I do not watch serials on TV, but recently I happened to watch a few minutes of the kannada serial 'Minchu', directed by T.N. Seetharam.
What was going on was this. X, the managing director of a company, has an assistant Y. Now, there is another person Z, who is in need of money for her daughter's wedding, and approaches the finance department of the company for assistance. Z has already taken a housing loan and is still repaying it. Because of that, the finance department agrees to loan only a small amount of money. Z approaches Y, who takes her case to the MD and convinces the MD to increase the loan amount.
Okay, this was just an instance in a TV serial. But it was directed by Seetharam, and we can be sure that he thought it out well, before bringing it on screen. No one can deny that a company is responsible for its employees. But there is only so much anybody can do for anybody else. Even when it is possible, it is not right to cross those limits. What if all the employees of the company (or even half of them, for that matter), ask for loans, for genuine reasons? What would X have done?
Being complacent that someone higher-up is going to bail one out of all difficulties is bad. Unfortunately, I guess that is how we humans are wired (I sometimes wonder if it is just an Indian trait!). Some people always expect that rich companies help mend the bad roads, help government-run schools, and generally donate money generously for all causes.
Recently, I read an article that I received by email, written by Ravi Belagere. It was an open letter to Sudha Murthy. I respect Ravi Belagere a lot for his views, but this article struck me as very odd. Apparently M.P. Prakash, our erstwhile Dy. Chief minister, told Ravi Belagere that he asked all the IT majors to donate money for the development of infrastructure and various other things, and apparently all of them replied that "they would get back on this issue", but have not gotten back since then.
That is not all. Belagere rants about how all flyovers are near the IT offices, how the rich IT companies do not care about the necessities of the farmer whose land was destroyed by floods and about poor children who do not have access to education, how Bangalore became so very costly because of the IT companies.
To an extent, what he says is true. There is too much immigration from other parts of India to Bangalore. Cost of living is escalating. Rents have touched an all-time high. The traffic-situation is abysmal. Rather than spend evenings quietly with books, the youth prefer to hang out at malls. Ask any highschool kid, he/she wants to be a software engineer and nothing else. It is like they do not have any rolemodel in any other field. Good teachers, scientists and the like are hardly to be found. These developments are not good.
But how wise is it to blame the IT industry for everything? Businesses are there because they are in demand. An IT company exists because there are sponsors and shareholders and customers. And people work for IT companies because they pay them enough money to give good education to their kids and build bigger houses. Even IT companies get tax subsidies from the government because they generate revenue and create more wealth. Engineering colleges hiked their fees because of the high salaries the students may get once they finish their education.
And it is not like the IT companies do not do anything for the society. At R's company, there was this quarterly event where each person of the team was paired with a kid from a nearby government school. At the end of the event, R gave him his phone number, and asked him to call if he needed any help. True, such events are few and far between, but that is a start, and a good one at that. RSS has a few orphanages and schools ('anaatha shishu nivaasa', 'aruna chetana', etc) that thrive on donations by 'Professionals in Seva'. The Infosys Foundation has also done a lot of social work.
As harsh as it may sound, companies are answerable to their shareholders, and that is how their policies are made. M.P Prakash cannot complain against global companies without plugging the corrupt holes in his own ministry.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
ತುಂಟ ಕರಡಿ ತನ್ನ ತಮ್ಮನಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು
ಚಿತ್ರಕವನ ದ ಒಂಭತ್ತನೆಯ ಚಿತ್ರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಬರೆದ ಪದ್ಯ.
ಕಿಟಕಿಯ ಸರಳುಗಳಾಚೆಯ ಜಗವದು
ಎಷ್ಟು ಸುಂದರವು, ನೋಡಿದೆಯಾ?
ಚಿಗುರಿದ ಮರಗಳು, ಅರಳಿದ ಹೂಗಳು
ಕರೆದಿವೆ ನಮ್ಮನು, ಕೇಳಿದೆಯಾ?
ಮಾವಿನ ಮರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜೇನನ್ನು
ಸವಿಯಲು ಸಹಚರನಾಗುವೆಯಾ?
ಹಲಸಿನ ಹಣ್ಣನು ಮೆಲ್ಲನೆ ಬಿಡಿಸುತ
ಮೆಲ್ಲಲು ನೀ ಜತೆಗೂಡುವೆಯಾ?
ನಿದ್ದೆಯ ಹೊತ್ತಲಿ ನೀರಲಾಡಿದ್ದು
ಅಮ್ಮಗೆ ನೀನೇ ಹೇಳಿದೆಯಾ?
ಪಕ್ಕದ ಹಳ್ಳಿಯ ಜನರ ಕೆಣಕಿದ್ದು
ಅವಳಿಗೆ ಕೋಪವ ತರಿಸಿದೆಯಾ?
ನಮ್ಮ ಚೇಷ್ಟೆಗಳು ಮೀರಿದವೇ ಮಿತಿ?
ಚಿಣ್ಣರ ಮೇಲೆಯೆ ಹಠ ಸರಿಯಾ?
ಕೂಡಿ ಹಾಕಿಹಳು ಅಮ್ಮನು ನಮ್ಮನು
ಏನ ಮಾಡುವುದು, ಯೋಚಿಸೆಯಾ?
ಕಿಟಕಿಯ ಸರಳುಗಳಾಚೆಯ ಜಗವದು
ಎಷ್ಟು ಸುಂದರವು, ನೋಡಿದೆಯಾ?
ಚಿಗುರಿದ ಮರಗಳು, ಅರಳಿದ ಹೂಗಳು
ಕರೆದಿವೆ ನಮ್ಮನು, ಕೇಳಿದೆಯಾ?
ಮಾವಿನ ಮರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜೇನನ್ನು
ಸವಿಯಲು ಸಹಚರನಾಗುವೆಯಾ?
ಹಲಸಿನ ಹಣ್ಣನು ಮೆಲ್ಲನೆ ಬಿಡಿಸುತ
ಮೆಲ್ಲಲು ನೀ ಜತೆಗೂಡುವೆಯಾ?
ನಿದ್ದೆಯ ಹೊತ್ತಲಿ ನೀರಲಾಡಿದ್ದು
ಅಮ್ಮಗೆ ನೀನೇ ಹೇಳಿದೆಯಾ?
ಪಕ್ಕದ ಹಳ್ಳಿಯ ಜನರ ಕೆಣಕಿದ್ದು
ಅವಳಿಗೆ ಕೋಪವ ತರಿಸಿದೆಯಾ?
ನಮ್ಮ ಚೇಷ್ಟೆಗಳು ಮೀರಿದವೇ ಮಿತಿ?
ಚಿಣ್ಣರ ಮೇಲೆಯೆ ಹಠ ಸರಿಯಾ?
ಕೂಡಿ ಹಾಕಿಹಳು ಅಮ್ಮನು ನಮ್ಮನು
ಏನ ಮಾಡುವುದು, ಯೋಚಿಸೆಯಾ?
Thursday, July 05, 2007
'Complications' by Atul Gawande
Writing about books has two positive results and one negative. The positive results first. One -I never run out of subjects provided I keep on reading new books, and two - suppose I want to remind myself of this book, say a few years later, I can just read this review of mine. I have often felt the need for the latter. The negative result - I will be writing about things I have not experienced personally. Many of the ideas will not be my own. But I am willing to take that risk. Henceforth I plan to write about all the interesting books I read. I hope to intersperse the "book-review posts" with other subjects, but let that be for now.
The latest book I read, 'Complications' written by Atul Gawande, was very, very interesting, and it is an understatement. I have been interested in the medical field for as long as I remember. When I go to the doctor either as a patient or as the patient's relative, I am informed. I usually have a fair idea of the side effects of the medicines prescribed. However, after reading 'Complications', I realized how inadequate all that was. It was an epiphany. I trust a couple of doctors implicitly, and the fact that they too can be fallible, is scary, but true. The book talks about mistakes that even good doctors might make, and that wee bit of extra cautiousness that has often saved patients' lives.
Gawande writes with the clinical precision and detachment capable only of a surgeon. And yet there is humanity, there are the intense emotions that even doctors experience. There is not a dull chapter, or even a dull sentence in the book. It could be called delightful, if the subject were not so morbid and serious.
I remember freaking out when I went to the hospital at an unearthly hour and saw the young, inexperienced duty doctor instead of my usual gynecologist. One cannot deny that more experience makes better doctors. And age does matter. Most people I have met are more comfortable with old, experienced doctors than younger doctors with sophisticated degrees. Gawande states an instance where experience came in real handy. A patient came in with a reddened and swollen leg. All the indications were pointing toward cellulitis, a common but treatable infection. But just weeks ago, Gawande had lost one of his patients to necrotizing fasciitis, a rare and fatal bacterial infection that can be treated surgically, only in the very initial stage. (These bacteria, usually strains of streptococcus A, can enter the body through a "wound" as small as a pinprick.) His experience made him order a biopsy and his fears were indeed true. The patient had most of the tissue removed from her leg, but she survived. What would have happened to her if the doctor did not have this kind of an experience earlier? Would the warning bells have sounded even then? It is really hard to say!
There is also this matter of statistics. Cellulitis is a common infection. And about 5% of the cases, thought to be cellulitis at first, turn out to be necrotizing faciitis. Does this help the doctor make a decision on whether the patient in front of him right then has one or the other? Can a good doctor assume that exactly 5 out of a hundred cellulitis-patients that see him have the flesh-eating bacteria? No! Statistics are there to just comfort and/or caution, but they can never be used as a guideline.
From the days of Hippocrates and our own Sushruta, Medical Science has been improving. But newer technology has its own costs. I remember feeling elated when I read about "laparoscopic cholesystectomy" in my high school days. I thought of all the lives that would be saved because of the new technology. The thought that never came to me till I read "Complications" was the learning curve of the doctors. Gawande describes a laparoscopic cholesystectomy (the removal of the gall bladder) that he performed. Only after reading that did I realize how complicated it was, how difficult it was to learn new techniques. Doctors, like all others, take time to learn. But unlike us engineers, their experiments are with life; the stakes are high. One mistake, just half a second of haziness while wielding the scalpel can kill. Okay, I may be exaggerating, but the point is that doctors are responsible for the most precious things in this world.
And they deserve that responsibility. Risks have to be taken if lives are to be saved. Gawande talks about an unusual surgery, the gastric bypass surgery. (There was a report about this surgery in this week's 'Health' supplement of the Indian Express). In this surgery, the stomach is stapled, thereby reducing its size, and about a metre of the small intestine is bypassed, so that less food is absorbed. This is the best cure now available for morbid obesity. I mean, just think of the capability of one four-hour surgery! Many people are leading healthy and happy lives because of the surgery. So, at some point, a decision has to be made. For doctors, however, difficult decisions have to be made all the time.
In the Indian tradition, we say that one should trust the doctor completely. Indeed, it is said that the result is proportional to our trust. From a psychological perspective, this makes complete sense. Though *all* our illnesses are not rooted in the mind, many of them are. Therefore, trusting the doctor is important. But how far do we go? Ultimately it is our own body we are talking about. In Kannada they say 'ಹೊಸ ವೈದ್ಯರಿಗಿಂತ ಹಳೆ ರೋಗಿಯೇ ಮೇಲು', which is true to some extent (My grandma used to do this. She had diabetes, and whenever she ate an extra sweet, she would take a little more of her diabetes medication, without consulting the doctor!). There should be a sort of a compromise between the doctor and the patient as to who listens to whom, to what extent.
'Complications' got me started on thinking about a related thing. There are happy endings and sad endings. But, isn't 'Life' mysterious? A person who has four heart attacks may survive and thrive, whereas another may die of a pinprick. A pacemaker can help an ailing heart, a ventilator can substitute the lungs and a dialysis machine, the kidneys. What is the nature of that "one thing" that keeps all these and more working together in so much harmony that if one organ fails, all the others gradually fail, too. I am delving into Philosophy here, but isn't that a question worth considering?
The latest book I read, 'Complications' written by Atul Gawande, was very, very interesting, and it is an understatement. I have been interested in the medical field for as long as I remember. When I go to the doctor either as a patient or as the patient's relative, I am informed. I usually have a fair idea of the side effects of the medicines prescribed. However, after reading 'Complications', I realized how inadequate all that was. It was an epiphany. I trust a couple of doctors implicitly, and the fact that they too can be fallible, is scary, but true. The book talks about mistakes that even good doctors might make, and that wee bit of extra cautiousness that has often saved patients' lives.
Gawande writes with the clinical precision and detachment capable only of a surgeon. And yet there is humanity, there are the intense emotions that even doctors experience. There is not a dull chapter, or even a dull sentence in the book. It could be called delightful, if the subject were not so morbid and serious.
I remember freaking out when I went to the hospital at an unearthly hour and saw the young, inexperienced duty doctor instead of my usual gynecologist. One cannot deny that more experience makes better doctors. And age does matter. Most people I have met are more comfortable with old, experienced doctors than younger doctors with sophisticated degrees. Gawande states an instance where experience came in real handy. A patient came in with a reddened and swollen leg. All the indications were pointing toward cellulitis, a common but treatable infection. But just weeks ago, Gawande had lost one of his patients to necrotizing fasciitis, a rare and fatal bacterial infection that can be treated surgically, only in the very initial stage. (These bacteria, usually strains of streptococcus A, can enter the body through a "wound" as small as a pinprick.) His experience made him order a biopsy and his fears were indeed true. The patient had most of the tissue removed from her leg, but she survived. What would have happened to her if the doctor did not have this kind of an experience earlier? Would the warning bells have sounded even then? It is really hard to say!
There is also this matter of statistics. Cellulitis is a common infection. And about 5% of the cases, thought to be cellulitis at first, turn out to be necrotizing faciitis. Does this help the doctor make a decision on whether the patient in front of him right then has one or the other? Can a good doctor assume that exactly 5 out of a hundred cellulitis-patients that see him have the flesh-eating bacteria? No! Statistics are there to just comfort and/or caution, but they can never be used as a guideline.
From the days of Hippocrates and our own Sushruta, Medical Science has been improving. But newer technology has its own costs. I remember feeling elated when I read about "laparoscopic cholesystectomy" in my high school days. I thought of all the lives that would be saved because of the new technology. The thought that never came to me till I read "Complications" was the learning curve of the doctors. Gawande describes a laparoscopic cholesystectomy (the removal of the gall bladder) that he performed. Only after reading that did I realize how complicated it was, how difficult it was to learn new techniques. Doctors, like all others, take time to learn. But unlike us engineers, their experiments are with life; the stakes are high. One mistake, just half a second of haziness while wielding the scalpel can kill. Okay, I may be exaggerating, but the point is that doctors are responsible for the most precious things in this world.
And they deserve that responsibility. Risks have to be taken if lives are to be saved. Gawande talks about an unusual surgery, the gastric bypass surgery. (There was a report about this surgery in this week's 'Health' supplement of the Indian Express). In this surgery, the stomach is stapled, thereby reducing its size, and about a metre of the small intestine is bypassed, so that less food is absorbed. This is the best cure now available for morbid obesity. I mean, just think of the capability of one four-hour surgery! Many people are leading healthy and happy lives because of the surgery. So, at some point, a decision has to be made. For doctors, however, difficult decisions have to be made all the time.
In the Indian tradition, we say that one should trust the doctor completely. Indeed, it is said that the result is proportional to our trust. From a psychological perspective, this makes complete sense. Though *all* our illnesses are not rooted in the mind, many of them are. Therefore, trusting the doctor is important. But how far do we go? Ultimately it is our own body we are talking about. In Kannada they say 'ಹೊಸ ವೈದ್ಯರಿಗಿಂತ ಹಳೆ ರೋಗಿಯೇ ಮೇಲು', which is true to some extent (My grandma used to do this. She had diabetes, and whenever she ate an extra sweet, she would take a little more of her diabetes medication, without consulting the doctor!). There should be a sort of a compromise between the doctor and the patient as to who listens to whom, to what extent.
'Complications' got me started on thinking about a related thing. There are happy endings and sad endings. But, isn't 'Life' mysterious? A person who has four heart attacks may survive and thrive, whereas another may die of a pinprick. A pacemaker can help an ailing heart, a ventilator can substitute the lungs and a dialysis machine, the kidneys. What is the nature of that "one thing" that keeps all these and more working together in so much harmony that if one organ fails, all the others gradually fail, too. I am delving into Philosophy here, but isn't that a question worth considering?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The story of King Kusha
Love is wonderful. No, I am not moonstruck, but pondering as usual. The thing is, I was cleaning up some stuff, and happened to see the Amar Chitra Katha comic version of the story of King Kusha. The story triggered some thoughts, and here I am.
For people not in the know, here is the story. It is taken from the Jataka tales. King Okkaka was heirless. Indra granted him two sons as a boon, one wise but ugly and the other handsome but foolish. Sheelavati, the queen asked for the wise one to be born first, and so King Kusha was born. Later, Jayampati, the beautiful child, was born.
Kusha finished his learning quite soon. When his parents asked him to get married, he thought that no princess would agree to get married to a ugly youth like him, and hit upon a ruse to ward off the impending proposals and refusals. He carved a beautiful image of a woman, and asked his parents to find somebody who looked exactly like her. He was confident that they would not be able to find a woman as beautiful as his carving. But he was mistaken. Padmavati, the daughter of Sagala was found and married to Kusha on one condition - the new couple were not to see each other for some time. Padmavati loved to hear him play the veena, and imagined that he had an artist's handsome face.
Kusha could not hide his face long from Padmavati. As soon as she found out that her husband was not the handsome prince she had hoped for, she left for her parents' house. Thither followed Kusha. He became a potter's apprentice, made a beautiful pot with Padmavati's picture on it, and sent it to her. She recognized his work and threw the pot away. He then became the royal wicker-worker's apprentice and sent his work to her, but she rejected that too. He then became a cook at the palace, with the hope that he could at least see her often. She was unrelenting, but Kusha toiled in the royal kitchen, waiting for her to accept him.
Finally, Indra decided to help him. He sent a message to seven different kings in Sagala's name, saying that since his daughter (hey, Indra was a great forger!) had left Kusha, he would marry her off to them. Seven kings with seven armies came to Madda (that was the kingdom of Padmavati). Padmavati's father was now alarmed. Giving Padmavati to any one king would mean war with the other six, and he was just not prepared for it. Padmavati now saw the situation she was in, and appealed to Kusha to help her. Kusha settled matters by offering his seven sisters-in-law to the seven kings. Kusha and Padmavati lived happily ever after.
Now, that was the story. I have a question. I am sure some women, in their vanity, do not consider not-so-good-looking men as worthy of companionship, in spite of their other virtues. But would any man do so much for a woman who has scorned him repeatedly? I have read of men and women who do anything and everything to get to their loved ones back. Rama fought the entire army of Ravana to win Seeta back. In Kalidasa's drama, vikramorvasheeyam, Pururava performed penance for winning Urvashi. One can find umpteen instances like that in other cultures also. In Greek mythology, we have the search for Cupid by Psyche and the pining of Penelope for Ulysses. But in all such stories there is this one common thing - of mutual love that is nourished by longing and even by separation.
Well, I do not want to dissect the story any further and play spoilsport. Do let me know if you liked it :)
For people not in the know, here is the story. It is taken from the Jataka tales. King Okkaka was heirless. Indra granted him two sons as a boon, one wise but ugly and the other handsome but foolish. Sheelavati, the queen asked for the wise one to be born first, and so King Kusha was born. Later, Jayampati, the beautiful child, was born.
Kusha finished his learning quite soon. When his parents asked him to get married, he thought that no princess would agree to get married to a ugly youth like him, and hit upon a ruse to ward off the impending proposals and refusals. He carved a beautiful image of a woman, and asked his parents to find somebody who looked exactly like her. He was confident that they would not be able to find a woman as beautiful as his carving. But he was mistaken. Padmavati, the daughter of Sagala was found and married to Kusha on one condition - the new couple were not to see each other for some time. Padmavati loved to hear him play the veena, and imagined that he had an artist's handsome face.
Kusha could not hide his face long from Padmavati. As soon as she found out that her husband was not the handsome prince she had hoped for, she left for her parents' house. Thither followed Kusha. He became a potter's apprentice, made a beautiful pot with Padmavati's picture on it, and sent it to her. She recognized his work and threw the pot away. He then became the royal wicker-worker's apprentice and sent his work to her, but she rejected that too. He then became a cook at the palace, with the hope that he could at least see her often. She was unrelenting, but Kusha toiled in the royal kitchen, waiting for her to accept him.
Finally, Indra decided to help him. He sent a message to seven different kings in Sagala's name, saying that since his daughter (hey, Indra was a great forger!) had left Kusha, he would marry her off to them. Seven kings with seven armies came to Madda (that was the kingdom of Padmavati). Padmavati's father was now alarmed. Giving Padmavati to any one king would mean war with the other six, and he was just not prepared for it. Padmavati now saw the situation she was in, and appealed to Kusha to help her. Kusha settled matters by offering his seven sisters-in-law to the seven kings. Kusha and Padmavati lived happily ever after.
Now, that was the story. I have a question. I am sure some women, in their vanity, do not consider not-so-good-looking men as worthy of companionship, in spite of their other virtues. But would any man do so much for a woman who has scorned him repeatedly? I have read of men and women who do anything and everything to get to their loved ones back. Rama fought the entire army of Ravana to win Seeta back. In Kalidasa's drama, vikramorvasheeyam, Pururava performed penance for winning Urvashi. One can find umpteen instances like that in other cultures also. In Greek mythology, we have the search for Cupid by Psyche and the pining of Penelope for Ulysses. But in all such stories there is this one common thing - of mutual love that is nourished by longing and even by separation.
Well, I do not want to dissect the story any further and play spoilsport. Do let me know if you liked it :)
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Of Poverty, Perseverance and Dharavi
It is not uncommon to see people seeking alms in Bangalore. Today, while coming to work, I saw a woman with a child in her arms, begging at a traffic signal. It was not a pretty sight. The baby, probably about six months old, was blissfully asleep in its mother's arms. I usually do not give money as alms, but this time I gave what small change I had, knowing well that what I gave was not sufficient even for one meal of the baby.
Did the Mother have a choice? I tried to give her the benefit of doubt. Hers was probably a genuine case. She was probably not skilled in anything, and had the burden of the child to bear. But I have this feeling that there are always jobs available for the industrious and those who really want to work to make ends meet. Why, then, do people resort to begging? I am inclined to think that it is the "man-with-the-twisted-lip -syndrome", as harsh and insensitive as it may sound.
There was a time when 'ಕರತಲಭಿಕ್ಷಾ ತರುತಲವಾಸ:' was regarded highly, when poverty in terms of food, clothes and money was almost synonymous with the richness of the mind and intellect. But this is not that kind of a time. If one is reasonably intelligent and industrious, he/she can find a job (much better than begging), that might fetch enough to ward away hunger. In the olden days, one-sixth of honestly-earned money was supposed to be given off as charity. True, giving money away as charity is good for the giver, but does it not make one section of the society totally dependent on the favors of another? Won't that breed class distinction and class-wars?
I contrasted my experience with this article on Sepia Mutiny, about the Dharavi slum. I had read about the Dharavi slum a couple of years ago in the Kannada magazine, Taranga. And the picture I got from that was that of a dirty slum filled with frustrated people, as one sees in some movies. But this article was a real eye-opener for me. The slum is dirty alright, but the people are industrious, and becoming prosperous. The reason for this is their enthusiasm and spirit, that enable them to fight against all odds.
Apparently there are more than five-thousand one-room factories and many cottage industries in the two sq. km. area of Dharavi, whose collective annual turnover is a whopping 1 billion dollars! If that is not amazing, I don't know what is! Apparently they still do not pay taxes properly, but let us not think about it for now. 85% of the households have a television and 56% have a gas stove... A funny thing, as an aside - do 29% of the slum-dwellers think that the TV is more necessary than a gas stove? Oh, and 21% of the people own telephones. A really good number for a shantytown!
I can give other examples too. A lady used to work as a domestic help in my Grandmother's house. She worked in a few houses everyday for a few years and got her children (two boys), educated. Both of them did their B.E. The younger one lived in Canada for some time and made a lot of money. Now they all live in their own, big house with cars and other luxuries. One can say that Lady Luck was on their side, that the sons were intelligent and all that, but would they have become so successful if they did not have that strong desire to succeed, and if they had not worked so hard? To reiterate a point I feel very strongly about - if one really wants something (and perseveres), the whole universe will conspire in helping him achieve it.
The work-hard-and-sell-hard concept worked for the residents of Dharavi. Will it work for this woman and her child I met? And so many other men, women and children who have to beg for their living? Or rather, will they let it work for them? I fervently hope so, in spite of having a man like this at the helm.
Did the Mother have a choice? I tried to give her the benefit of doubt. Hers was probably a genuine case. She was probably not skilled in anything, and had the burden of the child to bear. But I have this feeling that there are always jobs available for the industrious and those who really want to work to make ends meet. Why, then, do people resort to begging? I am inclined to think that it is the "man-with-the-twisted-lip -syndrome", as harsh and insensitive as it may sound.
There was a time when 'ಕರತಲಭಿಕ್ಷಾ ತರುತಲವಾಸ:' was regarded highly, when poverty in terms of food, clothes and money was almost synonymous with the richness of the mind and intellect. But this is not that kind of a time. If one is reasonably intelligent and industrious, he/she can find a job (much better than begging), that might fetch enough to ward away hunger. In the olden days, one-sixth of honestly-earned money was supposed to be given off as charity. True, giving money away as charity is good for the giver, but does it not make one section of the society totally dependent on the favors of another? Won't that breed class distinction and class-wars?
I contrasted my experience with this article on Sepia Mutiny, about the Dharavi slum. I had read about the Dharavi slum a couple of years ago in the Kannada magazine, Taranga. And the picture I got from that was that of a dirty slum filled with frustrated people, as one sees in some movies. But this article was a real eye-opener for me. The slum is dirty alright, but the people are industrious, and becoming prosperous. The reason for this is their enthusiasm and spirit, that enable them to fight against all odds.
Apparently there are more than five-thousand one-room factories and many cottage industries in the two sq. km. area of Dharavi, whose collective annual turnover is a whopping 1 billion dollars! If that is not amazing, I don't know what is! Apparently they still do not pay taxes properly, but let us not think about it for now. 85% of the households have a television and 56% have a gas stove... A funny thing, as an aside - do 29% of the slum-dwellers think that the TV is more necessary than a gas stove? Oh, and 21% of the people own telephones. A really good number for a shantytown!
I can give other examples too. A lady used to work as a domestic help in my Grandmother's house. She worked in a few houses everyday for a few years and got her children (two boys), educated. Both of them did their B.E. The younger one lived in Canada for some time and made a lot of money. Now they all live in their own, big house with cars and other luxuries. One can say that Lady Luck was on their side, that the sons were intelligent and all that, but would they have become so successful if they did not have that strong desire to succeed, and if they had not worked so hard? To reiterate a point I feel very strongly about - if one really wants something (and perseveres), the whole universe will conspire in helping him achieve it.
The work-hard-and-sell-hard concept worked for the residents of Dharavi. Will it work for this woman and her child I met? And so many other men, women and children who have to beg for their living? Or rather, will they let it work for them? I fervently hope so, in spite of having a man like this at the helm.
Friday, June 15, 2007
'The Alchemist' By Paulo Coelho
Just today, I finished reading 'The Alchemist' by Paulo Coelho. The book has garnered a lot of praise from all over the world as life-changing and illuminating. I partly bought the book because I wanted some illumination, and partly to see if it really deserved so much praise. After reading it, I must say that I did find that the praise was well-deserved, and that it was really a book that I could learn from.
'The Alchemist' is the story of Santiago, a shepherd and his quest for a treasure he dreamt about. The book is about following one's dreams, both literally and figuratively. The alchemist guides the boy towards the realization of his dream, and teaches him quite a few things on the way, the most important lessons being perseverance and faith (reminds me of shraddha and saburi).
When I started reading through the book, I was unimpressed. There were, of course, precious nuggets thrown about liberally even from the beginning, the most memorable one for me being "When you really want something, the whole universe conspires in helping you achieve it". But the story itself seemed a bit weird. It felt like of those stories which seem to happen in another dimension altogether, much like Voltaire's "Princess of Babylon". And at times, I felt that I was reading a cross of Stephen Covey and Kahlil Gibran. But gradually, as I read on, I was appreciating the book more and more. I could see myself looking at the sand in the vast expanse of the desert, feeling the wind whisper to me about my dreams.
The boy's name is mentioned only once in the entire novel. Except for that one time, he is always referred to as "the boy". I think that that was because Coelho wanted to make it everybody's book. We are all like the boy; we dream of treasures. But we are not as daring, in that we are content with just dreaming and doing nothing about it. And though Santiago was more a youth than a boy, he is referred to as the boy because he was willing to be guided, without any hesitation. Though he had the help of the decision-making stones, he made his own decisions. This combination of two qualities - the eagerness to be taught and the ability to make decisions, was the reason for the boy's success.
As I do often, I could not help comparing the world-view of Coelho with that of Vedanta. More than once, it struck me that the "Soul of the World" was parabrahma, from where everything originates and to which everything goes in the end. Though Coelho is a practising Catholic, his thoughts about the "Soul of the World" appear distinctly advaitic in nature, when he says "he realized that his Soul was the Soul of the world". Most of his insights seem to stem from his own experiences. In his twenties, Coelho encountered a stranger who first appeared to him in a vision, and then in real life. This had a powerful effect on him, and he then wrote 'The Alchemist', which has a profound effect on us.
There is one very insightful story in the book that I really liked. A boy once went to a wise man to learn the secret of happiness. The wise man gave him a spoon with two drops of oil, and asked him to look around his beautiful castle. When the boy returned, he asked him whether he saw how beautiful his castle was. The boy replied that he could not, because he did not want to spill the oil in the spoon. The wise man asked him to go again and admire the castle and its grounds. The boy did what he was told, and came back, full of admiration for the beauty of the castle. But now, he was so engrossed in looking outside, that the oil was gone! The wise man then told him "The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon". I liked this concept very much. It is the middle-path that is always the best. I am reminded of DVG's poem, one of my favorites.
ಎದೆ ಮಾರುವೋಗದೊಡೆ ಕಣ್ ಸೊಬಗನುಂಡರೇಂ
ಹೃದಯ ಮುಯ್ ಕೇಳದೊಡೆ ನಲಿವ ಸೂಸಿದರೇಂ |
ಕದಡದಿರ್ದೊಡೆ ಮನವ, ತನು ಸೊಗವ ಸವಿದರೇಂ
ಮುದ ತಾನೆ ತಪ್ಪಲ್ಲ ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ ||
For people who care to learn something from the book, it gives one that much-needed gentle nudge towards one's goals. And the hope that even if we make mistakes searching for our guide like the boy did initially, we will find our alchemist waiting for us somewhere...
'The Alchemist' is the story of Santiago, a shepherd and his quest for a treasure he dreamt about. The book is about following one's dreams, both literally and figuratively. The alchemist guides the boy towards the realization of his dream, and teaches him quite a few things on the way, the most important lessons being perseverance and faith (reminds me of shraddha and saburi).
When I started reading through the book, I was unimpressed. There were, of course, precious nuggets thrown about liberally even from the beginning, the most memorable one for me being "When you really want something, the whole universe conspires in helping you achieve it". But the story itself seemed a bit weird. It felt like of those stories which seem to happen in another dimension altogether, much like Voltaire's "Princess of Babylon". And at times, I felt that I was reading a cross of Stephen Covey and Kahlil Gibran. But gradually, as I read on, I was appreciating the book more and more. I could see myself looking at the sand in the vast expanse of the desert, feeling the wind whisper to me about my dreams.
The boy's name is mentioned only once in the entire novel. Except for that one time, he is always referred to as "the boy". I think that that was because Coelho wanted to make it everybody's book. We are all like the boy; we dream of treasures. But we are not as daring, in that we are content with just dreaming and doing nothing about it. And though Santiago was more a youth than a boy, he is referred to as the boy because he was willing to be guided, without any hesitation. Though he had the help of the decision-making stones, he made his own decisions. This combination of two qualities - the eagerness to be taught and the ability to make decisions, was the reason for the boy's success.
As I do often, I could not help comparing the world-view of Coelho with that of Vedanta. More than once, it struck me that the "Soul of the World" was parabrahma, from where everything originates and to which everything goes in the end. Though Coelho is a practising Catholic, his thoughts about the "Soul of the World" appear distinctly advaitic in nature, when he says "he realized that his Soul was the Soul of the world". Most of his insights seem to stem from his own experiences. In his twenties, Coelho encountered a stranger who first appeared to him in a vision, and then in real life. This had a powerful effect on him, and he then wrote 'The Alchemist', which has a profound effect on us.
There is one very insightful story in the book that I really liked. A boy once went to a wise man to learn the secret of happiness. The wise man gave him a spoon with two drops of oil, and asked him to look around his beautiful castle. When the boy returned, he asked him whether he saw how beautiful his castle was. The boy replied that he could not, because he did not want to spill the oil in the spoon. The wise man asked him to go again and admire the castle and its grounds. The boy did what he was told, and came back, full of admiration for the beauty of the castle. But now, he was so engrossed in looking outside, that the oil was gone! The wise man then told him "The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon". I liked this concept very much. It is the middle-path that is always the best. I am reminded of DVG's poem, one of my favorites.
ಎದೆ ಮಾರುವೋಗದೊಡೆ ಕಣ್ ಸೊಬಗನುಂಡರೇಂ
ಹೃದಯ ಮುಯ್ ಕೇಳದೊಡೆ ನಲಿವ ಸೂಸಿದರೇಂ |
ಕದಡದಿರ್ದೊಡೆ ಮನವ, ತನು ಸೊಗವ ಸವಿದರೇಂ
ಮುದ ತಾನೆ ತಪ್ಪಲ್ಲ ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ ||
For people who care to learn something from the book, it gives one that much-needed gentle nudge towards one's goals. And the hope that even if we make mistakes searching for our guide like the boy did initially, we will find our alchemist waiting for us somewhere...
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
ಋಜುವಾದ ಮಾತು
ಈಚೆಗೆ ಸುದ್ದಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ವಿಷಯ 'ಆವರಣ'ದ ಮತ್ತು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯು. ಆರ್. ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಮಾಡಿದ ಟೀಕೆ. ಯು.ಆರ್.ಏ ಅವರು ಮೊದಲು ಮಾಡಿದ ಟೀಕೆಗೆ ಸ್ಪಂದಿಸಿದ ಅನೇಕಜನ ವಿವಿಧಾಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳನ್ನು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ವಿಜಯಕರ್ಣಾಟಕವನ್ನೂ, ಕೆಲವು ಸುಹೃದರ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳನ್ನೂ ಓದುವ ನನಗೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಪರವಾಗಿಯೇ ಇಲ್ಲಿನ ಸ್ಪಂದನಗಳು ಇದ್ದದ್ದು ಅಚ್ಚರಿ ತರಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ನಿಲುವೂ ಕೂಡ ಸುಮಾರು ಹಾಗೇ ಇದೆ.
ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಮೊದಲಿನಿಂದಲೂ ಮೆಚ್ಚುಗೆ-ಗೌರವಗಳಿವೆ. ಬಹಳ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ ಒಳಹೊಕ್ಕು ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಅವರದು ಸತ್ತ್ವವೇ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಅವರ ಪೂರ್ವಗ್ರಹಗಳು. ಅವರ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನೈಜತೆ ಕಾಣಸಿಗದು. ಒಂದು ಕಥೆಯನ್ನು ಹೇಳುವಾಗ, ಅದು ಪಾತ್ರಗಳ ಕಥೆಯಾಗಿರಬೇಕು. ಪಾತ್ರಗಳು ಲೇಖಕನ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಅವರ ಕ್ರಿಯೆ-ಭಾವ-ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳು ಲೇಖಕನವಲ್ಲದೆ ಅವುಗಳದೇ ಆದರೆ ಅಂಥ ಕಥೆ ನೈಜ ಎನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಬರೆಹಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಗುಣ ನನಗೆ ಕಾಣಲಿಲ್ಲ. ತಮಾಷೆಯೆಂದರೆ ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರನ್ನು ಈ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಿ ಟೀಕಿಸಿರುವುದು!
ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕವಿತ್ವದ ಆರ್ದ್ರತೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಹೇಳುವುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಅವರ ಭಾಷೆ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಗ್ರಾಮ್ಯ. ಆದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಬರೆಹಗಳು (ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರೂ ಒಪ್ಪುವಂತೆ) ಅದು ಹೇಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯವಾದವು? ಒಂದಂತೂ ನಿಜ. ಸತ್ತ್ವಹೀನಕೃತಿಗಳು ಒಮ್ಮೊಮ್ಮೆ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವಾಗಬಹುದಾದರೂ ಸರ್ವಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಒಂದು ಕೃತಿ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವಾಗಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಃಸತ್ತ್ವ, ವಿಚಾರಶೀಲತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕತೆಗಳು ಇರಬೇಕು. ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಕೃತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಗುಣಗಳಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರ ಕೃತಿಗಳು ಅಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಗಳಿಸಿವೆ. ಕೆಲವರು ಆರೋಪಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠತೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗೆ ನೋಡಲು ಹೋದರೆ ಅವರು ಯಾವ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನೂ ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟು ಉತ್ತರದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾವೇ ಯೋಚನೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದು ಉತ್ತಮಲೇಖಕನ ಗುರುತು. ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ, 'ದಾಟು' ವಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾತೀಯ ವಿವಾಹಗಳ ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆ ವಿಧಗಳನ್ನು, ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆ ಜಾತಿಯವರಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಜಾತಿಯ ಮತ್ತು ಅನ್ಯಜಾತಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇರುವ ಭಾವನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಥೆಯ ಹಂದರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಣೆದು, ಈ ವಿಷಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಚೋದಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಉತ್ತರಗಳನ್ನು ಕಂಡುಹಿಡಿಯುವುದು ಅವರವರಿಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು!
ಹಾಗೆ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ನಿಲುವು ಹೀಗೆಯೇ ಎಂದು ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಬಲ್ಲ ಪುಸ್ತಕ 'ಆವರಣ'. ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದೃಷ್ಟ್ಯಾ ಇದು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಉತ್ತಮಕೃತಿಯೆಂದು ಖಂಡಿತ ಹೇಳಲಾಗದು. ಆದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ನಮ್ಮ ಇಂದಿನ "ಸೆಕ್ಯುಲರ್" ಜನತೆಗೆ ಅಗತ್ಯವಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಹೇಳಬೇಕಾದವು. ಸತ್ಯದ ಸಮಾಧಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಸುಳ್ಳಿನ ಗೋಪುರವನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಹೊರಟಿರುವವರು ನಮ್ಮ ಇಂದಿನ ವಾಮಪಂಥೀಯರು. ಆಗಿರುವ ದುರಂತಗಳನ್ನು, ಹತ್ಯಾಕಾಂಡಗಳನ್ನು "ಆಗಲಿಲ್ಲ" ಎಂದೂ, ಆಗದ ಆಕ್ರಮಣಗಳನ್ನು "ಆಗಿದೆ" ಎಂದೂ ಸಾರುತ್ತಿರುವ, ಅದನ್ನೇ ನಂಬಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು. ಒಂದು ಕೋಮಿನವರ ಮನಸ್ಸಂತೋಷಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಕೋಮಿನವರನ್ನು ತುಳಿಯುವ ಮನಸ್ಸುಳ್ಳವರು. ಹಿಂದೂ-ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರ ಸ್ನೇಹ ಭಾರತೀಯರಾದ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಬೇಕಾದುದು. ಈ ಸ್ನೇಹ ಸತ್ಯದ ಬುನಾದಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿಲ್ಲಬೇಕೆಂಬುದು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಮತ. ಹೌದು, ಇಸ್ಲಾಂ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿರುವಷ್ಟು ಬೇರೆಲ್ಲೂ ವರ್ಣರಂಜಿತವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಇನ್ನೂ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಹುಪತ್ನೀತ್ವ, ಮೂರು ಬಾರಿ ಹೇಳುವ ತಲಾಕ್ ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿದೆ. Uniform Civil Code ನ ಕನಸು ಕನಸಾಗಿಯೇ ಉಳಿದಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ವಾಮಪಂಥೀಯರಿಗೋ ಇದು ಹೀಗೆಯೇ ಉಳಿಯಲಿ ಎಂದು. ಕಾಲಕ್ಕನುಗುಣವಾಗಿ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರೂ ಬದಲಾಗುವುದು ಬೇಡವೇ? ಹೌದು, ಕಬೀರ್, ಶಿರ್ಡಿಯ ಸಾಯಿಬಾಬಾ ಮುಂತಾದ ಕಾರಣಜನ್ಮರ ಜನ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ವೃದ್ಧಿ ಇಂತಹುದೇ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯಿತು. ಆದರೆ ಇದನ್ನೇ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು "ಮೊಗಲರ ಆಳ್ವಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಂದೂಗಳು ಎಂದಿಗಿಂತ ಸಂತೋಷವಾಗಿದ್ದರು" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೆ ಅದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ? ಔರಂಗಜೇಬ ಜೆಸಿಯಾ ವಿಧಿಸಿದ್ದು ಸುಳ್ಳಾಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
ಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ತಮ್ಮೂರಿನ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳನ್ನೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಜೀರ್ಣೋದ್ಧಾರ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದು ಮಿರ್ಜಾ ಇಸ್ಮಾಯಿಲ್ ಸಾಹೇಬರು ಎಂದು ಮಾತಿನ ಮಧ್ಯೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಇನ್ನೂ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡಬಲ್ಲೆ. ಬಿ ಆರ್ ಚೋಪ್ರಾ ರವರ "ಮಹಾಭಾರತ್" ಧಾರಾವಾಹಿಯ ಸ್ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಟ್ ಬರೆದದ್ದು ರಾಹಿ ಮಾಸೂಮ್ ರಾಜಾ. ಹಿಂದಿಯ "ಬೈಜು ಬಾವ್ರಾ" ಚಿತ್ರದ 'ಮನ್ ತರ್‌ಪತ್ ಹರಿ ದರ್‌ಶನ್ ಕೋ ಆಜ್' ಗೀತೆಯನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿದ್ದು ಶಕೀಲ್ ಬದಾಯುನಿ, ಸಂಗೀತ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ನೌಷಾದ್ ಮತ್ತು ಹಾಡಿದ್ದು ಮೊಹಮ್ಮದ್ ರಫಿ. ಆದರೆ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರನ್ನೂ ಔರಂಗಜೇಬನನ್ನೂ ಹೋಲಿಸುವುದು ridiculous. ಭಾರತೀಯಮುಸಲ್ಮಾನರನೇಕರನ್ನು ನಾವು ನಮ್ಮವರೆಂದು ಕಂಡುಕೊಂಡಿರುವಂತೆಯೇ, ಹಾಗಿಲ್ಲದವರ ವರ್ತನೆಯನ್ನು (ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನಲ್ಲ) ಖಂಡಿಸಬೇಕು. ಈ ದುಷ್ಕೃತ್ಯಗಳು ಹಿಂದೆ ಆಗಿವೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಆಗಲೇ ಸುಭದ್ರಸಮಾಜದ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಹೀಗೆ ಆಗಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವವರಿಗೆ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದೇ ಹೇಳಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಮ್ಯಾಕ್‌ಬೆತ್ ಅನ್ನು ಷೇಕ್ಸ್‌ಪಿಯರ್ ನೋಡಿರುವ ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಉದಾಹರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. (ತನ್ಮೂಲಕ ಔರಂಗಜೇಬನನ್ನೂ ಮನುಷ್ಯನನ್ನಾಗಿ ನೋಡುವ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಆ ಮಹಾಕವಿಯ ಜೊತೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ!) ಷೇಕ್ಸ್‌ಪಿಯರ್ ಮ್ಯಾಕ್‌ಬೆತ್ ನನ್ನು ಮನುಷ್ಯನನ್ನಾಗಿ ನೋಡಿದರೂ ಅವನು ಮಾಡಿದ ಕೊಲೆಯನ್ನು ಮರೆಮಾಚಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಆವರಣದ ಬಹುತೇಕ ಟೀಕಾಕಾರರು ಔರಂಗಜೇಬ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳನ್ನು ನಾಶ ಪಡಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನೇ ಒರಲುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಥವಾ ನಾಶಪಡಿಸಿದುದನ್ನು ಈಗೇಕೆ ಹೇಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ತದ್ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾಗಿರುವ ಜರ್ಮನರ ವರ್ತನೆಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ. ನಾಜಿಗಳು ಯಹೂದ್ಯರ ಮೇಲೆ ನಡೆಸಿದ ಹತ್ಯಾಕಾಂಡವನ್ನು ಜರ್ಮನರುಎಂದೂ ಮರೆಮಾಚಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅವರವರಲ್ಲಿ ಇಂದು ಶಾಂತಿಯಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಗೆ ಆಗಲಿಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಹಿಂದೂ-ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರ ನಡುವೆ ಇರಬೇಕಾದಷ್ಟು ಸೌಹಾರ್ದ ಇಲ್ಲವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಯಾರು?
ಗುಪ್ತರಾಗಲಿ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಕೂಟರಾಗಲಿ ರಜಪೂತರಾಗಲಿ ಮೊಗಲರಾಗಲಿ ಮರಾಠರಾಗಲಿ, ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿ ಬೆಳೆಸಿದವರು. ಅವರೆಲ್ಲರಲ್ಲಿ ಗುಣಗಳಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಅವಗುಣಗಳೂ ಇದ್ದವು. ನಾವು ಗುಣಗಳನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಂತೆಯೇ ಅವಗುಣಗಳನ್ನೂ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ ಚರಿತ್ರೆಯ ಮೂಲ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೇ ಕೊಡಲಿಯೇಟು ಬೀಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೊಸ ಚಿಗುರು ಹಳೆಯ ಬೇರಿನಿಂದಲೇ ಬರುವುದು. ಬೇರು ಸುಳ್ಳಿನದಾದರೆ ಗಿಡವೂ ಸುಳ್ಳೇ ಅಲ್ಲವೆ?
ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಮೊದಲಿನಿಂದಲೂ ಮೆಚ್ಚುಗೆ-ಗೌರವಗಳಿವೆ. ಬಹಳ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ ಒಳಹೊಕ್ಕು ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಅವರದು ಸತ್ತ್ವವೇ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಅವರ ಪೂರ್ವಗ್ರಹಗಳು. ಅವರ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನೈಜತೆ ಕಾಣಸಿಗದು. ಒಂದು ಕಥೆಯನ್ನು ಹೇಳುವಾಗ, ಅದು ಪಾತ್ರಗಳ ಕಥೆಯಾಗಿರಬೇಕು. ಪಾತ್ರಗಳು ಲೇಖಕನ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಅವರ ಕ್ರಿಯೆ-ಭಾವ-ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳು ಲೇಖಕನವಲ್ಲದೆ ಅವುಗಳದೇ ಆದರೆ ಅಂಥ ಕಥೆ ನೈಜ ಎನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಬರೆಹಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಗುಣ ನನಗೆ ಕಾಣಲಿಲ್ಲ. ತಮಾಷೆಯೆಂದರೆ ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರನ್ನು ಈ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಿ ಟೀಕಿಸಿರುವುದು!
ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕವಿತ್ವದ ಆರ್ದ್ರತೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಹೇಳುವುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಅವರ ಭಾಷೆ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಗ್ರಾಮ್ಯ. ಆದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಬರೆಹಗಳು (ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರೂ ಒಪ್ಪುವಂತೆ) ಅದು ಹೇಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯವಾದವು? ಒಂದಂತೂ ನಿಜ. ಸತ್ತ್ವಹೀನಕೃತಿಗಳು ಒಮ್ಮೊಮ್ಮೆ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವಾಗಬಹುದಾದರೂ ಸರ್ವಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಒಂದು ಕೃತಿ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವಾಗಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತಃಸತ್ತ್ವ, ವಿಚಾರಶೀಲತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕತೆಗಳು ಇರಬೇಕು. ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಕೃತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಗುಣಗಳಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರ ಕೃತಿಗಳು ಅಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಗಳಿಸಿವೆ. ಕೆಲವರು ಆರೋಪಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರು ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠತೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗೆ ನೋಡಲು ಹೋದರೆ ಅವರು ಯಾವ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನೂ ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟು ಉತ್ತರದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾವೇ ಯೋಚನೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದು ಉತ್ತಮಲೇಖಕನ ಗುರುತು. ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ, 'ದಾಟು' ವಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾತೀಯ ವಿವಾಹಗಳ ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆ ವಿಧಗಳನ್ನು, ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆ ಜಾತಿಯವರಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಜಾತಿಯ ಮತ್ತು ಅನ್ಯಜಾತಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇರುವ ಭಾವನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಥೆಯ ಹಂದರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಣೆದು, ಈ ವಿಷಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಚೋದಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಉತ್ತರಗಳನ್ನು ಕಂಡುಹಿಡಿಯುವುದು ಅವರವರಿಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು!
ಹಾಗೆ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ನಿಲುವು ಹೀಗೆಯೇ ಎಂದು ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಬಲ್ಲ ಪುಸ್ತಕ 'ಆವರಣ'. ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದೃಷ್ಟ್ಯಾ ಇದು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಉತ್ತಮಕೃತಿಯೆಂದು ಖಂಡಿತ ಹೇಳಲಾಗದು. ಆದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ನಮ್ಮ ಇಂದಿನ "ಸೆಕ್ಯುಲರ್" ಜನತೆಗೆ ಅಗತ್ಯವಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಹೇಳಬೇಕಾದವು. ಸತ್ಯದ ಸಮಾಧಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಸುಳ್ಳಿನ ಗೋಪುರವನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಹೊರಟಿರುವವರು ನಮ್ಮ ಇಂದಿನ ವಾಮಪಂಥೀಯರು. ಆಗಿರುವ ದುರಂತಗಳನ್ನು, ಹತ್ಯಾಕಾಂಡಗಳನ್ನು "ಆಗಲಿಲ್ಲ" ಎಂದೂ, ಆಗದ ಆಕ್ರಮಣಗಳನ್ನು "ಆಗಿದೆ" ಎಂದೂ ಸಾರುತ್ತಿರುವ, ಅದನ್ನೇ ನಂಬಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು. ಒಂದು ಕೋಮಿನವರ ಮನಸ್ಸಂತೋಷಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಕೋಮಿನವರನ್ನು ತುಳಿಯುವ ಮನಸ್ಸುಳ್ಳವರು. ಹಿಂದೂ-ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರ ಸ್ನೇಹ ಭಾರತೀಯರಾದ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಬೇಕಾದುದು. ಈ ಸ್ನೇಹ ಸತ್ಯದ ಬುನಾದಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿಲ್ಲಬೇಕೆಂಬುದು ಭೈರಪ್ಪನವರ ಮತ. ಹೌದು, ಇಸ್ಲಾಂ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿರುವಷ್ಟು ಬೇರೆಲ್ಲೂ ವರ್ಣರಂಜಿತವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಇನ್ನೂ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಹುಪತ್ನೀತ್ವ, ಮೂರು ಬಾರಿ ಹೇಳುವ ತಲಾಕ್ ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿದೆ. Uniform Civil Code ನ ಕನಸು ಕನಸಾಗಿಯೇ ಉಳಿದಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ವಾಮಪಂಥೀಯರಿಗೋ ಇದು ಹೀಗೆಯೇ ಉಳಿಯಲಿ ಎಂದು. ಕಾಲಕ್ಕನುಗುಣವಾಗಿ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರೂ ಬದಲಾಗುವುದು ಬೇಡವೇ? ಹೌದು, ಕಬೀರ್, ಶಿರ್ಡಿಯ ಸಾಯಿಬಾಬಾ ಮುಂತಾದ ಕಾರಣಜನ್ಮರ ಜನ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ವೃದ್ಧಿ ಇಂತಹುದೇ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯಿತು. ಆದರೆ ಇದನ್ನೇ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು "ಮೊಗಲರ ಆಳ್ವಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಂದೂಗಳು ಎಂದಿಗಿಂತ ಸಂತೋಷವಾಗಿದ್ದರು" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೆ ಅದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ? ಔರಂಗಜೇಬ ಜೆಸಿಯಾ ವಿಧಿಸಿದ್ದು ಸುಳ್ಳಾಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
ಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ತಮ್ಮೂರಿನ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳನ್ನೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಜೀರ್ಣೋದ್ಧಾರ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದು ಮಿರ್ಜಾ ಇಸ್ಮಾಯಿಲ್ ಸಾಹೇಬರು ಎಂದು ಮಾತಿನ ಮಧ್ಯೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಇನ್ನೂ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡಬಲ್ಲೆ. ಬಿ ಆರ್ ಚೋಪ್ರಾ ರವರ "ಮಹಾಭಾರತ್" ಧಾರಾವಾಹಿಯ ಸ್ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಟ್ ಬರೆದದ್ದು ರಾಹಿ ಮಾಸೂಮ್ ರಾಜಾ. ಹಿಂದಿಯ "ಬೈಜು ಬಾವ್ರಾ" ಚಿತ್ರದ 'ಮನ್ ತರ್‌ಪತ್ ಹರಿ ದರ್‌ಶನ್ ಕೋ ಆಜ್' ಗೀತೆಯನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿದ್ದು ಶಕೀಲ್ ಬದಾಯುನಿ, ಸಂಗೀತ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ನೌಷಾದ್ ಮತ್ತು ಹಾಡಿದ್ದು ಮೊಹಮ್ಮದ್ ರಫಿ. ಆದರೆ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರನ್ನೂ ಔರಂಗಜೇಬನನ್ನೂ ಹೋಲಿಸುವುದು ridiculous. ಭಾರತೀಯಮುಸಲ್ಮಾನರನೇಕರನ್ನು ನಾವು ನಮ್ಮವರೆಂದು ಕಂಡುಕೊಂಡಿರುವಂತೆಯೇ, ಹಾಗಿಲ್ಲದವರ ವರ್ತನೆಯನ್ನು (ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನಲ್ಲ) ಖಂಡಿಸಬೇಕು. ಈ ದುಷ್ಕೃತ್ಯಗಳು ಹಿಂದೆ ಆಗಿವೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಆಗಲೇ ಸುಭದ್ರಸಮಾಜದ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಹೀಗೆ ಆಗಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವವರಿಗೆ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದೇ ಹೇಳಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ಅನಂತಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಮ್ಯಾಕ್‌ಬೆತ್ ಅನ್ನು ಷೇಕ್ಸ್‌ಪಿಯರ್ ನೋಡಿರುವ ರೀತಿಯನ್ನು ಉದಾಹರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. (ತನ್ಮೂಲಕ ಔರಂಗಜೇಬನನ್ನೂ ಮನುಷ್ಯನನ್ನಾಗಿ ನೋಡುವ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಆ ಮಹಾಕವಿಯ ಜೊತೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ!) ಷೇಕ್ಸ್‌ಪಿಯರ್ ಮ್ಯಾಕ್‌ಬೆತ್ ನನ್ನು ಮನುಷ್ಯನನ್ನಾಗಿ ನೋಡಿದರೂ ಅವನು ಮಾಡಿದ ಕೊಲೆಯನ್ನು ಮರೆಮಾಚಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಆವರಣದ ಬಹುತೇಕ ಟೀಕಾಕಾರರು ಔರಂಗಜೇಬ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳನ್ನು ನಾಶ ಪಡಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನೇ ಒರಲುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಥವಾ ನಾಶಪಡಿಸಿದುದನ್ನು ಈಗೇಕೆ ಹೇಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ತದ್ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾಗಿರುವ ಜರ್ಮನರ ವರ್ತನೆಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ. ನಾಜಿಗಳು ಯಹೂದ್ಯರ ಮೇಲೆ ನಡೆಸಿದ ಹತ್ಯಾಕಾಂಡವನ್ನು ಜರ್ಮನರುಎಂದೂ ಮರೆಮಾಚಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅವರವರಲ್ಲಿ ಇಂದು ಶಾಂತಿಯಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಗೆ ಆಗಲಿಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಹಿಂದೂ-ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರ ನಡುವೆ ಇರಬೇಕಾದಷ್ಟು ಸೌಹಾರ್ದ ಇಲ್ಲವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಯಾರು?
ಗುಪ್ತರಾಗಲಿ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಕೂಟರಾಗಲಿ ರಜಪೂತರಾಗಲಿ ಮೊಗಲರಾಗಲಿ ಮರಾಠರಾಗಲಿ, ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿ ಬೆಳೆಸಿದವರು. ಅವರೆಲ್ಲರಲ್ಲಿ ಗುಣಗಳಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಅವಗುಣಗಳೂ ಇದ್ದವು. ನಾವು ಗುಣಗಳನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಂತೆಯೇ ಅವಗುಣಗಳನ್ನೂ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ ಚರಿತ್ರೆಯ ಮೂಲ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೇ ಕೊಡಲಿಯೇಟು ಬೀಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೊಸ ಚಿಗುರು ಹಳೆಯ ಬೇರಿನಿಂದಲೇ ಬರುವುದು. ಬೇರು ಸುಳ್ಳಿನದಾದರೆ ಗಿಡವೂ ಸುಳ್ಳೇ ಅಲ್ಲವೆ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)