Sunday, May 23, 2010


- I -
LOVE SANS EXPECTATIONS IS THE ONLY REALISTIC SENTIMENT: all else is either self deception or a market trade off.

"Often a tyrant and a lover R two sides of a coin which in reality is an abusive relationship. It may last ur whole life or a few yrs.When u'r up on the cloud of ecstasy,nothing can bring u down. When eventually, u do come down, u see the reality. Then u may cry or laugh or do both.

I think you are still talking about a love ( the proper name for it is desire) which is all surrender in the silent hope of reward today , tomorrow or twenty years hence. I am talking of love where the need for reward has vanished because there is nothing your beloved can give you beyond the happiness which you already experience. You, it seems, are still talking about kindergarten mush love, of the mills and boons variety-- which is beautiul in its own right but which does not qualify to be called love as Meera or nanak experienced it. A beloved becomes a tyrant only when you placce the tools of tyranny in his/her hands; and those tools have names like expectations for a requited love. Love can not be requited -- need not be. Desire always must be requited. That is why any relationship based on desire, howsoever refined, subtle or silent the desire may be, will evnetually come down, leaving you in tears. Love without a desire for reward is not an experience of cloud nine; it is an experience down to earth. It is is the only realistic approach to love ; all else is either self deception or a mere market trade off. Self-deception as in teenager romance; market trade off, as in most relations we see, including those between husbands and wives. A market trade off need not necessarily be an quitable exchange of assets like money or real estate; it can be an equitable exchange of egos.I am talking about love as Bulle Shah experienced IT , and NOT about teenage passion as in Bobby of the 1970s or the "mutual respect" brand made popular by marriage counsellors.We need to be on the same page to carry this discussion forward. Of all the persons I know, I count you among the few capable of a serious look at issues.

- - II --
RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOTHING BUT STRINGS WHILE LOVE IS A SPRING THAT TOUCHES LILACS INTO BLOOM IN THE GARDEN OF YOUR HEART. Fragrance does not tie itself to strings. Neither does love. Relationships, on the other hand, are nothing but strings. Everything about relationships is mutual: mutual trust, mutual respect, mutual understanding, mutual accommodation, mutual adjustments, mutual this, mutual that, mutual the other. Relationships , no matter how much we glorify them, remain market trade offs --well packaged deals of mutual convenience. Most relationships -- including friendships and marriages -- end up being well disguised packages between two trading parties. Love has nothing to do with relationships. Love transcends the need to have relationships. Love is a feeling that fills and electrifies your heart for no reason at all. A mother loves her child even before any relationship exists between the two. In fact, the more a mother-child love is reduced to a relationship, the less sublime and less durable it becomes. The surest way to kill love is to confuse it with a relationship. Most of us put boundaries around our understanding of love because of our refusal to see that love and relationship are two different things. The only relationship a lover has with his/her object of love is love -- and that feeling operates beyond "terms and conditions." Lets never cheat ourselves by declaring that we love our spouses or siblings or friends while what we actually mean is that we enjoy good relationships with them. Love is a spring breeze that sets lilacs in the garden of your heart in bloom. It makes no demands. Let not even your demands for fidelity disfigure your love. Love is best summed up in two lines addressed to your beloved:
"Khilaao phool kissi ke, kissi chaman main raho ,/ Jo dil ki raahon se guzri hai woh bahaar ho tum./"

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Hazel: Love without a care for a return gift is no teenage stuff: it is saints stuff.

To love without a care for whom you love and why is no teenager stuff; it is indeed a saint stuff. The moment you start disliking yourself for having loved without an expectation for a return gift, you can be sure you have regressed into teenage desires called love. A saint's love has no uses for reward. All great lovers are saints; all saints great lovers.

3 minutes ago · ·

Friday, May 21, 2010

God is nice if he bevaves like my pet dog

"God is of course a very sweet and nice person so long as he bevaves like our dog... loving and faithful to us but barking at and biting every body else.

Classics and best sellers

We read new books because our mind is is always seeking expansion into new, unknown, unheard of zones.And the same mind seeks the same zones by looking for and often finding new ways of looking at the old familiar zones. To aevey new reader, an old classic is as much new as a new ... See Morebook by the latest author. But classics obviously have date lines. This is how classics differ from best sellers that come and go. A classic is an all time best seller if an appreciative audience/readership/ viewership is what it seeks as a price. Thanks for raising such perceptive questions. You surely make our minds dive deeper to look for pearls hiddenat the bottom of the seas. A classic is also an answer to the questions raised audibly or silently like this.

A classsic has no date-line. This is how classics differ from best sellers that come and go. A classic is an all time best seller as an appreciative audience is what it seeks as price.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Hazel ed -- Star stuff and the Citizens of the Universe

A question of identity and identification.
(From Facebook interaction)
Sonu Jasmit Dosanjh : But i am not an indian or a punjabi but the citizen of the world..... With apologies to Socratese.... What abt that ;-)·

Harcharan Bains @Sonu Jasmit Dosanj: We are all citizens of the world.And that does not mean being a citizen of this planet alone but being star stuff, a molecular representation of the vast cosmos. No one knows where exactly did the molecule thats you and me originaite after the Big Bang, hhow long did it travel like sea farer across galaxies and milky ways , ... See Morepassing through how many supernova -- each one of us, as Carl Sagan, is star stuff seeking the stars.That said, each one of us is also a forceful identity -- in fact, each one of us is a multi-identity. At one level, you are just you, Jasmit Dosanjh , son of so and so, resident of such and such village or town, speaking such and such language, beleiving in such and such faith, having such and such colour of skin .. and so on. On another level, we submerge all these identities to take on a new, vast identity - being a citizen of the world still being just a few steps short of identifying with the cosmos. Each one of us breaks the shackles of provincialism of intellect to disperse in the limitless existence known as nature, cosmos and a thousand other names -- one which is God too. It is our pleasure and privilege to nurtue each one of these identities.All citizens of the world also ahve names which are distinct from one another -- names, relgions , provinces, colours, creeds, countries, sub-contnents , continents etc.Preserving these multiple identities ---every proud Punajbi is also a proud Indian and every Proud Indian is also a proud citizens of the world; one identity does not contradict the other, if our approach to their preservation is enlightened and not a victim of fanatical exclusivism or bigotry. Be proud of being a world citizen -- a cosmic molecular identitity and a complete idnetification witht eh whole universe is still better. But be proud of who you are without being contemptujous of who the other guys are. Do I get close to undestanding your question? (I wouldn't be presumptous enough to believe I ahve answered that. )Lets have others opinion too.25 minutes ago · Sonu

Jasmit Dosanjh Heh, well said! I agree!

Sonu Jasmit Dosanjh (again after a pause)

Hmmm first of all, well said n i agree whole heartedly but (there's always a but the qus is if it's a cute butt) i think the ques is which id do we give more imp to? R we punjabi first or indian first, r v indian first or world cit first (i don't have a prob w/ cosmics cuz i haven't met a martian who i didn't like, well not yet anyways). I think if we r able to merge all these ids n not have a quota sys of pref then we can have truly peaceful existance .

Harcharan Bains
@Agree. But again there is a but ...but we are all Martians, Venutians, Saturnians and earthlings at the same time, because we are just the scattered mass of the same zero singulaity that bombed at the big bang. The same star stuff everywhere. And I am talking only of astros-physics and not of mysticism which also has visions of reality in the same form

Hazel: "I will protect my God. " she whispered, almost in his ears:

Yesterday at 6:49am (Adapted from a message to DRHB)
He was tired but it was not the tiredness of a defeated man.He had been throuhg a long day of hope and, alhough all those hopes had not been fulfilled yet, neither had these been dashed. He was feeling very close to her, and as she looked far towards a moon which seemd to move slowly through the white clouds,he let his palm runs smoothly down her flowing hair, gently pressing against her back. She seemed to be oozing as much silent love as the moon was breathing out cool moonshine."HOw beautiful this life becomes," he began almost in an undertone, "when you and I think, feel and speak the same things.He paused a little, but then resumed in a voice which was hardly audible and soft " Its like a fresh fragrant breeze blowing through my soul.... you are so light, so sfot , so gentle a presence in and around my heart. I feel like I am secure in the arms of this "amniotic univrse". He was immediately reminded of a piece he had read somewhere where a famou science writer had sought to explain our whole approach to religion through the amniotic exprience of a newely born baby. "Everyman in the most profound moments of love feels like he has gone back in the amniotic sack of security.The woman he loves, the woman whom he would kill the world to protect is also at the same time the greatest source of strength and life and security to him," he felt he was echoing someone else's opinions. But so totally did he seem to identify tiwth these that that it hardly seemed to matter. ." I do not know if girls ever feel that way about the men they love -- for all I know, they do --but for a man to go through this feeling is the final announcement that he has surrendered himself at the doors of the woman he loves." i surrenderat your door thus. She took him in her arms and he sank his face in her lap"You have also been the strong arms around me all your life, " she murmered and brought her cheeks closer to his. There was silence of the mountians between them, a silence that acutally connected their souls.. And then after a pause, she whispred,".Where the rest of the world is concerned , you am the force they have to reckon with if they have to deal with me. ButI know that for now you want to be lost in the velvety comfort of this moment. And I love you even as I worship you," she said. And then, after a pause, " I will protect my God."

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Politicos, bad girls and diapers

My class-mate and dear friend Dev Kaushal says,""Diapers and politicians need to be changed, often for the same reasons." True. And what about governemnt officers, officials, policemen, teachers, journalists, workers-shirkers, shopkeepers, babas, doctors, nurses, commission and travel agents -- in fact, any area of private and public accountability, Dev?" I remember a dialogue from a film --was it Dev Das ? Or Amar Prem ? No. --in which a character saas that a prostitutes are like drains which take in all the dirty waters so that the Ganga could stay clean and pure ; Significantly, politicians are sometimes compared with bad girls. What we find everyday -- even here on the facebook -- that people from all walks of life, who do not hesitate to turn to politicans for petty undue favours are the ones whoE pass jusdgements on the system. And politicians are the favourite punching bags of all the clases. NOTING WROMG WITH CRITICISNG THE POLITICIAN ; AFTER ALL, HE IS THE DECISON MAKER, AND THE BUCK STOPS THERE. BUT EH BUCK MUST START SOMEWHERE AND MUST THROUGH ALL CHANNELS AND STREETS AND OFFICES AND FIELDS AND CINEMA HOUSES AND SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND MEDIA HOUSES SHOPPING CENTRES AND MALLS BEFORE IT REACHES THE POLTICIANS. THE TROUBLE ARISES WHEN WE DECLARE THAT SINCE THERE IS A POLITICIAN TO BLAME, ALL THE REST OF THE SOCIETY MUST BE EXONERATED.
Updated on Saturday · Comment ·LikeUnlike

Dhillon Amandeep
sir actually i partially agree with wht u sayin....i agree dat the buck mst start frm the beginin n mst pass on.....n evryone mst be filterd out of his role in society and mst be appreciated or criticized accordingly....but the problm here,specially in context with our scenerio is dat politicains themselves had created this kinda ... See Moreplz xcuse me for blamin them i ll xpalin how n wht i mean to say....u c apne politicians ne ikko eho jehi situation create kar ditti ae,jihde ch j kise nu sabh ton unrealaible te corrupt koi nazar aunda tan oh politicians ne....nodoubt lok beurocracy di gall v krde ne,baki departments di v.....but ultimately natija eh kaddheya janda....k corruptions starts from the laeder e na khan tan ehna di ki himmat.....ya fer hissa uppar tk janda....te eh statements pure taur te kite galat vi hai nhi....te duji gall sade politicians apni moral responsibiltiy ton khud hi dur bhajj gaye ne.....eho jehiyan statements da koi khulle aam virodh vi tan nhi krda?te oh ikk eho jehi jagah te khde ho gaye ne,jo aam lokan nu lgda k inaccesible ae.....te eh hai v shi....pehli gall aam lokan vang ya aam lokan vich vichran wali purane darvesh politicians wali rwait e khtam ho gayi ae.....ajj ik poltician da picchlagg chmcha v ane aap nu aam lokan ton uppar smjhda,te oh lal batti,vaddiyan status symbol bann gayian ne.....ehi haal netavan de rishtedaaran da....tan eho je hallat ch ik aam insaan sabh ton vadh kasurvaar politicians nu e manne,tan koi hairaani di gall nhi......te politician apne aap ch enne k powerfull haige ene ajj de system ch....k oh apne ya apne aale dwale de kamm asaani naal krwa lainde ne....aksar tusin vekhya hona k lokin apne kamm karwaun layi kise politicain nu e kehnde ne....te fer eh soch bann na v aam ae.....k j eh shi kamm krwa skde aa....tan galat kamm rok v skde aa,....te j nhi rok rhe tan ehi karwaunde honge.....?tan aaj di society ch burai da dhura politicain hi bann gaye ne....te m sorry to say bt eh gall j puri nhi tan atleast 80% sach vi main eh nhi kehnda k baakiyan nu jimmewari ton exepmt krdo,bt root cause tan bains saab ehi system ae.....te eh badlu v odon jad politicians apna behave te soch change kar lainge.....oh kehnde a na ke haathi de pair ch hi sabh da pair hunda......
Sunday at 6:03am ·

Hazel: Love is a sovereign

Anonymous said... "Love has nothing to do withthe five senses and the six directions:its goal is only to experiencethe attraction exerted by the Beloved.Afterwards, perhaps, permissionwill come from God:the secrets that ought to be told will be toldwith an eloquence nearer to the understandingof these subtle confusing allusions.The secret is partner with nonebut the knower of the secret:in the skeptic's earthe secret is no secret at all."by Mewlana Jalaluddin RumiMarch 1, 2010 9:22 PMharcharan bains said... Well said and thanks. I still believe there is ONLY one goal for love -- to experience nothing except itself.I know of no other reason to be in love. The beloved is irrelevant to love, for the beloved may stay or disappear, or sometimes may not even be there at all. You will often found yourself overflowing with love for nothing in particular.In love with nothing in particular is close to being in love with everything. A saint's delight. Perhpas thats what the last line -- the one that says something about the secret being a partner with none but the knower --means. But even if it doesn't, thats what it should mean. And if it still doesn't, its not true. Love has to do with lover alone, and the sentiment is not a slave to its object.Love is a sovereign .

Monday, May 17, 2010

Hazel: Scatered centre's of cosmic consciousness

We are all scattered centres of a cosmic consciousness, glowing at different zones and therefore representing different aspects of reality, striving all the time to understand and represent the whole. All this life is a thrust of a drop to return to and be lost in the vast oceans. But as long as it is a drop, it reflects the environs it is placed in. So do we.

Hazel Music is to poetry what spring is to flowers

May 16, t 11:58pm

"Poetry without a sense of music loses half its impact. Music is to poetry what spring is to flowers, rythm is to dance and a beautiful woman is to the love of a romantic. It is impossible to think of one without thinking of the other. Cutting sentences into parts to make them look like verse is only as close to poetry as putting clothes on a mannequin is to being a beautful young woman.Never attempt to say in poetry what you can equally well say in prose, unless you can make others sing your words. "


Saturday, May 15, 2010



"Across thin vaporous boundaries of language sits Truth, inviting, tempting but always receding as your mind advances towards it."

( Harcharan Bains on the paradoxical bonds between truth and Writing)

A writer is nothing if not God and, like God, must always remain knowable but indefinable, palpable but not expressible. Like the God-experience, the experience of writing -- and reading --- must be for ever enjoyable and for ever unknowable; forever knowable and for ever untranslatable. A writer and his reader are in a secret pact always to enjoy the vague intimations of Truth, but never Truth itself. A writer's words end up saying less than he means to convey and a reader reads more than the meaning unexpressed.

And yet, across the thin, vaporous boundaries of language sits Truth, inviting, tempting but always receding as your mind advances towards it. And it denies access not because it means you to know it the less but because it wants you enjoy it the more. If Truth stood where it first appeared, the horizons of your mind would never widen, nor your experience of joy touch the limitless.
Never belittle anything by trying to know it fully, to describe its whole truth. Everything in this universe is a God unto itself and will not yield to you the the core of its secrets. Its under no obligation to feed your petty curiosity. In that sense alone, God resides in every atom and every atom in the universe is a universe by itself, every little soul at once a part of the whole and the whole itself. The moment you focus on any single atom, it slips away and looks askance at you, reflecting the vast universe.
Writing -- like reading -- is much as love is: it binds you to your inner truth by connecting you to the outside world. Writing --like reading -- is as your sweet heart is: she would be loved without being understood. Only mediocre writing is totally understandable from only one angle. And by only one generation. Each new generation rediscovers the classics of the generations gone by. Great writing lends itself to new meanings for new generations. And thus every generation finds something entirely new in an old classic. This is how classics attain immortality.

Great writing is as spring is: it renews itself every year, bringing newer flowers of newer shades . Truth is always fresh; and it always refreshes those who receive it.

Great writing is as spring is: it renews itself every year, bringing newer flowers of newer shades . Truth is always fresh; and it always refreshes those who receive it.
Great writing is as God is: it always contradicts itself, and in doing so it looks at all the contradictions of life and reality. Consistency is a mediocre virtue and does not measure up to the astounding paradoxes of nature. It is a virtue in a moralist but a vice in a genius. There is no such thing as a consistent genius just as they is no such thing as an inconsistent moralist. Consistency comes in handy where goals are narrow and targets low. But a genius rises to dizzy, unseeable heights as much as he plummets to shocking depths. His inconsistencies are inexplicable as the contradictions of God and nature are. A great writer has no use for pedestrian virtues like consistency for he has to traverse vast zones full of extreme opposites, travelling through continents of scorching summers and freezings colds.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Hazel the Himalayas planted in a cemented skydome or in in a down town plaza , or the Garden of Eden walled in with a barbed wire

by Harcharan Bains
I have found that you are like a natural stream flowing through an artificial city, with cemneted embankments and skyscrappers lining around it. The stream dances its way with carefree abnadon through the narrow confines of its artifical definitions , and it is so lovely. made even lovelier by the contrast that a nature afire with spring provides a jungle of concrete. It is like having the Himalayas planted in a cemented skydome or in in a down town plaza , or the Garden of Eden walled in with a barbed wire. The jungle of concrete is the quality of people you meet these days. But , worry not, because they serve only to add to the optical thrill and wonder of your speed, like that of a jumbo which suddenly seems to gain speed as it lands, even though in fact it is at its slowest at that point. The unexciting stillness of the surroundings of the airstrip add to the visual speed of your craft. So it is with people who, who by trying to slow you down, actually serve to highlight your speed and thrill.

Sunday, May 9, 2010


I have never stopped launching my paper boats or flying my kites into the loving skies. The sky has always waited for my kites as my village ponds had waited for my boats. The ponds have become trasn-continental now but my boats dance as playfully on the waters' bosom as they always did when I bunked school to see my ...ships carried to the far end by the wind's gentle push of love.


I BREATHE BECAUSE I HAVE NO CHOICE. i LOVE BECASUE I HAVE NO CHOICE. And , LOVE AND BREATHING,...the day one of the two does not come to me as naturally as the other, I will be gasping in the throes of death. Let me not live if I have to "make an effort" to do either.

ਮੈਂ ਉਜੜੇ ਪਿੰਡੋ ਤੁਰਿਆ ਸਾਂ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਚ’ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਵੱਸਾਂਗਾ, /


ਮੈਂ ਉਜੜੇ ਪਿੰਡੋ ਤੁਰਿਆ ਸਾਂ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਚ’ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਵੱਸਾਂਗਾ, /
ਮੈਂ ਹੰਝੂ ਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਵੇਖੇ ਨਾ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਚ’ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਹੱਸਾਂ ਗਾ; /
ਉਹ ਰੋਈ ਸੀ ਕੁਰਲਾਈ ਸੀ ਤੇ ਦਿੰਦੀ ਰਹੀ ਦੁਹਾਈ ਸੀ, /
ਉਸ ਜਿਗਰ ਨੂੰ ਚੀਰਾ ਦਿਤਾ ਸੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਮਥੇ ਦਾਓਣੀ ਲਾਈ ਸੀ, /
ਮੈ ਦੂਰੋ ਹਥ ਹਿਲਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਉਹ ਬੜੀ ਦੂਰ ਤੱਕ ਆਈ ਸੀ,/
ਮੈ ਪਿਛੇ ਮੁੜ ਕੇ ਵੇਖਿਆ ਨਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਅੱਗੇ ਮੇਰੀ ਕਮਾਈ ਸੀ ,
ਉਹ ਬੈਠ ਬਨੇਰੇ ਰੋਂਦੀ ਰਹੀ ਮੇਰੀਆ ਰਾਹਾਂ ਵੇਹਦੀ ਰਹੀ , /
ਮੇਰੇ ਪੁੱਤ ਦੀ ਚਿਠੀ ਆਵੇਗੀ ਉਹ ਡਾਕੀਏ ਨੂੰ ਏ ਕਹਿੰ ਦੀ ਰਹੀ , /
ਫ਼ਿਰ ਡਾਕ ਕਦੀ ਨਾ ਆਈ ਸੀ ਉਹ ਮੌਤ ਨਾ ਮੱਥਾ ਲਾਉਂ ਦੀ ਰਹੀ,/
ਇਕ ਆਸ ਦਾ ਦੀਵਾ ਬਾਲ ਕੇ ਮਾਂ ਮੇਰੀ ਸ਼ਕਲ ਨੂੰ ਲੌਗ ਚ’ ਵਹਿੰ ਦੀ ਰਹੀ /
ਮੇਰਾ ਪੁੱਤ ਆਇਆ ਤਾ ਦੇ ਦਵੀ ਇਕ ਗੁਥਲੀ ਧੀ ਨੂੰ ਦਿੰਦੀ ਰਹੀ ;/
ਮੈ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਦੇ ਵਾਸੇ ਵੇਖ ਆਈਆ ਮੈ ਰੋਂਦੇ ਹਾਸੇ ਵੇਖ ਆਈਆ ,/
ਹਰ ਆਸ ਬੇਆਸੀ ਵੇਖੀ ਮੈ ਸਭ ਖਾਲੀ ਕਾਸੇ ਵੇਖ ਆਇਆ , /
ਹਰ ਪਾਸੇ ਹਸਰਤ ਰੋਦੀ ਸੀ ਮੈ ਸਾਰੇ ਈ ਪਾਸੇ ਵੇਖ ਆਇਆ /
ਮੈ ਭੁਖ ਤੋ ਡਰ ਕੇ ਦੌੜਾ ਸਾਂ ਉਥੇ ਵੀ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਵੇਖ ਆਇਆ/
ਇਹ ਝਾਕੇ ਦਿੰਦੀ ਦੁਨਿਆ ਨੂੰ ਦੌਲਤ ਦੇ ਝਾਕੇ ਵੇਖ ਆਇਆ /
ਜਦ ਗਿਆ ਸਾ ਸਿਖਰ ਦੁਪਿਹਰ ਸਾ ਇਕ ਠਾਂਠਾ ਮਾਰ੍ਦੀ ਲਹਿਰ ਸਾ ਮੈ/
ਸੂਰ੍ਜ ਦਾ ਪੈਂਡਾ ਵੇਖਿਆ ਨਾ ਜਦ ਮੁੜਿਆ ਆਖਰੀ ਪਹਿਰ ਸਾ ਮੈ /
ਮੈ ਚਾਨਣ ਅੱਪਣਾ ਵੇਚ ਆਇਆ ਅੱਜ ਬੜਾ ਹੀ ਘੁਪ ਹਨੇਰ ਸਾ ਮੈ /
ਮੇਰੀ ਵਕਤ ਨੇ ਹਰ ਸ਼ੈ ਖਾ ਲਈ ਸੀ ਹੁਣ ਖਾਲੀ ਪਈ ਚੰਗੇਰ ਸਾ ਮੈ /
ਮੈ ਦੇਰ ਬੜੀ ਹੀ ਕਰ ਆਇਆ ਹੁਣ ਚਾਰ ਦਿਨਾ ਦੀ ਦੇਰ ਸਾ ਮੈ /
ਉਹ ਪਿੰਡ ਹੁਣ ਮੇਰੀ ਥਾਣ ਨਹੀ ਸੀ ਉਹ ਵੇਲ਼ਾ ,ਸਮਾਂ ਨਹੀ ਸੀ /
ਸਭ ਸੜ ਕੇ ਪੱਤੇ ਝੜ ਗੇ ਸਨ ,ਹੁਣ ਰੁੱਖ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਛਾਂ ਨਹੀ ਸੀ /
ਉਹ ਸਾਰੀ ਬਸਤੀ ਬਦਲ ਗਈ ਉਹ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਉਹ ਜਹਾਂਨ ਨਹੀ ਸੀ/
ਮੈ ਜਿੰਦਰਾ ਵੇਖ ਕੇ ਮੁੜ ਆਇਆ ਉਸ ਘਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੇਰੀ ਮਾਂ ਨਹੀ ਸੀ/
ਮੈਂ ਉਜੜੇ ਪਿੰਡੋ ਤੁਰਿਆ ਸਾਂ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਚ’ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਵੱਸਾਂਗਾ, /
ਮੈਂ ਹੰਝੂ ਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਵੇਖੇ ਨਾ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਚ’ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਹੱਸਾਂ ਗਾ; /
ਉਹ ਰੋਈ ਸੀ ਕੁਰਲਾਈ ਸੀ ਤੇ ਦਿੰਦੀ ਰਹੀ ਦੁਹਾਈ ਸੀ, /
ਉਸ ਜਿਗਰ ਨੂੰ ਚੀਰਾ ਦਿਤਾ ਸੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਮਥੇ ਦਾਓਣੀ ਲਾਈ ਸੀ, /
ਮੈ ਦੂਰੋ ਹਥ ਹਿਲਾਇਆ ਸੀ ਉਹ ਬੜੀ ਦੂਰ ਤੱਕ ਆਈ ਸੀ /
ਮੈ ਪਿਛੇ ਮੁੜ ਕੇ ਵੇਖਿਆ ਨਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਅੱਗੇ ਮੇਰੀ ਕਮਾਈ ਸੀ ./

HAZEL: "I love not men the less, but women more"

"A woman looks beautiful in all her loving moods, but never more so than when her eyes linger over the movements of her child. God would have been immensely more acceptable and popular if 'HE' had been a 'SHE'; then, no Jesus would have to mount a Cross to remind us whose children we are."


Shyamli Trived wrote to Harcharan Bains:.. do u really think so.... the people who crucified Jesus.. actually tried to kill the belief that he had ... not the gender or the physical human... or else if it had been the case ... they could have easily kill him without making it such mass event ...i believe ... believe in something is far beyond the gender... or else in country ... See Morewere kaali and durga are worshiped , and considered as a goddesses of power.. the women of that would not have been suppressed to that extent where we would have to think about "women empowerment"...its just the human weakness that needs image and idols to believe rather than believing something that is beyond this physical stuff.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Harcharan Bains @ Shyaml Trivedi: No, I didn't mean it as a gender thing. I merely used the Jesus symbolism to drive him my point that a woman can achieve with compassion what men try to achieve through what most men call "practical power" and what i call " muscle power". Also, if you look closely at all great men , poets and prophets, you will notice a strong feminine streak in them. Jesus is great becasue of his compassion; Guru Gobind Singh not because he was a great soldier but because he was a saint and a poet-visionary first, whose message even after all those bitter wars and sacrifices was "Jin Prem Kio tein he prabh paayo". . You find certain motherly qualities in all great men who have loved humankind and have suffered for its welfarre.Even Napolean Bonaparte, who loved his mother and his lady Josephine like he loved nothing else, had this streak in him. Again that is not about biological feminism but about symbolism of feminism as expressive of certain well defined traits. I am aware that even all women are not paragons of these qualities, but you must also have noticed that we generally speak of such women as devoid of feminine grace or compassion and gentility. Feminism as symbolism is what I am speaking of, and this has nothing do with the bilogical fact of being a man or a woman.But yes, bilogically also , there is one experience that we men can never have; the experience of being a mother. And the psychological implications of this bilogical factor are immense.But Jesus and Kabir and Nanak and Farid arouse feelings in us which are akin to those which our mothers arouse.Incidentally, all Sikh Gurus and many mystics like Bulle Shah and Shekh farid often described themselves as "sohaagan" and "woman in love" and "maidens" and "Mehla" and Kamini etc in thier verses,and God as their male. . Is there any symbolism they are trying to use to convey something that can not be conveyed through ordianry human language. But yes, I am self-confessed lover of womankind and strongly believe that if there were no women in life, this life would hardly be worth living anyway. Call it my icorrigible romanticism, but that is another matter. To misquote Byron, I love not man the less, but woman more.

Thursday, May 6, 2010


""The righteous is essentially a lover, the self-righteous essentially a preacher. The righteous is a healer, happy to help; the self-righteous is essentially a critic, content to condemn and criticize."

"WHAT IS RIGHTEOUSNESS and how does it differ from self-righteousness? Why do most of us prefer self-righteousness over righteousness? And why the self-righteous are generally arrogant and contemptuous while the righteous are full of humility and modesty? Why the righteous generally take others to be equally righteous while every self-righteous person seems to believe he is the last ( if not the only one) of the kind on God’s assembly line, and that the world is full of thieves and crooks.

Ordinarily, you can tell the difference between the righteous and the self-righteous by what each one of them leaves you feeling after a few moments with them. The righteous leaves you feeling good about yourself and about the world in general. A meeting with the self-righteous would generally leave you feeling either guilty or angry or outraged, or all three together. The righteous are like a cool breeze on a hot midsummer day; the self righteous are like ice piled on a pneumonic in the dead of December. The dominant feeling after meeting a pious and honest soul is one of an inexplicable well-being and happiness over just about everything ;a meeting with the other kind leaves you feeling you are living in a hostile and evil universe.The pious and the righteous believe that love and trust beget love and trust; a self-righteous person is by himself a proclamation that love is a failing and trust a folly. A pious man’s response to hatred is more love; a self-righteous man is wary of love and believes that hating others is safer option since most of mankind does not value love.

The righteous will always be happy and would seem to be smiling where the self-righteous would see nothing to smile about.

The picture of a saint as a miserable soul who suffers because of his saintliness is the creation of a self-righteous imagination. To the pious and the enlightened, a saint is a blessed creature who sings songs of unheard-of happiness and dances in ecstasy over finding a window to truth.

The righteous is essentially a lover, the self-righteous essentially a preacher. The righteous is a healer, happy to help; the self-righteous is essentially a critic, content to condemn and criticize.

There is a poet in every righteous soul and a journalist in every a self-righteous mind. (With due apologies to the Fourth and the most powerful pillar of society!) A self-righteous man always “knows” that there is some secret selfish design behind every act of goodness; equally certainly, the righteous person “believes” that there is some secret and noble cause behind every seemingly evil action of others.

The chief difference between a cynic and a saint is this. A cynic knows that goodness simply does not exist, and it is his self-assigned mission to expose the “fraud and hypocrisy” behind any act, deed or conduct that appears to radiates nobility of character and intent. A saint on the other hand takes nobility, piety and love as natural conditions in this universe and proceeds to explain how even a sinner has a case for forgiveness.

Both the self-righteous cynic and the righteous romantic have a common virtue: their unswerving faith in and commitment to their respective vision of reality. Both believe that there are minor, negligible aberrations in their ‘perfect world-view’: Light to one and darkness to the other is that minor aberration. To the righteous and the pious saint, sin and selfishness are minor structural flaws in human mind, there perhaps to allow his self-correcting mechanisms to be operationalised . To the cynical self-righteous crusader, protestations of love and truth and caring are tools which the hypocrites use to mislead others. At best, these sentiments ( protestations !) are mere exceptions, there merely to test the rule.

Finally, who or what would you rather your children be? Self-righteous cynics, cautious and practical in their approach to life, the world and the people? There is a clear advantage in that position: your children would never be cheated because they would never trust. Or would you rather your child be a dreamer, a romantic idealist who would come home cheated of the small coins in his narrow pocket but not of the great love in his large heart?

Would you be proud that your child outsmarted everyone including his teachers by inventing the most innovative and original lies for evading honest hard-work and instead achieved the desired result through dishonest short-cuts?

Or are you among a handful of those dreamy-eyed “truth driven” romantics who believe that they can match the feats of the noble Gurus and prophets and saints , and who would rather have their children come home defeated through defraud rather than as conquerors through cunning, Would you rather your child came home defeated but decorated with the halo of truth and honesty; or would you rather he returned victorious through wily untruths but disgraced because of his deceits?

It pays to be a cynic; you can always afford that stupid victorious grin on your face.

But it pays more to be able to come home and look your parents in the eye and humbly say: “Mamma, your son did nothing wrong or bad today. And Papa, your son is an honest man.”As for the argument between the rational and the romantic, here is Dr. S. Radhakrishanan: “ The cool, calculating people, careful of appearances, will never fall grievously low; but they will never soar high. Only the deeply sincere can afford to make fools of themselves.”





"If you react angrily, or at least least with rude truthfulness,you are arrogant. if you react with humility, you are diplomatic, honey coated. if you dont't react at all, you have nothing to say. If you point to people cringing for small favours before the very people they criticise , ( not for " for getting justice, but for seeking small favours") well, you are defending the people before whom they are cringing. . if you , who are not even powerful , are asked to grant the same favours and you do not do it, ( as you certainly would not ) then you are not willing to use your position for others' benefit. If you use it, you are misusing your authority to promote favourites . And you have no right to see any good in the person you are working with and you must be guided by other people's opinion of him Do your job, if you must, of promoting the person some others dislike , though they declare they do not know him enough --do your dirty job, get paid, shut up and get lost. If you happen to love the man you work with, keep it to yourself.

If you find any contradictions in what others , especially those more learned than you , say, then just remember those charming lines:

'Naaz-o-andaaz se kehte hain ke jeena hoga/
Zehar bhi dete hain to kehte hain ke peena hoga./
Gar main jeeta hoon to kehte hain ke marta bhi nahin/
Gar main marta hoon to kehte hain ke jeena hoga./

"And if you venture to engage in a polite discussion with the learned, be ready to be asked questions from those who have already pronounced the judgement , closed the issue and declared that they have already said all that there was to be said on the subject. And yet you will be required to answer the questions. And be ready to be told you are defending the corrupt because you are with the corrupt.If you are not corrupt and nobody can prove you are and you can prove that you are not, worse is your misfortune. No questions asked , and no answers sought . Don't protest too much, anyway. When confronted with angry opinions, do not inisist on data or evidence in support of those opinions, because opinions generally are autonomous, soveriegn creatures, data is the last refuge of the unsure and the insecure. If you know something, why do you need pedestrian tools like evidence or data to prove it to others? And why must you ahve to prove it to others anyway? Is your knowing something not enough of a reason for others to believe in it ? If it is not, do you really think your data will succeed where you have failed? Weaker the reason and evidence, stronger the opinion.

This, my son, is one way to respond to the world. This can win you an argument.

But there is another. And this is a path followed by those who dare to love. This can win you hearts.

"When eyes are bloodshot, vision is narrow, said someone. Inspite of this, forget the bitterness and avoid sarcasm, that sore which pleases as it slowly kills. Just respect the opinionated. And above all, my son, don't give up on patience and hope in the ultimate sanity of human species. Do not give up on love, because it is your thing and has little or nothing to do with those you love. Persist with your faith in the eventual triumph of truth which transcends geogrraphical boudnaries and does not allow any monopolistic , properietary rights to an country, India or the USA. Girls will be raped in India as well as in Ameria and Paksitan and elsewhere. Do not be heartless enough to reduce it to a matter of statistics --more in one country less in the other. A rape is a cosmic trauma -- and to one has to take it. ANd to her, it is small consolation to know in which country it happens less and by what by what percentage. Ditto for murders, corruption, dishonesty. There will foddergates in India and watergates elsewhere. Presidents and Prime Minisiters will use their postions to sexually abuse their secretaries in Dubai or Delhi or Detroit , on Jan Path or in houses famous for their whiteness. Don't be misled by numbers. Sin and virtue are not about numbers. It is about how strongly your mind revolts against these. It is not about proving a point; it is about being senstivie to the pain and horror of untruth and injsutice and suffering and pain. Does your heart cry out in pain at the sight of injustice and suffering, or do you merely reduce to one more argument in your pet thesis. And do your hands and legs obey your angusihsed heart and run to help those who need it, or do you merely tabulate it into data for the next seminar or TV talk show?

Look carefully within yourself, for that is the only place from where all answers come. If there is love in your heart, and compassion and the willingness to get up and do something to change what you don't like , you will hear a voice within your heart answering all your questions with single loving gesture. Instead of merely soothing your conscience by criticising others for what you find unacceptable in the world, you will get up and start an effort, however small or weak, to change it.

And nothing will be achieved by winning arguments; win hearts.

Sunday, May 2, 2010



" Hatred in my heart is a worse and more dreadful sin than blood on my hands. Murder is loud, unpretentious and much less prevalent than hate; hatred is ubiquitous,a surreptitious hypocrite and a parasite:it kills the heart it flatters. But neither will spare the marrrow in your bones, blood in your veins and oxygen in your heart. Murder is mothered by hate."

Nazar woh jo dushamn pe bhi meharbaan ho/
Zubaan woh jo ik piyaar ki dastaan ho.

Dear Amrita, let me take you back to my Gujrat Golden Jubilee note which is only about the show. I was at pains even to underline that as for as Modi is concerned, everyone has an opinion and everyone can be right, because truth is never unidimensional. In any case, i was not -- and am not -- making a statement on Modi. But why do you say "whatever he might do", you would still not tolerate him? After all, millions of people have opted for him over and over again. And that option has to do with their destiny, so they should know what they are doing. But if you are referring to the massacre of Muslims in Modi's state, I also believe that , alongwith the massacre of Sikhs in 1984 and the killing of innocents by terrorists , that remains a stink in India's soul. There is no question of not agreeing with you on howone must react to the perpetrators of this outrage against humanity. But why don't you have a similar sense of outrage against the father and mother of Rahul Gandhi who openly justified the 84 massacre? Do you hate Rajiv as much as you hate Modi? Do you think that one killer , for whatever reason, is less of a killer than the other? No, I am not advocating hatred towards ANYONE. Far from it, I am just making sure that you are not being partial. You can not seek human rights norms for Kasab and a "hang by the nearest tree" verdict for Modi. For me, Gujrat, Delhi, Kashmir and Mumbai (The Taj!) stand in the same que and their script writers must be shot or forgiven togehter. But personally, I am unable to hate the criminal and downplay the crime. If I hate, I must hate both with equal intensity. I look at it this way: Hatred in my heart is a worse and more dreadful sin than blood on my hands. One is likely to commit murder far less often than indulge in hatred, and therefore, hatred is more dangerous and cleverer enemy than even murder. Murder is loud and unpretentious; hatred is a surreptitious hypocrite and a parasite -- it kills the heart it flatters. But be equially watchful against both because neither will spare the marrrow in your bones, blood in veins and oxygen in your lungs and heart.