There is an old man who once was a young man. During his college days, he thought his name was carrot. Then he saw the posters on his Left and noticed that they were red, just like carrots. Swept away by idealism and the pride of having such a great name, he joined the gang.
Years later, he realized his blunder, only to think that it's carat. So he went for broke, and literal struck gold. Now he's filthy rich, but alas! You win some, you lose some. He says he and his wife have decided not to have kids for the 'greater good of the gang'. We all know the real reason.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Pseudo-psephology
Left nahi, right nahi, chalo centre hi sahi. It's almost out now, and it does seem like an increasing number of voters have decided to grin and bear it, and settled upon the Grand Old Party as the least of all the evils that compose our political system. But since anyone and everyone is a psephologist nowadays (who, like the humble journalist who also happens to be the head of one of the major news networks, distance themselves from their predictions the minute they start getting things wrong), I'm going to do some post-poll analysis of my own.
A couple of my classmates claimed to have gone for the bow and arrow - one, because he claims that those are the guys who actually show up at non-poll times, and two, because he preferred Advani over Manmohan. This second guy's naive chain of thought catches my fancy - as much as it is known that this is India and not the US, where it's a straight fight between the Democrat and the Republican, that's what the thought process seems to have been behind a significant number of voters. So even though it is but obvious that the chances of a two-party system being implemented are slimmer than the success of philo-anarchy, many voters went into the polls knowing that there were only 2 real contenders for the top job.
Moving on, if one notices the number of votes in each of the seats where MNS contested from, in particular the Mumbai-Thane region, one thing is clear: Congress n Co. were on their way out, but for Raj. Clearly, some flowers are due here. I'm yet to look at the detailed voting figures for states like UP where the mandate is greatly fractured, but from the looks of things, splitting of votes has played into the hands of the Congress. The pessimistic way of looking at the Bombay figures is that the local majority is easily swayed and has complete faith in the regionalistically divisive forces. The optimistic way is that the people voted for the alliance (i.e BJP), and by analogy, a victory for candidates from the UPA meant a vote against the divisive forces - of course, there are certain pockets among the business people for whom saffron is a friendlier colour, but though they managed to pull it off in Gujarat, the infamous Mumbai South was a different story altogether.
Then again, the much-publicized youth vote, however insignificant a percentage it might have formed (more later), seems to have gone to Rahul Gandhi and his peers - other than the 'crown prince', Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Naveen Jindal, Milind Deora, etc. all contributed to the image of Sonia & Manmohan's party as a youthful one, which had the young vote unless one was particularly attached to the opposite camp. One more name springs to mind - Omar Abdullah, who again is currently a friend of the party of the aforementioned. Little wonder, then, that the sub-35 votes were consolidated.
Of course, social equations were, are and will always be in place unless something drastic happens, but they were majorly re-written. So the rat-eaters and the other really low castes of Bihar voted for Nitish and against the Lalu-Paswan combine; the middle class mostly Punjabi Delhiite continued to repose their comparatively recently found faith in Congress; UP was spoilt for choice but the Muslim vote did not entirely go to Mulayam, while Mayawati seems to have lost the Brahmin votes she toiled so hard to get; Orissa went with Naveen's BJD; as is always the case, no one gives a damn about the few seats in the North-East and the UTs, but broadly it can be said that the regional parties shared the spoils with, yes, the Congress.
And finally, the Left. The continuous upgradation of ideology has finally got voters in 2 of their 3 states (Tripura being a north-easterly is a national non-entity) to wake up and smell the coffee - in the name of welfare, the states, one with the highest literacy rate and the other which is home to some of the most famous intellectuals over the ages, have been fooled over and over again. Especially West Bengal, whose Left leaders are from amongst those very intellectuals but who were a tad smarter than the rest and who in the name of social welfare and upliftment of the downtrodden were able to maneuvre the naive idealists and the sufferers. Only now, the traditional stances of the Left and its main opposition have switched - and while the socially backward continue to stand by those who seem closest, the urban populace seems to have fallen for the change rhetoric. As for Kerala, the less said about it, the better it is (if you want to know, major internal bickering and fatally wrong tie-ups).
So there you have it. The big businesses believe that the Manmohan-Chidambaram combine is as good if not better than the industry-friendly BJP; the youth loves its ilk namely Rahul & Co. These and the splitting of caste, regional and poor people's votes have all meant that Congress alone hovers around the double century mark. The good thing about it is that one-party can take charge and actually take decisions; the bad thing is that it that very party which has had that opportunity oh so many times and failed to capitalise. It doesn't take much to be a political analyst, does it? Or did I miss something major here?
PS: I missed out on a couple of things. Good governance over anti-incumbency? NREGA, loan waivers and pay commissions notwithstanding, I don't think so (the why of it later). And among past governments, neither has been particularly effective in combating terrorism. Also, both the large parties have major stains on their peace-loving credentials and clean sheets, except that our present single largest party hasn't majorly goofed up ever since the anti-Sikh riots and Bofors of the 80s, where the opposition-cum-opposition-to-be's recent track record springs to memory. The only counts on which the former has failed in the past 20 years are Babri Masjid and numerous terrorist strikes, which hardly matters since the latter didn't get Mumbai, in spite of all the hoopla, to care anyway.
A couple of my classmates claimed to have gone for the bow and arrow - one, because he claims that those are the guys who actually show up at non-poll times, and two, because he preferred Advani over Manmohan. This second guy's naive chain of thought catches my fancy - as much as it is known that this is India and not the US, where it's a straight fight between the Democrat and the Republican, that's what the thought process seems to have been behind a significant number of voters. So even though it is but obvious that the chances of a two-party system being implemented are slimmer than the success of philo-anarchy, many voters went into the polls knowing that there were only 2 real contenders for the top job.
Moving on, if one notices the number of votes in each of the seats where MNS contested from, in particular the Mumbai-Thane region, one thing is clear: Congress n Co. were on their way out, but for Raj. Clearly, some flowers are due here. I'm yet to look at the detailed voting figures for states like UP where the mandate is greatly fractured, but from the looks of things, splitting of votes has played into the hands of the Congress. The pessimistic way of looking at the Bombay figures is that the local majority is easily swayed and has complete faith in the regionalistically divisive forces. The optimistic way is that the people voted for the alliance (i.e BJP), and by analogy, a victory for candidates from the UPA meant a vote against the divisive forces - of course, there are certain pockets among the business people for whom saffron is a friendlier colour, but though they managed to pull it off in Gujarat, the infamous Mumbai South was a different story altogether.
Then again, the much-publicized youth vote, however insignificant a percentage it might have formed (more later), seems to have gone to Rahul Gandhi and his peers - other than the 'crown prince', Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Naveen Jindal, Milind Deora, etc. all contributed to the image of Sonia & Manmohan's party as a youthful one, which had the young vote unless one was particularly attached to the opposite camp. One more name springs to mind - Omar Abdullah, who again is currently a friend of the party of the aforementioned. Little wonder, then, that the sub-35 votes were consolidated.
Of course, social equations were, are and will always be in place unless something drastic happens, but they were majorly re-written. So the rat-eaters and the other really low castes of Bihar voted for Nitish and against the Lalu-Paswan combine; the middle class mostly Punjabi Delhiite continued to repose their comparatively recently found faith in Congress; UP was spoilt for choice but the Muslim vote did not entirely go to Mulayam, while Mayawati seems to have lost the Brahmin votes she toiled so hard to get; Orissa went with Naveen's BJD; as is always the case, no one gives a damn about the few seats in the North-East and the UTs, but broadly it can be said that the regional parties shared the spoils with, yes, the Congress.
And finally, the Left. The continuous upgradation of ideology has finally got voters in 2 of their 3 states (Tripura being a north-easterly is a national non-entity) to wake up and smell the coffee - in the name of welfare, the states, one with the highest literacy rate and the other which is home to some of the most famous intellectuals over the ages, have been fooled over and over again. Especially West Bengal, whose Left leaders are from amongst those very intellectuals but who were a tad smarter than the rest and who in the name of social welfare and upliftment of the downtrodden were able to maneuvre the naive idealists and the sufferers. Only now, the traditional stances of the Left and its main opposition have switched - and while the socially backward continue to stand by those who seem closest, the urban populace seems to have fallen for the change rhetoric. As for Kerala, the less said about it, the better it is (if you want to know, major internal bickering and fatally wrong tie-ups).
So there you have it. The big businesses believe that the Manmohan-Chidambaram combine is as good if not better than the industry-friendly BJP; the youth loves its ilk namely Rahul & Co. These and the splitting of caste, regional and poor people's votes have all meant that Congress alone hovers around the double century mark. The good thing about it is that one-party can take charge and actually take decisions; the bad thing is that it that very party which has had that opportunity oh so many times and failed to capitalise. It doesn't take much to be a political analyst, does it? Or did I miss something major here?
PS: I missed out on a couple of things. Good governance over anti-incumbency? NREGA, loan waivers and pay commissions notwithstanding, I don't think so (the why of it later). And among past governments, neither has been particularly effective in combating terrorism. Also, both the large parties have major stains on their peace-loving credentials and clean sheets, except that our present single largest party hasn't majorly goofed up ever since the anti-Sikh riots and Bofors of the 80s, where the opposition-cum-opposition-to-be's recent track record springs to memory. The only counts on which the former has failed in the past 20 years are Babri Masjid and numerous terrorist strikes, which hardly matters since the latter didn't get Mumbai, in spite of all the hoopla, to care anyway.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Grin & bear it
Long time ago, a certain someone with a highly romanticized view of the agrarian life proposed that the Indian National Congress be dissolved with the coming of Independence, and that free India be composed of self-contained colonies of people who keep to themselves and farm their way through life. Such philosophical anarchy was dubbed impractical by the realists who wanted to make sure they guide their motherland through the initial turbulent phase of freedom.
These realists, though, were themselves split down the middle - some were pally with the industrialists, while others believed that the only way forward for everyone was a state-controlled economy. The internal tug-of-war of what was independent India's defacto party made sure that certain things got completely overlooked - the North-East, north-south divide, aspirations of the religious majority, etc. Over sixty years later, and while Kashmir is atleast acknowledged internationally as a troubled hotspot, the problem with the North-East remains - it never gets to bask in the reflected glory of its turmoil. Southern India is in the vice-like grip of half-a-dozen regional parties; western India is similarly possessed by regionalism. And the strict practitioners of the majority faith have a clutch of saffron-coloured outfits to choose from, all of whom descended from the supposed perpetrators of that certain someone's assassination. The policies for tackling socio-economic inequalities were never enough for the Congress's oldest detractors, who in spite of having always lived in the national shadows, have taken a stranglehold over 3 states; elsewhere, such disparities have been taken advantage of by the various caste and religious based fragments, most notably the elephant which seems to be continuing its slow march towards a steadily increasing national vote-share.
Of course, none of these things directly affects me. Or at least they should not, but they do - and they anger me. I see a couple of my peers proud to call themselves Marxists - one, because he wants to be a part of the political system, and the other who, while shunning romanticism, indulges in the same. And when this "other" is being real, he is a victim of knowing small amounts about a lot of things while having not lived through any of those. This is the problem of 2 classes of people - the youth, and the pseudo-intellectual middle-class Marxist. And the intersection of these two classes has meant nothing but trouble since 60s Calcutta. For one, being a middle-class Marxist has meant that one hasn't seen abject poverty and most if not all of one's knowledge is theoretical hence ideal and impractical; secondly, being young means one just hasn't lived through enough or had enough experiences to fall back on, and as in the first case, most of one's knowledge is limited to books.
It is still understandable when a bunch of rural youngsters give up on democracy and take to arms to get rid of the tyranny of the landlords themselves. In an ideal world, all such oppressors will be wiped out and the available resources shall be distributed equally amongst all who deserve. However, as with all revolutions, somewhere down the line some chink is developed in its armour, mostly the leaders' lust for power - so, what started out as a noble albeit violent alternative to a failing democracy is now a pure insurgency which is spreading like a menace, sparing no one, not even the lumpenproletariat who, again I use the word ideally, should be the beneficiaries.
Karat's party was formed as a result of a split between the revisionists and the hardliners; of course, by now everyone who's sane has realized that either way, the goals were too idealistic, so of course, everyone's revising, so much so that the Left's main opposition in Bengal is doing almost exactly what the Left themselves did when they sought to gain power three decades back. It might be true that they're the only ones with any semblance of ideology, but it is truer that their ideology is totally confused, or worse, warped - all the so-called Bengal Leftists did was to create a mafia to secure their immediate interests while fooling a state full of people in the name of social good. So it's easy for those who have nothing to do with Bengal or those who are in power there to walk the Red line - since they are the very same people who don't deserve to talk.
At the other end of the spectrum are a bunch that, again, angers me when in fact it doesn't have anything against me. By birth, I'm a Hindu and that too, a Brahmin. So what am I worried about? If I think about it from my own selfish position, I'm worried about the fact that if these people are allowed to wreak havoc, there'll come a time when there won't be a single good place to have authentic, delicious biryanis and kebabs or a single good darzi left; if I look at it from a less narrow-minded perspective, I'm scared that my great nation's glorious and colourful (even if the darkest shade is the red of people's blood) history will be stained by its (possibly) even bloodier present. A bunch of thugs who slaughter people on the basis of religion, who bring down historical structures and who come to power by taking advantage of the naivety of the faithful do not deserve to run this country.
And in any case, who do they run it for? A select bunch of already filthy rich people who don't care about the welfare of the people as long as their coffers are overflowing. And with whom do they run it? All possible divisive forces, be it in Assam, northern Bengal, Punjab, Haryana or possibly Andhra. And of course, their friends in the western part of the country, who are exemplary of xenophobia at a micro-level. Such groups are multiplying, whereas they should've been outlawed right at the outset - a failure of the nation's Grand Old Party. Neglect by the Congress in the thirty years starting from independence has over the next thirty years culminated into the current mess. The solution? I would like to think anarchy, not necessarily philosophical, but it would require revolution, and aside from the fact that it's not just going to happen without some major push (clearly, terrorist attacks are not), revolutions start off as idealistic, somewhere down the line become impractical and frustrating and finally end up being the profit-making machines of its powerful few, which is not majorly different from our democratic parties.
There we go - the full circle from anarchy to democracy and back is complete. The only plausible solution is a whole gamut:
* to introduce election by absolute majority at all levels, be it civil, legislative or parliamentary, which would require a French-style Round 2.
* anyone with a proven criminal charge or any case pending in a criminal court should be debarred from contesting
* the model code of conduct should ensure that the use of caste, religion, gender or economic status during campaigning should result in immediate disqualification of that party from contesting that seat
* a certain number, preferably half the seats in both legislatures and parliament should be according to vote-shares. The candidates should be allotted according to a precedence list declared prior to the elections (of course, for this the no. of constituencies have to be halved)
Of course, the above measures will never be put into place, primarily because it will be detrimental to both the national as well as the regional parties. So there we have it - right, left or center, nothing works, and anarchy is for the poets. So what do I do, but do what the title says?
These realists, though, were themselves split down the middle - some were pally with the industrialists, while others believed that the only way forward for everyone was a state-controlled economy. The internal tug-of-war of what was independent India's defacto party made sure that certain things got completely overlooked - the North-East, north-south divide, aspirations of the religious majority, etc. Over sixty years later, and while Kashmir is atleast acknowledged internationally as a troubled hotspot, the problem with the North-East remains - it never gets to bask in the reflected glory of its turmoil. Southern India is in the vice-like grip of half-a-dozen regional parties; western India is similarly possessed by regionalism. And the strict practitioners of the majority faith have a clutch of saffron-coloured outfits to choose from, all of whom descended from the supposed perpetrators of that certain someone's assassination. The policies for tackling socio-economic inequalities were never enough for the Congress's oldest detractors, who in spite of having always lived in the national shadows, have taken a stranglehold over 3 states; elsewhere, such disparities have been taken advantage of by the various caste and religious based fragments, most notably the elephant which seems to be continuing its slow march towards a steadily increasing national vote-share.
Of course, none of these things directly affects me. Or at least they should not, but they do - and they anger me. I see a couple of my peers proud to call themselves Marxists - one, because he wants to be a part of the political system, and the other who, while shunning romanticism, indulges in the same. And when this "other" is being real, he is a victim of knowing small amounts about a lot of things while having not lived through any of those. This is the problem of 2 classes of people - the youth, and the pseudo-intellectual middle-class Marxist. And the intersection of these two classes has meant nothing but trouble since 60s Calcutta. For one, being a middle-class Marxist has meant that one hasn't seen abject poverty and most if not all of one's knowledge is theoretical hence ideal and impractical; secondly, being young means one just hasn't lived through enough or had enough experiences to fall back on, and as in the first case, most of one's knowledge is limited to books.
It is still understandable when a bunch of rural youngsters give up on democracy and take to arms to get rid of the tyranny of the landlords themselves. In an ideal world, all such oppressors will be wiped out and the available resources shall be distributed equally amongst all who deserve. However, as with all revolutions, somewhere down the line some chink is developed in its armour, mostly the leaders' lust for power - so, what started out as a noble albeit violent alternative to a failing democracy is now a pure insurgency which is spreading like a menace, sparing no one, not even the lumpenproletariat who, again I use the word ideally, should be the beneficiaries.
Karat's party was formed as a result of a split between the revisionists and the hardliners; of course, by now everyone who's sane has realized that either way, the goals were too idealistic, so of course, everyone's revising, so much so that the Left's main opposition in Bengal is doing almost exactly what the Left themselves did when they sought to gain power three decades back. It might be true that they're the only ones with any semblance of ideology, but it is truer that their ideology is totally confused, or worse, warped - all the so-called Bengal Leftists did was to create a mafia to secure their immediate interests while fooling a state full of people in the name of social good. So it's easy for those who have nothing to do with Bengal or those who are in power there to walk the Red line - since they are the very same people who don't deserve to talk.
At the other end of the spectrum are a bunch that, again, angers me when in fact it doesn't have anything against me. By birth, I'm a Hindu and that too, a Brahmin. So what am I worried about? If I think about it from my own selfish position, I'm worried about the fact that if these people are allowed to wreak havoc, there'll come a time when there won't be a single good place to have authentic, delicious biryanis and kebabs or a single good darzi left; if I look at it from a less narrow-minded perspective, I'm scared that my great nation's glorious and colourful (even if the darkest shade is the red of people's blood) history will be stained by its (possibly) even bloodier present. A bunch of thugs who slaughter people on the basis of religion, who bring down historical structures and who come to power by taking advantage of the naivety of the faithful do not deserve to run this country.
And in any case, who do they run it for? A select bunch of already filthy rich people who don't care about the welfare of the people as long as their coffers are overflowing. And with whom do they run it? All possible divisive forces, be it in Assam, northern Bengal, Punjab, Haryana or possibly Andhra. And of course, their friends in the western part of the country, who are exemplary of xenophobia at a micro-level. Such groups are multiplying, whereas they should've been outlawed right at the outset - a failure of the nation's Grand Old Party. Neglect by the Congress in the thirty years starting from independence has over the next thirty years culminated into the current mess. The solution? I would like to think anarchy, not necessarily philosophical, but it would require revolution, and aside from the fact that it's not just going to happen without some major push (clearly, terrorist attacks are not), revolutions start off as idealistic, somewhere down the line become impractical and frustrating and finally end up being the profit-making machines of its powerful few, which is not majorly different from our democratic parties.
There we go - the full circle from anarchy to democracy and back is complete. The only plausible solution is a whole gamut:
* to introduce election by absolute majority at all levels, be it civil, legislative or parliamentary, which would require a French-style Round 2.
* anyone with a proven criminal charge or any case pending in a criminal court should be debarred from contesting
* the model code of conduct should ensure that the use of caste, religion, gender or economic status during campaigning should result in immediate disqualification of that party from contesting that seat
* a certain number, preferably half the seats in both legislatures and parliament should be according to vote-shares. The candidates should be allotted according to a precedence list declared prior to the elections (of course, for this the no. of constituencies have to be halved)
Of course, the above measures will never be put into place, primarily because it will be detrimental to both the national as well as the regional parties. So there we have it - right, left or center, nothing works, and anarchy is for the poets. So what do I do, but do what the title says?
पॉलिटिक्स मिक्स - 2
Part 2 of the Politics Mix series. Part 1 was published on 10 April 2009.
( "याव याव खमौ ब्येब्स
डू द बीट्स नाउ
पंप अप द बेस डॉग!" )
सकाळ झाली सूर्य डोंबल्यावर आला,
म्या बी उठलो न आलो की ओसरीवर.
पाहतो तर काय,
आमचा आजा, होता फेरी घालीत.
दर दोन मिनिटांनी हात जोडीत,
न हात उंचावून शांत करण्याची नक्कल करीत.
मला वाटल म्हातारा वेडा झाला,
वयाच्या ऐंशीज मध्ये काय खूळ घेऊन बसला!
म्या म्हनला आज्याला,
"काय र आज्या, हे काय करून राहिला रे तू?"
"अस खादी घालून, ध्वॉतर नेसून,
एकटाच नमस्कार करीत काय फिरतोस?"
आजा नमस्कार करीत म्हनला (चिरक्या आवाजात),
"देखिये....हम इस बार गावाच्या सरपंच पद के लिये निवडणूक लढ रहे है"
अगदी श्वाकच बसला मला!
"आर आजा, तुझा वय आता ऐंशी, तू कशी काय लढणार विलेक्शन?"
"ह्या वयात हे जमणार कस तुला?"
(मनातल्या मनात म्हन्लो, " म्हातारा बहुतेक झालाय खुळा!")
आज्याने आपला थरथरणारा हात हळू हळू उचलला
न माज्या गालावर मायेने ठेवला.
म्या म्हन्लो, " आर, लाड कशापाई करतोस?"
"बोल, माज्या प्रश्नाच उत्तर कधी देतोस?"
तर वैतागून आजा म्हन्तो कसा,
"ए, भुस्नळ्या, म्या लाड न्हाई क्येले,
म्या तर तुझे मुस्काट फोडले!
माझे हात थरथरले म्हनून
तुला नाय कळले!"
"म्या असेन ऐंशी
पण अजुन पन जवान हाय,
परवाच उंदीर मारला,
म्या निडर हाये!
ट्वायिलेटला कदी जायाच
हेची तुझा बा न्हाय आठव करून देत,
म्याच ठरीव्तो!
म्या निर्णायक हाये!."
" म्हातारा झालो म्हुन काय झाल?
मला बी सत्ता ट्येस्ट करायची हे!"
म्या चक्रावलो, म्हन्लो,
" आर पण, गावातल्या यंग उमेदवारांच काय?"
आजा आन्खी वैतागला, " ए शान्या, गप र्हा की!
म्या विलेक्शन लढणार म्हंजे लढणार!
जास्त बोललास,
तर माझ्या 'लाल' छ्डीने 'आडवा आणी' उभा फोडून काढीन!"
म्या म्हटला " स्वाँरी आजा, माफी असावी!"
तर आजाचा थरथरणारा हात परत गालावर फिरला!
म्या वैतागलो, " आता कशापाई मारतो?
आजा आपले खोटे दात दाखवत म्हनला,
" म्या तुझा आजा, माज्या राजा!
म्या लाड केले नाही मारली मुस्काटात!
चल आता रुसु नकोस,
गाडी काढ आपली,
रथ यात्रा काढली पायजे,
ह्या यंग गावाला
म्या ऐंशी वर्षाचा तरुणच
नीडर नि निर्णायक बनवू शकतो,
हा नि चा पाढा पढवला पायजे!"
-प्रांजल वाघ
This work by Pranjal A. Wagh is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License
( "याव याव खमौ ब्येब्स
डू द बीट्स नाउ
पंप अप द बेस डॉग!" )
सकाळ झाली सूर्य डोंबल्यावर आला,
म्या बी उठलो न आलो की ओसरीवर.
पाहतो तर काय,
आमचा आजा, होता फेरी घालीत.
दर दोन मिनिटांनी हात जोडीत,
न हात उंचावून शांत करण्याची नक्कल करीत.
मला वाटल म्हातारा वेडा झाला,
वयाच्या ऐंशीज मध्ये काय खूळ घेऊन बसला!
म्या म्हनला आज्याला,
"काय र आज्या, हे काय करून राहिला रे तू?"
"अस खादी घालून, ध्वॉतर नेसून,
एकटाच नमस्कार करीत काय फिरतोस?"
आजा नमस्कार करीत म्हनला (चिरक्या आवाजात),
"देखिये....हम इस बार गावाच्या सरपंच पद के लिये निवडणूक लढ रहे है"
अगदी श्वाकच बसला मला!
"आर आजा, तुझा वय आता ऐंशी, तू कशी काय लढणार विलेक्शन?"
"ह्या वयात हे जमणार कस तुला?"
(मनातल्या मनात म्हन्लो, " म्हातारा बहुतेक झालाय खुळा!")
आज्याने आपला थरथरणारा हात हळू हळू उचलला
न माज्या गालावर मायेने ठेवला.
म्या म्हन्लो, " आर, लाड कशापाई करतोस?"
"बोल, माज्या प्रश्नाच उत्तर कधी देतोस?"
तर वैतागून आजा म्हन्तो कसा,
"ए, भुस्नळ्या, म्या लाड न्हाई क्येले,
म्या तर तुझे मुस्काट फोडले!
माझे हात थरथरले म्हनून
तुला नाय कळले!"
"म्या असेन ऐंशी
पण अजुन पन जवान हाय,
परवाच उंदीर मारला,
म्या निडर हाये!
ट्वायिलेटला कदी जायाच
हेची तुझा बा न्हाय आठव करून देत,
म्याच ठरीव्तो!
म्या निर्णायक हाये!."
" म्हातारा झालो म्हुन काय झाल?
मला बी सत्ता ट्येस्ट करायची हे!"
म्या चक्रावलो, म्हन्लो,
" आर पण, गावातल्या यंग उमेदवारांच काय?"
आजा आन्खी वैतागला, " ए शान्या, गप र्हा की!
म्या विलेक्शन लढणार म्हंजे लढणार!
जास्त बोललास,
तर माझ्या 'लाल' छ्डीने 'आडवा आणी' उभा फोडून काढीन!"
म्या म्हटला " स्वाँरी आजा, माफी असावी!"
तर आजाचा थरथरणारा हात परत गालावर फिरला!
म्या वैतागलो, " आता कशापाई मारतो?
आजा आपले खोटे दात दाखवत म्हनला,
" म्या तुझा आजा, माज्या राजा!
म्या लाड केले नाही मारली मुस्काटात!
चल आता रुसु नकोस,
गाडी काढ आपली,
रथ यात्रा काढली पायजे,
ह्या यंग गावाला
म्या ऐंशी वर्षाचा तरुणच
नीडर नि निर्णायक बनवू शकतो,
हा नि चा पाढा पढवला पायजे!"
-प्रांजल वाघ
This work by Pranjal A. Wagh is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)