कैनवास

बड़ी बेतक्कलुफी से उसने सामने पड़े कैनवास पर पानी का जग उढ़ेल दिया . लाल , पीले , हरे और नीले रंग गहराते , फीके पड़ते मानो अतीत , वर्तमान और भविष्य को गडमड कर चले . टप्प टप्प कर एक एक बूँद रंगीन छीटों से निर्मला के सुन्दर पावों पर इन्द्रधनुषी रंग बिखेरने लगे . निर्मला शांत, स्तब्ध, एकदम निर्विकार सी अपने उस कल्पना जगत के झलक की रंगीन बर्बादी को निहारती रही.

उमेश कल ही लन्दन से लौटा था. कारोबार के सिलसिले में अब वो महीनों घर से बाहर रहता. आता भी तो चाँद घंटों के लिए - शायद इसलिए की उसकी जिम्मेवारियां कभी कभी उसके अल्ट्राबिजी शेडयूल पर शर्मिंदगी और उपेक्षा की नज़रें गड़ा देती. तब उमेश निर्मला को ऐसे चूमता मानो उन सिमटे लम्हों में वो अपनी ज़िन्दगी का सारा प्यार, निर्मला के प्रति अपनी सारी संवेदनाएं उसे सौंप कर मुक्त होना चाहता हो. और फिर अचानक सब शांत, सब चुप - एक पसरा सन्नाटा, निरर्थक अंतराल.

निर्मला ने धीरे धीरे अपनी दुनिया रंगों के बीच समेट ली. भूरे, काले, मरून, बैगनी रंगों के विस्तार में डूबता उसका मन पीले, नीले, लाल, हरे रंगों में बिहंस पड़ता. निर्मला ने रंगों को अपनी साधना, अपनी कल्पना, अपनी कामना और अपना सम्मान बना लिया था. और ये सब एक ऐसे ढर्रे में होता चला गया जहाँ वो न जानते हुए भी जा गिरी और जब उठी तो उसकी दुनिया रंगीन हो चुकी थी.

उमेश और निर्मला ने साथ रहने का फैसला किया था. बारह सालों के रोमांस के बाद उन्हें लगा की इतने बड़े शहर में साथ रहना अधिक सहूलियत भरा होगा. दोस्तों ने इसे प्यार का नाम दिया, परिवारवालों ने पागलपन का. पर इन दोनों ने एक मौन सहमति का - किस बात की, ये शायद खुद भी नहीं जानते.

शाम हो चली थी. निर्मला ने ज़मीन पे चू चुके रंगों की परत को पैर के अंगूठे से सहलाया. ज़मीन पर एक विचित्र से रंग की छाप बन रही थी - ऐसा रंग जिसे नाम न दिया जा सके; सभी रंग थे उसमे पर किसी एक का स्वतंत्र रूप नहीं था. उमेश और निर्मला पहले हर शाम, साथ में खिड़की के आमने सामने बैठे, क्षितिज को निहारते, सूरज को डूबते देखते. साथ ही चाय की अंतिम घूँट लेते. अब तो याद भी नहीं की पिछली शाम साथ कब गुजरी थी.

कॉल बेल बजी. निर्मला ने अनमने भाव से दरवाज़े की ओर कदम बढाया, की होल से देखा. हलके फिरोजी रंग की शर्ट की बटन खोलता, टाई ढीली करता उमेश बाहर खड़ा था. निर्मला ने दरवाज़ा खोला. उमेश ने ज़मीन पर रंगीन, मटमैले पावों की छाप को देखा, निर्मला को देखा और एक फीकी सी मुस्कान के साथ उसके बालों को सहलाया. पूछा, "चाय नहीं बनाओगी?"

निर्मला कैसे समझाये खुद को की साथ रहकर भी वे एक दूसरे के नहीं हैं. एक स्वतंत्र उच्छ्वास है इस रिश्ते में. निर्मला उमेश को नहीं कह सकती किं आज कहीं मत जाओ. उमेश तो शायद ही कभी किसी से कोई अपेक्षा रखता हो.

निर्मला ने चाय बनाई. उमेश ने चाय के प्याले को कैनवास के एक सिरे पर रखते हुए धीरे धीरे सारी चाय उस पर उढ़ेल दी. एक विद्रूप से भाव को चेहरे पे समेटते हुए कहा, "निर्मला कल से किटी इस घर में शिफ्ट कर रही है. तुम चाहो तो यहाँ रहो या फिर पीछे वाला एक कमरा खाली करवा दो.

निर्मला शांत, निशब्द, चुप, किंकर्त्तव्यविमूढ़ सी बैठी शून्य को निहारती रही. उमेश ने चाय की दूसरी कप पी और डूबते सूरज की अंतिम किरण को निर्मला के चेहरे को चूमते देखा. उसने कैनवास पर काला रंग चढ़ाया और घंटों निर्मला को निहारता, उस पर उँगलियाँ, रंग और ब्रश फिरता रहा.

सुबह हो चुकी थी. निर्मला ने कैनवास पर उमेश की निर्मला को देखा, उमेश को देखा और कुछ देर में अपना सूटकेस पैक कर ले आई. उमेश ने बाहर टाक्सी का इंतजाम कर दिया था.

बगीचे में चोरी से घुसता सिन्दूरी सूरज शर्म से लाल था. निर्मला ने सामान रखा और दोबारा अन्दर आई. किचन से पानी का जग लाया और कैनवास पर दे मारा. कैनवास के अधसूखे रंग कई धाराओं में अट्टहास कर चले.

उमेश स्तब्ध था. उसने धीरे से कहा, "यही परिणति है निर्मला. यही प्यार है शायद. मत जाओ न."

A bite at Arundhati's anti-Anna sandwich...

I am no Anna-fan. I have reservations against his version of the
Lokpal Bill as i have against the government's and the recent one by
Ms. Aruna Roy. But i do support the need for a strong and effective
Lokpal at any cost. In this article i shall try to deconstruct the
arguments put forth by Ms. Arundhati Roy in the article published on
the opinion page in The Hindu on the 22nd of August 2011. I shall
launch the rebuttals by mentioning the location of Ms. Roy's arguments
in the said article.

The first paragraph begins by calling the movement "embarrassing and
unintelligible" and assumes in the conclusive assertion that it is a
movement about Anna Hazare only. The point, Ms. Roy, is that you
forget it has members like Prashant Bhushan on his panel to satisfy
your assessment and parameter of 'intelligence'. Mr. Pashant Bhushan
is a person, Ms. Roy, with whom you have collaborated a number of
times in campus protests on various issues. Reality check needed, the
humble, Ms. Roy for there are people like Arvind Kejriwal who have
been spearheading and master-minding the movement since its inception.

Paragraph fourth : Ms. Roy says the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) "will
administer a giant bureaucracy...." Either Ms. Roy seems to have not
read the Bill or seems to have not been able to "intelligently"
comprehend the same. The JLB is merely a bill that seeks to construct
a strong Lokpal at the centre and Lokayuktas at state level to act as
curative or a preventive bodies in the present context; to deal with
systemic corruption in governance primarily at the top levels of
bureaucracy, ministries etc etc.Ms. Roy's subtle assertion, and a
factually incorrect one comes at a point in time in the article after
she has categorically labelled the same as "draconian" and declared a
factually flawed version of its understanding. Ms.Roy, are you too
influenced by the linguist Noam Chomsky(which actually you are as you
say) to argue a case which in terms of philosophy would account to
misleading vividness based on flawed, dramatic premise? Or is it an
intentional act of abusing language to inflate the degree of your
assertion so that two wrongs make a right.

Paragraph fifth: Ms. Roy's grand narrative of the common woman's grief
and dilemma is exactly what the JLB seeks to address, if Ms. Roy
chooses to read the bill sincerely and with an 'intelligent' mind that
is. Ms. Roy, the public declaration of individual government servant's
work profile in the Citizens' Charter, as demanded by the JLB, will
make it easier for any "her" to be aware of the vulnerability of any
government office to come under Lokpal's surveillance. Also, the
Lokpal is merely to investigate and prosecute the corrupt officials
and not to help her get a license to set up her business.

Paragraph Sixth:I wonder why Ms. Roy chooses to attend seminars and
protest meetings by liberal elitists who basically work in the
language of symbols that are as "aggressive and flag waving" as she
alleges the Anna-supporters to be.

Paragraph seventh and third: It is indeed unfortunate that Irom
Sharmila's fast could not gain as much of a mass support as Anna got
but to dismiss the ongoing as populist is to dismiss the opinions of
millions of thousands of common men and women who have been attending
the same with as much of fever with which you speak on NBA, Ms. Roy.
Yes, India is by and large a bourgeois society. Yes, that office goers
did not identify with other causes as much as they did with this one
in the same spirit. Yes, more and more urban people have been lending
solidarity to the same. But Ms. Roy had you chosen to take a pulse of
the ailing thousands of Indians, or people residing in India as would
prefer to address them politically, you would have known for a fact
that villagers from Haryana came to attend the movement too. There
were large scale demonstrations in Ralegan Siddhi. These are, Ms. Roy,
if you know the Indian demographics correct, not people from the urban
conglomerates. Further, eunuchs from Haryana too came to register
their protest in favour of Anna's stand. The surviving victims of
Bhopal Gas Tragedy too lent out their voices in his support. So, Ms.
Roy, kindly do not resort to clubbing these sizeable numbers in your
pompous plethora of sophisticated tag in some arbitrary and extremely
fascist linguistic jargon. These are the also among the 'marginalised'
who you think have absolutely no representation in Anna's movement.
Ms. Roy, if you choose to hear out Anna a little more, you would have
appreciated the fact that he did talk about farmers' protest and other
issues apart from the JLB. Humble Ms. Roy, the country for the time
being is merely focused on one issue because no movement can bite on
too many issues to chew the cud properly. Perhaps grapes seem sour to
you as not many support your stand on issues more than once.

Ms. Roy you had come to campus to attend a meeting by agitating
academicians against semester system in April. You said on being asked
and i quote,"The whole Anna thing is bullshit!" I wonder, how you
managed to pen an article on "bullshit" so feverishly. Also,if coming
to attend the agitation then was an act of solidarity to 'people' at
large celebrating the right to express themselves in a democracy, i
wonder how to rate your argument on scale of determining a stand
vis-a-vis elitist politics. Is your support for democracy only then
when a small coterie invites you to attend a protest or when your
"love-bites" to media, as you cynically used the phrase in a similar
meet at campus supporting Valentine's Day celebrations, are deep
enough to bypass the popularity of a "fresh-minted saint", as you
chose to call Mr. Hazare in your article?

You did not attend the slut walk. Does that mean you do not support
the feminist cause. You did not speak about the terror attack when
Mumbai wept. Pardoned then, when Taj was attacked, may be because it
targeted the capitalists. But even this time also you did not. They
were plebians in Zaveri Bazar who were hit. Does that mean, Ms. Roy,
you do not share any one these concerns. When you are entitled to not
lay hands on every issue that demands as immediate attention as say
the Kashmir controversy, does not the same argument apply to other
'popular' leaders of their times? Do members of the civil society also
have the right to choose which issues they wish to address without
being slotted in neat categories by liberal democrats who are as
staunch in their views as say the far right RSS. Ms. Roy, in order to
be an activist or a mass leader, you need not always be an
anti-capitalist, anti-establishment, anti-government each time. There
are people who 'intelligent'ly work within the system to clean it up.
So. Ms. Roy, when you say that Anna and and the Maoists are one in the
sense that they seek to overthrow the government, i demand my right to
differ be respected. Maoists resort to callous violence to overthrow
the state power. This mass upsurge seeks to make the government
accountable and answerable by absolutely non-violent means. Anna never
demanded UPA to step down from power. He has been asking him to merely
table a bill in the parliament. Identify the difference, Ms. Roy.

I agree that Arundhati Roy has a notable observation to make regarding
the absolute silence in the Jan Lokpal Bill on corporate corruption.
But unfortunately she fails to propose a model on how to try to cater
to putting a check on the same. Ms. Aruna Roy has a couple of
constructive interventions to make in her version of the Lokpal Bill
too. The need of the hour is to work for bringing a collaborative
definition of a strong Lokpal instead of merely dismissing this mass
movement as bourgeois humbug. Hope Ms. Arundhati respects and
appreciates the law of democracy in terms of not just championing the
trumpet of the freedom of expression but also the humility and
'intelligence' to listen to what others have to say. And hope that
civil societies collaborate structurally and ideologically to
contribute their dutiful bit in bringing up a strong Lokpal Bill.

To the suddenly shaken us....

Corruption is a systemic and, in the present context, a systematic mechanism of abuse of power one holds in his or her position. It not only depreciates the moral climate of the political, social, sociological and other manifest aspects of public life but fails the very essence of a democratic setup. To think about completely rooting out this flaw that has become inherent and congenital to the DNA of the public office via a structural framework is therefore an anticipated and a natural response to the subjects under a flawed and corrupt government. Therefore, the UPA going on strategically stupid and politically poor moves to contain the Anna fever by extremely unconstitutional and really illogical steps puts up a very sad state of affairs. However,with due respect to the Anna fever, one needs to identify the key contentions between the twin drafts of the Jan Lokpal Bill and the Lokpal Bill tabled by the members of the civil society and the government respectively, trying responsibly to tap the potential of the mass movement in an informed and involved debate so as to bring in affirmative action to call for accountability in the governance.

First things first. In terms of the credibility and efficacy of bringing in transparent accountability in offices meant to work "for the people", the Jan Lokpal Bill clearly wins over its counterpart. But to hail it as the panacea for all ills is again a case of mass hysteria ruling over rational and logical wisdom. It is necessary to understand that the need for a structure that brings the higher echelons of power under scanner is the immediate and absolute necessity of time today especially when so many scams and open and brazen display of foul play has revealed the dangerous faces of various governments at the state and central levels robbing people of thier rightful share of services, resources and of course the exchequer. Therefore, the fact that PMO, top executives, bureaucrats and the judiciary need to be put up for scrutiny is for all of us to support and extend solidarity to in this combined fight against corruption.

In a parliamentary democracy, to put the PM in the hands of civil society members to be punished if he breaches his code of conduct is fundamentally problematic, especially when technically he enjoys his elected status. In such a case, his office can be deemed an exception. As a model, investigations against him can happen under the vigilant eyes of the Lokpal and after arriving at findings against him, the judiciary can take charge in punishing him within a strictly stipulated time period and under open scrutiny to the public eyes. Also, the Lokpal's office too should be put into scanner and any allegation against his misconduct be punished via independent and open investigations against him where people have full access to proceedings of the investigations under way. Also, the corporate honchos and the politics-economics liasion need to be taken to task too especially when cases like Karnataka have emerged as prime examples of engineered corrupt ways. The selection of the Lokpal is a problem to counter which no workable model emerges from my head.

It is also important for us to understand that despite the fact that BJP and CPI, CPI(M), RJD and almost all national parties have stood up for Anna, most of them categorically deny their support to the Jan Lokpal Bill. The need of the hour is to focus the debate around this Bill rather than hero worship a single individual. In fact the trend generated out of venerance by the mob has been manipulated long enough by the media to hike up TRPs and by political parties to create vote banks. It is but obvious that cries to support democracy and fight against corruption would be backed up by all. At a point in time when BJP or any political party can clearly not and will definitely not leave the mass hysteria for it stands to win so much by backing it up, one needs to make them accept categorically their support for the Bill. These vultures need to be stopped from playing dirty games rather than submitting their genuine support for the movement. Till date the various governments have played on the rhetoric of "either you are with us or against us". The time has come when we take them on the offensive. Either, they submit their written support for the Jan Lokpal Bill with constructive and clear interventions and points of clash or they leave the movement immediately to launching their own rhetorical flourish with a free spirit. Indians have long suffered from their lip service anyway.

Further, the media needs to play a pro-active role in materialising this entire aspect. Instead of focusing on useless questions and showy journalistic fervour, it must adopt an involved and stirring debate. In all the protest meetings i went to, invariably the entire gamut of electronic media was engaged in this emotional and sentimental rendering of the protest venue and atmosphere. This needs to change. As members going out to lend support to the movement instead of appearing as mere props to the TRP boosting coverage, one can take charge of actually utilising the space to shift the perspective of the mob hysteria to an involved and a healthy debate.

Anna's fast is totally in the democratic spirit. Just as one has the right to freely abuse him in a press conference on really shoddily investigated allegations and unchecked verbal diarrhea of totally unparliamentary language, Anna or anyone for that matter has the democratic right to stage protest in any form. More so, because in a historical context when voices of dissent to the governmental structure and policies are met with callous and indifferent ears and at times with rampant , violent and unaccounted force and coercion, one needs to put a stern and inflamed foot forward to assert a position, especially on an issue that has unprecedented support across parties, ideologies etc. etc. Hence, the fact that Anna has emerged as a national crusader for a strong Lokpal needs to be respected and supported by all.

It is necessary to note that in the case of corruption in a country as populous, as large and as diverse as ours, a foolproof mechanism to tackle the same within a structural model is next to impossible. But to leave hope or to rubbish the efforts is indifferent and irresponsible too. Also, the hypocritical optimism behind the whole movement as a sure shot way to eliminate the menace from the roots needs to be clipped for a sane and balanced assessment of the status quo . Let us realise that the Jan Lokpal Bill can at the maximum be a preventive or a curative step to better the existing system and not a constructive one to build a new one. Despite all fair claims of hope, at the end of the day self custody, self restraint, self morality and individually strong moral conscience would decide what kind of an order we wish to be a part of.

On August 17 when i moved out to register my presence at the Chhatrasal Stadium, a seven-year old girl old girl in my locality said to her mom, "Anna baba ko arrest kar liya hai."

I stopped and asked her, "Who is Anna?"

She said, "Gandhi ji".

I pushed further,"Kyun arrest kiya?"

She replied, "Kyunki TV mein keh rahe hain ki woh lad rahe hain?"

I continued," Toh accha hai na, ladna toh galat baat hai. Police ne toh sahi kiya."

She disagreed with emphatic shaking of her head, Nahi nahi didi, woh keh rahe hain ki sab cheezon ki mehngai kam karo. Toh ye toh achha kam hai."

The cynic in me could merely smile at her innocent yet apt grasp of the happenings. I had the courage for the first time to say "Amen" to her last words.