of Telanganaites in various government offices of AP is negligent” So who all went on strike when the agitation was happening if they were negligent? Again, if this claim can be proved legitimately and if that is stated as the reason I don’t have any issue. Why doesn’t the union govt state that as an issue? If there were any such violations, questions will also be raised on why the democratically elected representatives of that region didn’t raise the issue…as they are also part of the government..as and when the violation happened? On a completely different note, this reservation based socialist policies are idiotic and if that is formed as the basis for jobs and not merit..you go no where. Ofcourse this is for a different debate. “Gentleman’s Agreement was not honoured”. Gentleman’s agreement is irrelevant here. The allegations of violations of that agreement and its existence were the basis for 1969 separate telangana agitation and the separate andhra agitation of 1971 respectively..the whole thing was settled then by a ‘six point formula’ by Indira gandhi. If any, the allegation should be about the violation of ‘six point formula’. Again, it should be proved and and also prove that it is reason enough to divide a state and be introduced in the “statement of objects and reasons” and then bifurcate…that is, if one believes in following procedures. “Fourthly, except Hyderabad and its surroundings, rest of TG was grossly ignored” Define ‘neglect’ and adopt it as the principle on which you divide states..when you do that, AP itself will be divided into 3-4 states…because there are other regions equally well neglected in the state. The answer for ‘neglect’ is in understanding the proper ‘role of the government‘, if you want to have a read. “I can list out much more reasons, but I will stop here.“. Please do.
Why only AP ? Because all major national parties promised a separate Telangana. Don’t act as if you don’t know it. I have one other info for you. Dhar commmittee recommended Andhra not be created. Why then was Andhra created ? If those recommendations can be overlooked and a separate Andhra can be created, I see no reason why Sri Krishna Committee recommendations should be ignored. The Chapter 8 was proof enough that the SKC was bought over by the Seemandhra lobby. So it is not always compulsory that a committees recommendation should be implemented .
“Why only AP ? Because all major national parties promised a separate Telangana. Don’t act as if you don’t know it.” Here is where you stopped applying your mind. I was trying to dissect the issue ‘objectively’. All the political parties taking the same stand doesn’t make the stand right. The food security bill was passed unanimously..but that doesn’t make it ‘right’ and it is not that we shouldn’t debate it independent of the political views. (here is a view which points out the cruelty of food security bill). And this is exactly what media is for..and I was just pointing it out to them. “I have one other info for you. Dhar commmittee recommended Andhra not be created. Why then was Andhra created ? If those recommendations can be overlooked and a separate Andhra can be created, I see no reason why Sri Krishna Committee recommendations should be ignored.”Thanks for the information on Dhar committee. Again you failed to grasp my point..I only highlighted the recommendation made by SKC, my point, however, was on why it was not tabled in the parliament and discussed..and why the media let it pass. If the Dhar committee had a principle and a point, Andhra shouldn’t have been created..only should have come into existence after the first SRC. Your argument is similar to political parties defending a ‘riot’ by pointing out to an old ‘riot’. “The Chapter 8 was proof enough that the SKC was bought over by the Seemandhra lobby.” I have no idea about this..but again if it was tabled in the parliament it would have seen the light and one would have gotten a chance to expose it.
“I agree with you on the media’s insincereity. Not going to contest that. But Seemandhra politicians were any better ? Why didn’t they take this opportunity to reach out to people in both regions and work towards reconciliation ?”
Where did this come from? I was only talking about what the media should have done. What politicians should have done was not the theme of my post. Again, poor understanding.
“With 175 MLAs, Seemandhra MLAs were always going to reject it.”
If you read the post again, keeping aside all your biases, all I said was..when the center rejected a resolution by the UP assembly to split up the state, how can they force their decision on a divided house? There has to be some basis on why some resolutions are recommended and some not..and my question was why no debate on that? Or are you okay with center acting on their whims and fancies? I am not! “Article 143 does not say the President should consult the Supreme Court always.” Where did I say he always should? Since there was some ambiguity, I thought it was a fit case to consult the SC or at least some discussion on this front should have happened. “If State Assembly’s resolutions matter, then we should disband current Andhra Pradesh, and merge Andhra back into Tamil Nadu because the then Madras Presidency rejected the demand for separate Andhra.It was only after hectic lobbying with the Centre that Andhra got a state of it’s own.” As I mentioned before, justifying a riot with a riot. But here you are also ignorant..true Madras Presidency had rejected the demand for separate Andhra, but this was before center intervened.Once it did, they convinced them, and when the Andhra State act was sent to the madras assembly by the president, they didn’t reject it…infact, there was even voting on what should be the capital of the new state among the members belonging to the andhra region. Compare that with what happened in the AP state assembly…you have your answer.
” Article 3 is needed to prevent tyranny of the majority. The rights to create new states should be vested with the Centre , and Centre alone in a country with vast variety of cultures.
“Tyranny of the majority? Are you kidding? Did you consider the fact that there would be some people in the telangana region who wouldn’t want a separate state? what about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ on them when the state is formed? I dare the center to make that argument, state that as the reason, and then we shall see its ramifications. No substance all rhetoric.
Federal principles ? Dude, India is not a federation. Stop parroting what your Seemandhra media utters. India is an indestructable Union of destructable states. Find me the word Federation in the Indian Constitution. It has been opined by Constitutional experts like DD Basu and Subash Kashyap that India is not a federation. So stop your delusions and read some book on the Indian Constitution by these 2 authors. I have done so and it is firmly stated that India is a Union of states , but not a federation !
Debatable whether I should have used the phrase “Federal Principles”. But I used it to convey the vagueness in the center-state relationship…on where to draw the line. “Stop parroting what your Seemandhra media utters“...Here comes the racist part.What made you assume that I come from the seemandhra region? So, if anyone questions the case for ‘separation’ he should be from seemandhra region? You clearly can’t think better. You are objectively challenged. And to where I picked the “Federal Principles” phrase..Parliament in this session rejected the “communal violence bill” on the point that, if enacted, it would violate “federal structure” of the country. Yes, they used that phrase. Now, that doesn’t make it right..it only says that there is a huge scope for debate in this area..and we missed that opportunity…that is all I suggested!
“No principle is ever consistent.”
A friend once said to me “there are no absolutes, stop looking for them”..I asked him “Are you sure?”…he replied “Absolutely”. So your statement “No principle is ever consistent” atleast is that consistent? You are a mystic, who encourages falsehood by masking the truth. Without principles one will be at the mercy of the whims and fancies of the rulers. It is the rule of the law and not rule of the rulers. To quote Aristotle in this regard “Laws should be constructed so as to leave as little as possible to the decision of those who judge.
As such, India never had a firm policy of linguistic states alone. If so, why was Uttrakhand carved out of AP ? Basic common sense.Where in the Constitution has it been enshrined that the basis for formation of states should be linguistic principles alone ? About democratic aspirations of other statehood demands, no other demand was promised statehood. Both BJP and Congress , in the case of Telangana, gave their promise for a separate state. Keep that in mind.
Man, you didn’t read the post. You skimmed through it, got the sense that it was against the telangana formation and you started ranting. The first state re-organisation committee set up by the center gave the basis for linguistic states. Center had adopted it ..thus it became a default policy. Then, during the NDA regime, three new states were formed which deviated from the linguistic basis; but there was consensus. Ideally, it should have constituted a new SRC , formed a basis and then should have divided. But on the floor of the house, the then home minister Advani, answering a question related to state re-organisation, said that for a new state formation, though its not a sufficient condition, the state assembly resolution was necessary. To my knowledge, thats the last stated position of the center on the state reorganisation principle. Based on this evidence, two principles can be drawn..a state demand becomes legitimate if there is a linguistic basis or if there is consensus.
If so, why was Uttrakhand carved out of AP ? Basic common sense
Basic common sense says you can’t justify a riot with a riot. But here if we apply ‘consensus’ principle uttrakhand is legitimate. I mentioned this in my post.
About democratic aspirations of other statehood demands, no other demand was promised statehood. Both BJP and Congress , in the case of Telangana, gave their promise for a separate state. Keep that in mind.
Here we are talking about principles, and not election promises. They can be anything. Also you are factually wrong. If you are one for nuances, Congress didn’t say they will form ‘telangana’ no matter what. In 2004 manifesto, they said they will constitute a second SRC to study Telangana and other state demands. In 2009 manifesto, they said a state committee will be formed to study the issue and try to bring ‘consensus’. Where is that committee? and where is the consensus? And yes, mine was poorly researched article and your comments were spot on with facts.
On hindsight, what did the Andhra Pradesh Government do to dispel the myths and fears ? They tried to suppress the movement rather than addressing concerns. The high handed attitude of the Government dominated by administrators and politicians of Seemandhra contributed to the existing chaos and hatred. Nothing was done by them to address genuine concerns of Seemandhraites. Probably they were under the illusion that Telangana will never be formed ? If anything , it is them who need to be blamed for this predicament.
This is completely irrelevant to the post. I don’t speak for the AP govt/seemandhra politicians nor did I make that claim in my article. I will be the first to criticize them, but that is altogether a different argument. Again, poor understanding.
If we adopt an objective principle and stand firm on that..you wouldn’t have these stalemates and people coming on to roads, violence etc. You wouldn’t need to agitate for years..if it complies with the principle..you will be eligible for a state…you can always alter the principle..but has to stated and be consistent.
But rest is pure bullshit. Maybe it will be giving thrills and hope to Seemandhra people who may come across this blog, but to a neutral person like me(I hail from Chennai and noway related to either Andhra or Telangana) who I resided in Hyderabad for a considerable amount of time to understand the genuine concerns of Telangana people. I find no reason for Seemandhra people to force unity on Telangana people who want a separate state. Whether it gives them development or not, I think it is upto them to decide their destiny in their own state , like you Andhra guys did after splitting away from Tamil Nadu.
“like you Andhra guys did after splitting away from Tamil Nadu.” I didn’t even say that I was against the telangana formation..I was simply asking the reasons and the principle involved from the center and why media didn’t extract answers to them,..and you brand me as an “Andhra guy”? What an emotional fool you are! Even if I was one, belonging to a region doesn’t make one responsible for all the rights and wrongs happened through the history in that region. Rascism is the notion of ascribing historical, moral, social or political significance to a man’s lineage. And you are a racist by that standard. Not belonging to either region doesn’t bring objectivity, applying ones mind does. And you clearly failed to. You neither have any regard for principles nor facts. I wouldn’t have used such strong words at other times, but not condemning such emotional rants in the strongest terms possible is the reason for the mess the state is in today.
Media described the pepper spray incident as an attack on the parliamentary democracy. Followed the programming whole day on all the channels- everyone gave lectures on the sanctity of the parliament and how the incident destroyed it.
Before we come to talk about the incident, lets examine the backdrop – the telangana issue.
1. Did the media ever ask this basic question? – ‘on what basis the center is bifurcating the state?’ Thus far states in India were formed either by mutual consent of the affected regions or based on the linguistic framework as prescribed by the first state reorganisation committee. The Telangana demand doesn’t fall into either category. Shouldn’t the union government state the principle on which they are doing this? Did media insist on this?
2. The argument is.. as per Article 3 of the constitution, union government has all the powers to create a separate state. True, but then the question arises – why only Andhra Pradesh? The Article also gives the union the power to club two or more states into one..so tomorrow, they can erase all the boundaries and call India as one state..will we allow it? Yes, there is a popular demand in the region, but how do you ascertain the legitimacy of it? There has to be either a state reorganisation committee(SRC) or atleast a joint parliamentary committee(JPC) recommending it. In fact a committee constituted by the union govt solely to study the telangana issue(the Sri Krishna Committe) recommended keeping the state united as its top option. It also dispelled lot of myths. Crores of rupees of tax payers money was spent on this committee, yet it was not tabled in the parliament. Did media insist on asking why?
3. Anyway, the debate of separate telangana vs united andhra is not anymore relevant. That ship has sailed, thanks to the media, without any scrutiny. Lets get to the AP re-organisation draft bill sent to the state assembly for its views. Needlesss to mention center again did a shoddy job of it. The bill doesn’t contain “Statement of Objects and Reasons”..it is the bare minimum you expect from a bill. Read it again- a bill sent by no less than the president of India to the state assembly to express its “views” on the re-organisation of the state as per the Article 3 of the constitution did not contain “Statement of Objects and Reasons”. On what basis the assembly should give “views”? Moving on, it didn’t provide any clarity on what happens to the ‘residual’ state which will have to let go its capital. No study on the financial implications, no mention of any specifics on how the mother state will be compensated, assets sharing etc. Here Sudhir Kumar writes more about the lack of clarity in the bill. Forget vetting it, did the media even gather a copy of this bill?
4. The state assembly rejected the bill and was sent back to the president. The constitution is a bit vague here. It says a bill of this nature can only be placed in the parliament on the recommendation of the president after him taking the affected state legislature assembly’s “views”. Constitution doesn’t mention anything on what happens in the eventuality of the bill getting rejected. It is assumed that the president will take the final call. Here was a constitutional issue affecting the federal principles of this country and what were the questions asked by the media? – “Will the congress table the bill in this session of the parliament?” And look who answered- “yes, we will”? said Digvijay Singh of the congress who was not even a member of the parliament. Without any reference to whether president would allow it or not. An year back the Uttar Pradesh assembly passed a resolution to divide the state in to four, yet the center didn’t take it up. Here the AP assembly rejected it and still it is being pushed through. In such a situation, one would expect the president to invoke Article 143 of the Constitution of India and refer the matter to the Supreme Court of India for its opinion. No such attempts were made, the president toed his former party’s line and recommended the bill to be tabled in the parliament. To no ones surprise, no questions were asked by the media.
5. Amid din, the bill was introduced in the parliament. This time the bill had “Statement of Objects and Reasons”, but no other major changes. Clarity on the contentious issues still missing. The “Statement of Objects and Reasons” contains the following lines which hints at the basis on which they are dividing.
“The creation of a separate State of Telangana for the betterment of the social, economic, political and other aspirations of the people of that region has been a long standing demand”
“The proposed reorganisation will meet the democratic aspirations of the people of Telangana region”
“Long standing demand” and “democratic aspirations”. How long is ‘long’? No one knows. Democratic aspirations? What happens to democratic aspirations of Bodoland, Ghorkaland and 20 other statehood demands? Why are we deviating from the principle of linguistic basis to form states? Don’t bother asking any such principled questions..until the point where disregarding principles manifests itself in to an ugly event.. then make a hue and cry about the incident but care a zilch about the reasons it lead to it.
6. Ignorance breeds fear. Fear breeds hate. Hate breeds violence. The state has been on the boil for the last 4 years, yet no measures were taken by the union government to dispel the myths. Even at this crucial hour, PM doesn’t see it fit to address the people of this state. PM recently held a press conference and why no media put this question to him?
How many remember media asking the questions listed here? Instead the question they would repeatedly ask are..When will the chief minister resign? When will the cabinet ministers resign? How many seats congress will get with this bifurcation? Which party has the advantage? And this media is talking about the sanctity of the parliamentary democracy? If they really cared about it, where were they when the central govt was openly disregarding all the procedures and trying to force their decision? You think ‘pepper spray’ brings disrepute to the parliament and not flouting principles? In the heat of the moment, if a player sledges it is certainly against the gamesmanship and condemnable, but what brings real shame to the game is when players/match officials cheat, fix or indulge in other malpractices to force a particular result. Its ok for the media to sit in their own bubble at the corridors of power and not raise these legitimate questions, but to lecture on the sanctity of parliament smacks of hypocrisy.
Gurajada Apparao, a 19th century telugu poet, wrote these famous lines “Desamante matti kaadoyi, desamante manushuloyi” meaning, “a piece of land doesn’t make a country, people do”. Parliament means not the building or the place where parliamentarians sit; its about the principles, procedures, discussions, debates. By pass all or any, the sanctity is lost. The ‘pepper spray incident’ didn’t bring the reputation of the parliament down, it only symbolized already lost reputation and sanctity.
A wave of emotions hits the rock..to draw it back into the sea of memories.
The wave recedes; despite having its cheeks wet, the rock stands still!
మనిషిని నడిపించేది స్వార్దం కాదట
“మన” అను మమకారమట
“నా” అను భావన వ్యర్దమట
నిస్వార్దమే జీవిత పరమార్దమట
అంతరాత్మను తాకట్టు పెట్టాల్సిందేనట,
ప్రపంచం ముందు మొకరిల్లి దేహీ!అని అడుక్కోవాల్సిందేనట
నీ జీవితం లోకం పెట్టిన భిక్షమట
వారు నిర్ణయించిందే నీ లక్ష్యమట
త్యాగాలా పై వారు ప్రపంచశాంతికి యాగాలు చేస్తారట
వ్యక్తిగత ఆలోచనలని ద్రవంగా కరిగించి హోమంలో పోస్తారట
అది తిరిగి ప్రపంచానికి శాంతి పరిమళాలు వెదజల్లుతుందట
ఇది లోకళ్యాణమట, పచ్చి మోసమట
ఆత్మబలిదానానికి అందమైన మారు పేరట
త్యాగాల తో వచ్చేది శాంతి కాదని
గొంతు కోసి అమౄతాన్ని తాగించలేరని
కళ్ళు పీకి ప్రకౄతి అందాలని చూపలేరని
మనఃశాంతి కి మించిన ప్రపంచశాంతి లేదని
సమూహానికి అంతరంగం ఉండదని,
అది మనిషికి మాత్రమే సాధ్యమని
తెలియక జరుగుతున్న ఘర్షణ
ఇది నా అను నిజానికి, మన అను అభూత కల్పనకి మద్య సంగ్రామం
సమయం మించిపోతుంది – స్వార్ధమా? త్యాగమా?
చీకటి జీవితం లో ఒక ఙ్నాపకం మెరిసింది
ఉరుమై మనసులో ఝల్లుమంది
మేఘం గుండె బరువెక్కింది
పుడమి వడిలో విలపిస్తుంది
చెట్టూ చేమా తల్లడిల్లాయి
వాగు వంకా భోరుమన్నయి
ఈ వరద ఉదౄతిని ఆపేదెవ్వరు?
ఈ చీకటి పొరలు చీల్చేదెవ్వరు?
ఎవ్వరొస్తారు ఈ కటిక రాత్రి లో
నీలో నిర్జీవమైన ఆశలని మేల్కొలుపు,
చీకటి జీవితానికి వీడ్కోలు పలుకు
నీ సంకల్ప బలానికి పనిపెట్టు,
ఈ ప్రవాహానికి అడ్డుకట్టు
ఈ చీకటి నది ని ఎదురీది, రేపటి కానుకనందుకో
కొండా కోనల నడుమ, కిలకిలా రాగాల తో
తొలి ఉషస్సు నీకై ఎదురు చుస్తుంది
నునువెచ్చని కిరణ కాంతి లో
పసుప్పచ్చని వర్ణ ప్రకౄతి లో
చిగురించిన కొత్త కోర్కెల తో
ఇదే నీకు తొలి వసంతం
ప్రారంబించు నీ ఆనందపు మలి ప్రయత్నం!
RaviThinks 