क्षणिकाएं 53 (741-50)

741

ये शहर इलाहाबाद

कभी मेरा भी अजीज़ शहर होता था

इसके घाट, गली-कूचों से था खास रिश्ता सा

निरंतर बदलाव है मगर प्रकृति का साश्वत दस्तूर

होता भी है किशोर मन में नए की कल्पना सुरूर

बदलता रहा मैं अंदाज़-ए-आवारगी में

बनते रहे अजीज और नये नये शहर

चलता रहा भटकता भी रहा

मुकाम-दर-मुकाम मंजिल-दर-मंजिल

हक़ीकत की तलाश और उसे बदलने के प्रयास में

दिल तो कचोटता ही है छूटती है जब कोई जगह

जिया हो जहां ज़िंदगी के अनंत हसीन लम्हे

तैर जाती हैं आंखों में तमाम यादें तमाम बातें

जीवंत हो उठती हैं दृष्य-दर-दृष्य

श्याम बेनेगल की किसी फिल्म की रील की तरह

जैसे शांत पोखर में हलचल पैदा कर दी हो किसी ने

फेंककर एक छोटा सा कंकड़

शहर छूटने का थोड़ा मलाल जरूर था

मन में मगर

नई जगह के नए ज़ोख़िमों की कल्पना का सुरूर था

अब भी अज़ीज है ये शहर इलाहाबाद

है जिसमें जरूर कोई खास बात

जब भी इस शहर में जाता-आता

कभी नहीं खुद को अजनबी पाता

लगते नहीं कभी अजनबी शहर के तेवर औ जज़्बात

बदली है साजोसज्जा बदले हैं भूगोल और इतिहास

बदला नहीं शहर का मगर सामंती मिजाज़

नाटक वही है बस बदल गये हैं कुछ किरदार

होता नहीं एक ही किसी शहर का मिजाज़

निकलती है उसी में से ही विद्रोह की भी आग

आओ डालकर घी इसमें फैलाएं इंकिलाबी ज्वाला

दुनिया का मेहनतकश हो जिसका रखवाला

आओ मिजाज इस शहर का बदल दें

दुनिया में इसको इक मिशाल बना दें,

(पहली 2 पंक्तियां ही लिखना चाहता था बाकी ऐसे ही लिखा गयीं)

(ईमिः 12.09.2015)

742

बंद करो अब देखना हाथों की रेखाएं और आसमान के तारे

टांको लाल फरारे में प्यार के कुछ सुंदर लाल सितारे

तोड़कर मैं और तुम की सीमाएं और वर्जनाएं बनो एक हम

महसूसो पारस्परिकता अनूठा सुख और अदम्य दम

बंदकर देखना पीछे बढ़ो आगे लिए हाथों में हाथ

होगी मंजिल कदमों में चलेंगे ग़र साथ साथ

(बस ऐसे ही-- प्रातकालीन बौद्धिक आवारगी)

(ईमिः 12.09.2015)

743

हे विदुषी बालिके, B|

तुम शब्द-शिल्प की धनी हो

संवाद में मगर कुछ अनमनी हो

सही ही नहीं सौ टके की है तुम्हारी यह बात 

 गज़लगोई  ने ही कराई थी पहली मुलाकात

कविता को कैसी भी हो कहकर करना निरस्त 

है आलोचना का तुम्हारा काव्मयय अंदाज़

नहीं जानता छंद व लय के द्वंद्व का राज़

पद्य में कह देता हूं कभी अंतःमन की बात

हों गर दिल में इंसाफ के बेचैन ज़ज़्बात

और मन के हक़ीकी विचार  साफ 

खुद-ब-खुद साथ हो लेती है भाषा-शैली की विसात

जैसी भी हो अद्भुत है कविता से संयोग-वियोग की बात

(हा हा यह तो  कविता हो गय़ी)

(ईमिः29.09.2015)

744

जो कष्टदायक हद तक प्यार करे

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

बात बात पर तकरार करे जो

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

चाय बनाने से इंकार  करे जो

बोले मैं तो हूं बिटिया 

बेटा कहने पर भौंह चढ़ाये

बोले मैं हूं बिटिया

फर्राटे से फटफटी* चलाये

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

शोहदों को दो चपत लगाये

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

मर्दवाद की शामत लाये

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

मां-बाप को राह दिखाये

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

ब्याह करके जो बहुत रुलाये

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

मर्दवाद का जो बैंड बजाये

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

असंभव को संभव जो कर दे

उसे कहते हैं बिटिया

(हा हा बहुत दिनों बाद तुकबंदी में कमेंट लिखा गया.......  मेरी तो 2 हैं)

(ईमिः 28.09.2015)

*फटफटी -- मोटरसाइकिल

745

फैला रहे हैं भक्तगण नफरत का ऐसा जहर 

याद आता है नाज़ी तूफानी दस्तों का कहर 

क्या कहें इस जनता का है जो धर्म के नशे में चूर 

 रख विवेक ताक पर करती इंसानियत चकनाचूर

सुनते ही मंदिर के पुजारी का यह जीवविज्ञान

इंसान से अधिक मूल्यवान है गाय  की जान

किया उसने से हिंदुत्व पर खतरे का ऐलान 

गोमांस खाता है इस गांव का एक मुसलमान

किया उसने भकतों का मंदिर में आह्वान

पलक झपकते ही जुट गये सैकड़ों नवजवान

बहुतों को पहले से मालुम थी यह बात

सोये नहीं वे बीत जाने पर काफी रात 

दिखाया एक भक्त एक टांग सी तस्वीर

अखलाक़ के घर तक जाती खून की लकीर

किया एक भक्त ने आध्यात्मिक तकरीर

गोभक्षक रहा जीवित तो कि्स काम का शरीर

सुनते ही खौलने लगा भकतों का खून 

सवार हुा उन पर गोभक्ति का जुनून 

ब्राह्मणों के बीच रहता था यह  अख़लाक 

  भक्तों की भीड़ ने कर दिया उसे हलाक

(ईमिः08.10.2015)

746

रूहे अब भी तड़पती हैं

दब जाती है तड़प कीर्तन के शोर में 

जिस तरह भीड़ के उंमाद में खो जाता है विवेक

मरती नहीं खो जाती हैं रूहें बिकने से जमीर

गिरा दिया जाता है पर्दा  

मंदिरों की प्राचीरों से गूंजती है देववाणी

हादसा बताती है जो रूहों की गुमशुदगी

आगाह करती है गड़े मुर्दे उखाड़ने के विरुद्ध

दैविक प्रकोप के गंभीर नतीजों की धमकी के साथ

लेकिन अब उठने लगे हैं गड़े मुर्दे

चलने लगी हैं हाथ लहराते हुए लाशें

फैलने लगी हैं गलियों, सड़कों, शहरों गांवों में 

खंड खंड करते हुए देववाणी का पाखंड

बंद हो जाएगा कीर्तन का शोर रूहों की तड़प की गर्जना से

जज्बात की जगह दिमाग से सोचने लगेंगे लोग

जागेगा जमीर

संख्या बल होगा जनबल में तब्दील

चीरकर धर्माधता की धुंध के बादल 

करेंगी रूहें अपनी मौजूदगी का ऐलान

खुद-ब-खुद नेस्त-नाबूद हो जयेगा 

देववाणी के हादसों का खेल

(ईमिः09.10.2015)

747

जी हां तटस्थ हूं मैं

नहीं शामिल था अखलाक़ की हत्या में 

लेकिन जो होता है भले के लिए होता है

ईश्वर ने सजा दी गोमांस भक्षण को 

माना कि नहीं मारा अख़लाक़ ने गाय

लेकिन सोचें जरा तटस्थ होकर

भविष्य की संभावनाओं से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता 

मुझसे मत पूछो कि मोदी जी क्यों बार बार अमरीका जाते हैं 

और दुम हिलाते हैं उनके सामने

जो नियमित गोमांस खाते हैं

मैं तटस्थ हूं

यह मामला है भूमंडलीय पूंजी की निष्ठा का

हिंदु राष्ट्र की सुरक्षा का

दुनिया में राष्ट्र की प्रतिष्ठा का 

पहले ही लिख चुके हैं संत तुलसीदास 

गलत नहीं हो सकता कभी शक्तिशाली सम्राट

वैसे भी दस दिन बाद सही

बिहार की चुनावी सभा की जुमलेबाजी में ही सही

किया मोदी जी ने अख़लाक़ की मौत में अपना हाथ होने से इंकार

 सोम-साक्षी-शर्मा को लगाई शाहजी ने फटकार

नहीं थी इस देशभक्ति के जश्न की दरकार

मैं तटस्थ हूं

आज़दी का मतलब है अपने काम से काम रखना

जुबान पर अपनी लगाम रखना

दुष्यंत की सलाह पर  शरीफ लोगों में मिल जाना

जहां भी चले लहू-लुहान नज़ारों की बात

उठकर वहां से दूर बैठ जाना

आज़ादी से निजाम की वफादारी करना

खुद्दारी के नाम पर कुछ लोग अपनाते हैं विद्रोही तेवर

गलतफहमी में हुई हत्या को बताते सोचा समझा कहर

मैं वाकई तटस्थ हूं न्याय-अन्याय से परे

(अरुण माहेश्वरी के माध्यम से सरला जी की कविता से प्रेरित, कमेंट)

(ईमि-20,10.2015)

748

सही कहा राहत इंदौरी ने 

"सभी का खून शामिल है यहां की मिट्टी में

किसी के बाप का हिंदुस्तान थोड़ी है"

ललकारा था कॉमरेट पाश ने कंजी आंखों वाले पाइलट को

काटने को अपना नाम यदि हो उसका कोई अपना हिंदुस्तान

तो सुनो लाशों की तिजारत के सरताज

यह किसी के बाप का नहीं आवाम का है हिंदुस्तान

दुहराता हूं कॉमरेड पाश की चुनौती

क्योंकि तुम भी तो उसके ही मौसेरे भाई हो

बस तुममें है उससे थोडा ज्यादा गरूर

और हो कुर्सी के नशे में थोड़ा ज्यादा चूर

हुआ था   दिल्ली में जब भीषण नऱसंहार

बताया था उसने  

बडे पेड़ के गिरने से धरती हिलने का परिणाम

तुम्हे भी याद आया महज बारह साल बाद

गुजरात का भीषणतम नरसंहार 

था जो कार के सामने कुत्ता आ जाने के हादसे सा

तुम भी जानते हो सारी दुनियी की तरह

खत्म हो गई खानदानी सल्तनत

समा गया वह इतिहास के कूड़ेदान में

तुम भी जानते हो सारी दुनिया की तरह

खत्म हो जाएगी धर्मोंमाद पर टिकी संघी सल्तनत

समा जाओगे इतिहास के किसी कूड़ेदान में उसी की तरह

हिंदुस्तान रचता रहेगा अपने इतिहास का गतिविज्ञान

क्योंकि इतिहास का अंत नहीं होता

इसलिए भी कि किसी के बाप का नहीं आवाम का है हिंदुस्तान

(ईमिः22.10.2015)

749

कहा था सुकरात ने पचीस सौ साल पहले

समझे जो अपने को सर्वज्ञ

होता है ज्ञान की परिभाषा से अनभिज्ञ 

होता नहीं कोई परम ज्ञान

वैसे ही जैसे होता नहीं कोई अंतिम सत्य

लेकिन मठाधीश बने सर्वज्ञ

 इतना जानता है कि कुछ और जानने से घबराता है

ओढ़ आभामंडल की चमकती चादर

जिज्ञासा के खतरों से बाल-बाल बच जाता है

कूपमंडूक बन इतराता है सर्वज्ञ

हर सर्वज्ञ याद दिलाता है

गोरख पांडे के समझदारों का गीत के किरदार का

जो आज़ादी और बेराजगारी के खतरों से बाल बाल बच जाता है

जिज्ञासा का खतरा न हो तो

कुछ भी कर सकता है यह सर्वज्ञ

(ईमिः 26.10.2015)

750

जी हां, मैं हूं मोहन भागवत

हिंदु-राष्ट्र का चितपावनी स्वागत

मैं व्यक्ति नहीं व्यवस्था हूं

नागपुर में बैठा लगाम देश की कसता हूं

हमारा धर्म है बहुत सहिष्णु

हमारे अवतारी भगवान हैं भगवान विष्णु

जब भी बढ़ता है पाखंड पर अत्याचार

अवतरित होते हैं करने वे असुरसंहार

कलयुग में बदला है असुरों ने भेष

बन गये हैं कम्युनिस्ट, बुद्धिजीवी और म्लेच्छ

 बुद्धिजीवी है असहनशीलता की जीवंत मिशाल

करता है तर्कों से अवतारों की लीला पर सवाल

कर दिया सहिष्णु भक्तों चंद चरमपंथी हलाल

उठा लिया दानिशमंदों ने विद्रोह की मशाल

कलयुग के अवतारों पर होती संवैधानिक सीमा

बना देते वरना इन सबका कीमा

इनके विचारों मैं है कटु असहनशीलता

कब तक धीरज धरेगी हमारी सहनशीलता 

करेंगे भक्त खत्म इनमें संख्याबल की आस्था

करेंगे दानिशमंदी की वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था

लग गये हैं इस मिशन में दीनानाथ बत्रा

टीवी पर काबिज पराक्रमी संवित पात्रा

वैसे तो चैनलों पर है हमारी पूरी निगरानी 

फिर भी कुछ कहते हैं नामाकूल कहानी

उन्हें भी खरीद लेंगे हमारे अंबानी

थिंक-टैंक हमारे सिन्हा राकेश

मचाता जो विमर्श में भाषा का भदेस

पाते रहे अवतार पुरुष यदि ऐसे ही जनादेश

बना देंगे भारत को ऋषि-मुनियों का देश

होगा तब हिंदुओं में स्वर्णयुग का जुनून

हिंदुराष्ट्र में लागू होगा मनु महराज का कानून

(ईमिः 02.11.2015)

हम भी देखेंगे

लाजिम है हम भी देखेंगे

जब मेहनतकश परचम लहराएगा

फिरकापरस्ती का दानव छूमंतर हो जाएगा

राष्ट्रवाद का कॉरपोरेटी चेहरा बेपर्दा हो जायेगा 

छात्रों में जब ऐसा इंकलाबी जज्बा आएगा

इंकलाब के नारोॆ से तब चप्पा-चप्पा गूंजेगा

गोबर के इन गणेशों को कोई भी नहीं तब पूजेगा

हर शहर हर गांव में हिरावल दस्ता घूमेगा

औ ज़ुल्म की परतें खोलेगा

जालिम का सिंहासन डोलेगा

दुनिया के हर गुंबद पर लाल लालप लहराएगा

हम देखेंगे

लाजिम है हम भी देखेंगे

(बस ऐसे ही, कलम का मॉर्निंग वाक)

(ईमिः10.11.2015)

janhastakshep - press release of meeting on attack on freedoms

  

Janhastakshep: a campaign against fascist designs Press release                                                                           Dated: 6th November, 2015 Subject: Meeting against growing intolerance Janhastakshep organized a well attended hall meeting on ‘Attack on Freedoms – A Growing Fascist Trend’ at Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi on the 5th of November 2015. The meeting was presided over by the noted academic and activist Prof Manoranjan Mohanty and addressed by a number of noted writers, poets and painters. Among those who addressed the gathering were Justice (retired) Rajender Sacchar, noted English short story writer and poet Keki N Daruwala, Sumit Chakravarty, editor Mainstream; Hindi writers and poets Sh Vishwanath Tripathi and Sh Pankaj Singh, General Secretary of Democratic Writers Association, Sh M M P Singh, writer and painter Ashok Bhawmik and the president of the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA), Prof Nandita Narain. Addressing the meeting Justice Sacchar said that what the present government at the Centre was doing is in consonance with the nature of political forces it represents and was only to be expected. Condemning the manner in which the government has undermined the Constitution, he said that Secularism and Socialism were two pillars of our Constitution and cautioned that while there has rightly been much hue and cry on the undermining of Secularism, surprisingly very little is said regarding the undermining of Socialism in the country, even though the undermining of Socialism has directly facilitated the undermining of Secular fabric of the Indian society. Sh Keki Daruwala emphasized that just as heresy is necessary for a vibrant religion, there can be no conceptualization of Democracy without Dissent. Attributing it to the intellectual and ideological bankruptcy of the Hindu Right, he said that due to their inability to mount an intellectual response to the debate raised in the wake of recent protests by eminent writers, poets, artists and scientists the Hindutva forces have chosen to smear these protests as a ‘Manufactured Debate’; likewise, poverty of intellect on their side has led them to label dissenting intellectuals as ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ and those believing in Secular values as ‘pseudo-secularists.’ Noted literary critic and Hindi writer Sh Vishwanath Tripathi described ‘Uniformity’ as an opponent of ‘Unity’. Prosperity of Indian democracy he said was synonymous with the prosperity of its diversity. Hailing the recent protests by scores of literatures and artists, he said that in their act they have lived the words of Munshi Prem Chand who described the role of a literature as the guiding torch of politics. Recalling several instances from independent India’s history in his address, Sh Murali Mahohar Prasad Singh  thoroughly rubbished the smear campaign of BJP accusing the protesting writers of showing opportunism and claiming that they chose to remain silent in the aftermath of 1984 riots and after emergency. He recalled how the RSS cadre had actively participated  and helped instigate the anti-Sikh riots in 1984. Debunking the “Nationalistic” talk of BJP he said that for them the ‘Nation’ meant BJP and its Hindutva. There was no space in their conceptualization of ‘Nationalism’ for those not conforming to their view point. He recalled the words of Golwalkar wherein he had instructed the Hindus not to waste their energy in fighting against the British, but to concentrate on tackling three internal enemies – the Muslims, Christians and the Communists. The fourth enemy that can now be added to this is ‘Democracy’, said Singh. Noted Hindi poet, Sh Pankaj Singh welcomed the 24 film personalities who returned their awards yesterday as the newest entrants to the growing list of ‘Anti-National’ artists in the country. He drew attention to the fact that Fascism prospers by rendering the people into ‘insecure’ individuals and to achieve this it destroys any sense of collective among them; it destroys everything that is beautiful about life including our dreams and sources of inspiration, and it is this tendency that explains the vigorous onslaught of the ‘Hindutva’ forces on the cultural, educational and scientific institutions of the country. Pankaj Singh pointed out that the present phase has been preceded by a long phase of economic policies in which every sense of societal solidarity and belonging had been undermined which directly paved the way for the present phase. He however expressed conviction that the present phase of resistance shall develop into a forceful struggle. Sh Sumit Chakravarty in his address emphasized that the complicity of the State in the present attack on the democratic institutions had become much more direct than it had ever been in the past. Noted painter Sh Ashok Bhowmik appealed that the intellectuals ought to come down from their high pedestals and become one with the common masses in order to take this message forward among the commonest of the common people. DUTA president, Prof Nandita Narain drew upon the experience of teacher’s struggles to point out how the undermining of education, especially higher education in the country had led to generations of youth who were unquestioning, had very contorted motivations or were thoroughly disillusioned. This had rendered them susceptible to the communal virus in the society. The meeting ended with the adoption of a resolution placing six demands from the Modi government.   -sd- (Ish Mishra)   Convener RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE MEETING ON ‘ATTACK ON FREEDOMS – A GROWING FASCIST TREND’ ORGANIZED BY JANHASTAKSHEP AND SANSKRITI SAROKAR, HELD AT GANDHI PEACE FOUNDATION, DELHI ON THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER, 2015. India is passing through a difficult phase marked by concerted attacks by the Hindu right to disrupt communal harmony and impose a uniformity of views in consonance with its own in different walks of life. The recent spate of murderous attacks on Muslims, writers, rationalist thinkers, political activists and dalits and the response of the official establishment to these has left peace loving, secular and democratic sections of the Indian society extremely worried regarding the direction in which India seems to be drifting precisely because there is increasing evidence of State connivance behind these attacks. These events have not struck all of a sudden; and their nagging premonition has been around ever since the Muzaffarnagar riots were staged in preparation of the BJP campaign for ‘Ab ki baar Modi sarkar’ (this time vote for a Modi led government at the centre). With the accention of the Narendra Modi led government at the Centre the Hindutva forces have unabashedly unleashed their retrogressive social, economic and political agenda – beginning with bogey of love jihad, to ‘ghar vapsi’ and now the ‘holy cow and beef.’ These incidents have received the covert and overt support of various BJP / RSS leaders, and the prime minister himself has either maintained a benign silence or has issued statements reflective of a victim blaming approach. In their attempt to decimate any voice of opposition to their designs the Hindutva goons have sought to instill terror by brandishing violence and mayhem against any and every voice of reason. A determined bid is being made to establish the ideological hegemony of the Hindu right over Indian society by undermining the integrity of the highest educational, cultural and scientific institutions of the country by imposing Hindutva cadres of dubious credibility in positions of authority in these institutions. All of this has only enhanced the tendencies of intolerance to people’s dissent which was already evident in the conduct of the different organs of the State and the behavior of some ruling class parties. This gathering of writers, poets, painters, teachers, students, other intellectuals and workers sees the events of last more than year and a half as a conspiracy by the Hindutva forces to communally polarise the working masses and the intelligentsia of this country and browbeat the minorities, especially the Muslims, into submission through their divisive social agenda in furtherance of the retrogressive and anti-people economic agenda of the ruling classes that Mr Modi has sought to so vigorously peddle on his umpteen foreign jaunts. In the foregoing context, this gathering wholeheartedly welcomes the protests staged by the writers, poets, film artists, painters, academics and scientists against this avalanche of intolerance that has been unleashed on the Indian people with State connivance. This expression of protest by these prominent personalities shall inspire the Indian masses for a long time to come. This gathering strongly condemns the personalized attacks and humiliation sought to be rubbed on these protesting intellectuals by the leaders of the BJP and RSS combine; and resolves to strengthen the voice of protest raised by these writers, poets, scientists and film artists. Even as this gathering deliberates these important issues, it is disturbing to note that oppression is being unleashed on dissent by other political forces as well. On the 30th of October the Tamil Nadu police booked a popular folk singer of the ‘People’s Art and Literary Association’ (PALA), Com Shiva Raj aka Kovan from Tiruchirappalli for singing songs that were deemed defamatory to the Tamil Nadu government of AIADMK and its leader Jayalalitha. We unequivocally condemn this high handedness of the Tamil Nadu government. This gathering, through its meeting demands from Mr Modi’s government that: ·        The attempts by the RSS and BJP cadres and leaders to polarize the society on communal lines, and attacks on the life and property of Muslims in this country should stop forthwith. ·        Acts of violence against persons, irrespective of their stature, caste or religion for articulating condemnation or opposition to the policies of the government in power should stop. ·        Justice should be expeditiously meted out to the victims various instances of violence that have been reported and the perpetrators be apprehended, tried and punished without ado. ·        The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi should act against the members of his council of ministers who have condoned these acts by making irresponsible statements exhibiting their sympathies with the Hindutva goons. ·        Prime Minster should defend the Constitution of the country in letter and spirit by which he swore to occupy his high office. ·        The slandering of the intellectuals who have returned State awards by the leaders of the BJP ought to stop forthwith. ·        We also demand that Com Kovan be released immediately by the Tamil Nadu government and all cases lodged against him be taken back.

Attack on Freedoms

Attack on Freedoms: A Growing Fascist Trend 

The RSS and its various official unofficial fronts are quite enraged with the protest of various sections of the intellectuals and artists against the attack on freedoms and the composite culture of the country and intolerance of dissent leading to killing of the progressive intellectuals and mob lynching in Dadari. The protest of the intellectuals that began with the symbolic protest of returning of the Sahitya Academy awards by eminent poets and writers is becoming more and more pervasive. Concerned with effect on “investment” for “make in India” The leaders of RSS and BJP are making irresponsible and dangerous statements of vengeance with the inferences of growing fascist trends under the dispensation of the present government. In fact this kind of unexpected nationwide protests of intellectuals and creative personalities from other cultural fields against the culture of communal violence and intolerance of dissent by the Hinduttva forces under government patronage has crossed the national boundaries and is garnering widespread support of international intellectual community. Panicked by the international condemnation, RSS leaders began terming intellectuals’ protests as   intolerance to it and Hinduism. The billionaire Finance Minister echoed it by stating that Modi has been the worst victim of intolerance since 2002 hinting at more vengeful acts of attack on freedoms situational rights of the citizens.     

It is for the first time in the history of India since independence that such a large number of people from various creative cultural fields:  poets and writers of various languages; artists; filmmakers and actors    from all over the country and abroad have joined hands to protest against the culture of communal violence and intolerance. The intellectual dissent to the growing fascist trends of communal intolerance had been gaining ground ever since the present government came to power through communal polarization and that seems intent to maintain and extend power with the same tactic. The recent cold blooded, cowardly murder of the Kannad writer Professor Kalburgi and premeditated lynching with the beef rumor in Dadri, proved to be the triggering point precipitating into  collective protest. The protests continue and shall continue as the hate campaign, the political tool of the RSS does not seem to mellow down but has become more aggressively vocal. The present undeclared emergency is more dangerous than the declared emergency as Indira Gandhi had to rely on mostly state’s coercive apparatuses for oppression. The present government has additional forces of various RSS lumpen brigades like Bajrangdal, Ramsena, et.al under its disposal and experts in rumor mongering.   

The Hinduttva forces under the RSS command, due to being bereft of sense of history, had not imagined that symbolic protest of returning Sahitya Academy awards by some eminent poets and writers shall made such a huge worldwide collective protests by intellectuals – poets; writers; artists; film makers; scientist and social scientists. The worry and desperation of the RSS and its government are not concern for country’s constitution values of secularism and constitutional rights of freedom to speech and expression and right to choice, but the image of the government affecting its “make in India”  model of neo-liberal development under the WTO direction. Ever since Modi government took over the power with massive majority in parliaments, the intellectuals have been concerned with the growing attacks on basic democratic values of communal amity; plurality of lifestyles; fundamentals rights and tolerance to differences of opinion, through threats, muscle power and murders. In the name of Hinduttva, these obscurantist forces with a favorable government at centre and some states are moving forward to implement their divisive agenda of cultural homogenization aimed further marginalizing the other cultures rendering the members of minority community into second class citizens.  Venomous expression of this intent can be seen in everyday utterances of RSS and BJP leaders and ministers terming the opponents as Pakistan agent or leftists suggesting to leave the country for Pakistan. Premeditated attacks on minorities have increased in the last one year threatening the basic fabrics of democracy.   Not only are the minions like Sadhvi Prachi or Sakshi Maharaj indulging into criminal loose talks with the intention of creating communal hatred but BJP’s top leaders too. While BJP President traces Pakistan’s hand in BJP’s possible defeat in Bihar its General Secretary advised the actor Shahrukh Khan to go to Pakistan over his condemnation of communal intolerance.

The cold blooded murder Prof. Kalburgi and premeditated lynching of Akhlaq at Basehda village in Dadri after spreading the rumor of storage of beef in his house, are latest examples of sequence that began with the threats of sending to Pakistan to eminent thinker and novelist, UR Anantmurhy fr his criticism of Modi, with intimidating posters on the walls of his house. This was followed by withdrawal of Ramanun’s essay ‘Three hundred Ramayana subsequent to vandalism by ABVP leaders and VHP goons. The list of attacks by the obscurantist forces in the subcontinent on the rationalist writers and thinkers. As yet individuals and religious communities were declared to be anti-national now a university, JNU, the only campus in the country with a healthy democratic academic culture, has been declared anti-national.

Why are these forces so intolerant to dissent and scared of the rational ideas whom they depict as attack on   their faith and hurtful to their religious sentiments? The answer is that chauvinistic jingoism and intolerance to dissent is immanently innate attribute of all varieties of fascism. The Hinduttva variety of fascism, if allowed to run the show, shall prove to be more catastrophic owing to India’s relatively huge population and pluralism of cultural values. The historical ethos tells us that fascisms do not last long but do not end voluntarily but they have to be fought by resistance and the radicalization of the social consciousness. The intellectuals have taken the lead; let us join the bandwagon of, and carry ahead the protest against the growing fascist trend of intolerance to dissent and continuing attacks on rationalists, minorities, Dalits, Adivasis and women. Let us join the discourse to deliberate the over the strategies to fight the communal menace, plaguing this country.   

       

Janhastakshep’s this meeting is an effort in this direction, please join us  at 5.00PM, today 5th November, 2015 at Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi .    

n  Ish Mishra

n  05.11.2015

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Ish Mishra

The historical roots and the continuing theoretical basis of the modern liberal; liberal democratic and neo-liberal -- states can be traced to the economic; political and intellectual developments during the Age of Enlightenment, also known as, the long 18^th century (1685-1815) in Europe. In the history of political theory, Thomas Hobbes marks the beginning of the new framework of analysis of this period that came to be known as liberalism, the future paradigm of political analysis, though  his major writings predate the bracketed period.   The 17^th century individualism, known as liberalism conceptualizes the  human being (man to be more precise) as a self-seeking, existing on his own, not in association with but in separation from others, marks the epochal turning point in the history of humankind. In the realm of political theory, Thomas Hobbes laid down the paradigmatic contours of liberalism as the philosophy and as the ruling idea i.e. the ruling class idea of the new epoch. The foundation of this new theory, the liberalism, through its various phases and versions was and remains the false assumption of the “natural” atomistic composition of society and the “natural” individuality of humans. The history of the human civilization, as Marx and Engels have noted in the Communist Manifesto, the history of class societies based on the exploitation and domination of human beings by other human beings and of struggles to end the system of domination,  about two centuries after the publication of the first liberal Classic--the Leviathan. Individuals do not exist as individuals but as an integral part of a larger aggregate – the class. A is not a slave or master as individual but he is so, in and through a society under certain social laws which she/he enters into independent of one’s conscious will. Marx calls these relations as social relations of production.

  

The task of the organic intellectuals of the dominant classes, in particular historical epochs, has been to find the justification for and the source of validity of the domination. Machiavelli, the philosopher of the Prince who rules over people not with any divine mandate but by his political skills and wisdom required to attain, maintain and expand power, seems confused in locating the source of validity and places it to the mysterious concept of Fortune. Hobbes clears the Machiavellian confusion and transported the source of validity from the mystery of God to the myth of people’s consent, as individuals and not as the part of the collectivity. The individualist “naturalness” of the Nature has been questionable from the very outset. Rousseau was the first one to point the finger, before Marxism beginning with Marx and Engels, produced its systematic critiques. Hobbes inaugurated in political the theory the future paradigm of political analysis, the Liberalism, the political philosophy of the new epoch, concerned with the order in the new society of increasing inequalities, was confronted with the issue of finding a new source of validity of the political authority for the management of the new economic structure. With the reformation, God had lost the ground as the source of validity of authority and voluntary or under the pressure of new realities that only God knows, started creating people equal instead of creating people as plebeians and patricians. Earlier He helped poor and helpless. With the transition from feudalism to capitalism started helping those who help themselves, as a neutral benevolent, the social Darwinism. Its overemphasis over individuality conceals the reality of the class-societies.

The erosion of theological explanations of the historical progress had already begun in Europe with the Renaissance and `reached its logical conclusion during, the Age of Reason .The Will of God or the divine mandate as the source of validity of governance had been losing ground and banished with the public beheading of the Charles I, in 1649, at the end of the long drawn civil war in England. With falling of king’s head on the ground, divinity associated with the crown met to dust. Machiavelli had freed politics from the clutches of theology. Machiavelli’s Prince is no divine ruler with the mandate of God but a mercenary leader, an ordinary, private individual, favored by Fortune, who, with political vision of attaining, retaining and expanding power leads his people to found a new state. He transported the source of validity of governance from God to Fortune. God was banished from governance and theology from the realm of explanation of the materials world. The new discoveries in the natural sciences, particularly the theories of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, provided materialistic explanations of material world. The banishment of God from his own “creation” sent shockwaves to not only the stakeholders of the God’s universe but ordinary people too, as they had internalized the theological pronouncements as the final truth, what Gramsci calls  hegemony . By the 17^th century, the process of erosion of the theological explanation of material world had climaxed and the God lost its position as the source of validity of authority.

Thomas Hobbes, rightly credited to be the first liberal thinker, fills the void by theorizing politics using Galileo’s methods of theorizing the physical universe. With materialistic explanation of politics, Hobbes transported the source of validity of governance from God to peoples’ consent. This was a revolutionary theoretical act as in the civil war between Puritans and the royalists in England the issue was not the God but different readings of the scripture. Brian Nelson has rightly said that “Machiavelli was Copernicus of the political theory and Hobbes the Galileo who carried Machiavelli’s revolutionary insights to their logical conclusion.”(p.163) His absolutist conclusions were not appreciated by the Puritans and his materialism was disliked by the royalists, who claimed King’s Devin right to rule and not by power as propounded by Machiavelli and rationalized by Hobbes on the basis of the theory of Human nature, a running theme of the subsequent political philosophies and Social Science.

Thus as we saw above, Hobbes inaugurated a new paradigm of analysis in the realm of political theory – the modern political theory -- foundations of which were laid by Machiavelli. It was the beginning of the new quest for finding secular, political answers to the secular, political questions, arising out of the emergence of the new protagonist of the history with the new virtue - the virtue of money making. The qualification of wealth became the new criterion of the new virtue for the new species of the heroes--the heroes of finance with risk-free heroism. This hero of finance, which took a peripheral entry on the stage of Renaissance in Europe, as a minor character, had become “the hero”, within less than 150 years and came to occupy the center stage in the era of the Enlightenment.

The new protagonist of the history, the self-seeking, possessive, rational individual who is in perpetual pursuit of desires, gets clearly defined as such and universalized by Thomas Hobbes, in his classic, the Leviathan (1651). And in less than 4 decades of the publication of the Leviathan, John Lock quite unambiguously declares money making to be the political virtue by saying that the serious matters like governance could be entrusted with only those who have proved their worth by amassing sufficient money, in his ‘Two Treatises on the Government’ (1688).

Every philosopher is product of his time, as around after 2 centuries after Hobbes, Karl Marx would say that the consciousness is product of material conditions and the conscious human effort changes the material conditions giving rise to the new consciousness. The intellectuals do not create justices or injustices. They only react to and reflect upon the justices-injustices already existing in their contemporary societies. Therefore a text is better understood by placing it into its historical context.

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588, in a decade considered to be the foundational decade of a new era in the European history, the Age of Reason. The Enlightenment in Europe also witnessed fierce social political strife and bloodshed. “Hobbes and fear is twin” saying derives its existence from the fact that his mother gave a premature birth supposedly caused by the news of attack by a Spanish Armada. I don’t think that psychological impact at embryonic stage has so everlasting impact. Source of Hobbes’s fear was not the news of Armada in embryonic state but the prolonged civil war that took off practically with the enthronement of James I in 1603. It became more pronounced since 1630.

The bourgeois dissent to absolutist values had been gaining strength for quite some time with the new scientific discoveries and economic changes. The political battle between royalist (Tories) claim of absolute rights and liberal demands by puritans (Whigs) was fought on the religious agenda of varying readings of the scriptures. Hobbes after his studies from Oxford was recommended as a tutor to the Cavendish royal family in 1610, and ever since he spent most of his life with courtesy of and in association with noble men. In 1641 when the struggle looked decisively tilted against the royal side, being staunch royalists, Hobbes fled to France to escape the civil war hardships. It proved for him a Blessing in disguise. It provided him with unprecedented intellectual exposure and brought him in contact with many intellectual luminaries in the fields of philosophy and Science including Francis Bacon and Galileo, whose scientific discoveries became an inspiration for Hobbes’s attempt to build a science of society, using Galileo’s methodology.

       In England, as is history now, the civil war had ended with the defeat of royalist forces in 1648 and sealed with the beheading of the King Charles I. During his stay in France he tutored the future King of England, Charles II and worked on the new theory of governance that he published in 1651 after his return to the short lived Republican England and protectorate under the leadership of Cromwell. In 1660 with the restoration of monarchy, he joined the court and was awarded and received $100 annual honorarium till his death in 1679, at the age of 91.

The context:

As has been pointed out above, a text can be best understood in its context and the central concerns of the author and the consequent object and the motive. As Aristotle had said long ago, which all of us know (May be we need to be reminded of what we already know) that nothing exists without purpose, that is, everything that exists has some end. Similarly nothing is written without purpose. All the writings have some end. Hobbes is writing in the historical context of the civil war in England. The fear of sudden death was not just a theoretical possibility or a mere imagination but a reality. People were being killed and the killing spray stopped only with the killing of the monarch, supposed to be the regent of the God on the earth. Hobbes’s central concern was the experienced fear of civil strife/war that he has witnessed from a partisan position. In the Age of Enlightenment, the enlightened monarchies marked the transition from the decadent feudal values and feudal state to the modern, liberal nation state. Thomas Hobbes’s political philosophy is a concerned political statement of this transition.

The root cause of the political turmoil, which the Europe was undergoing, was the transition from feudal to capitalist mode of production via mercantilism caused by the change in the social relations of production and distribution. The new social relations needed new political relations and thereby new definition of state and the new species of the heroes, the bourgeoisies, whose wealth was not the gift of God but result of their business skills, needed not only economic rights but also a share in the political power.                       

This new man, the possessive individual, the propertied patriarch, i.e. the bourgeois man, is the Hobbes’s natural man. This self-seeking man, interested not only in possession but also accumulation of the property, is apprehensive of the loss of and hence in need of protection of his property. This hero of finance, the money making individual is distrustful of everyone including his neighbors, friends and even family members. That is why as Hobbes would like to demonstrate by saying that he locks his house and suspecting the integrity of wife and children locks his valuables in the locker inside the house.  

Hobbes’s central concern was the civil war, which he considered to be the worst evil, under which there can be no industry and no progress. He thought that the civil war was the result of man’s natural tendency to dominate over others leading to the state of war of all against all. This “natural” tendency of the “natural” man has to be checked in order to fulfill another, superior, natural desire of “peaceable, commodious” life that is impossible if he behaved “naturally”. This natural tendency in Hobbes’s opinion could be checked by a strong, legitimate, deterrent power. Thus the purpose of his political theory is to deduce the need of a powerful, legitimate, public authority capable of overawing all the “natural”, self-seeking individuals. For this, Hobbes involves a thought experiment with the interrelated concepts of state of nature, laws of nature and the social contract, on the pattern of the inviolable laws of the market contract. Hobbes transports the source validity from theological notion of God to a concrete concept of social contract among the “free and equal” individuals in the “state of nature” different from obscure notion of Machiavellian Fortune. To have order in an increasing inequality, Hobbes begins with the axiomatic assumptions of natural equality and equal freedom to prove that the natural equality and freedom of the natural man is a curse and the root cause of the social miseries. As naturally all of them seek their own dominion and dominate others. Everyone being equal no one can accomplish that and there would state of war of everyone against everyone and hence the need of an absolute Sovereign power capable of overawing all the “natural” individuals to conduct themselves. Hobbes begins with the liberal assumptions of free and equal individuals and concludes with the need of and absolute authority as the ‘sole spokesperson of the body and motion of the society’, who is capable of overawing all of them.

Hobbes presents the order and freedom as dichotomous and surrenders the later for the former. His central concern is a legitimate public authority in the wake of the dissolution of the feudal bonds. For this, he indulges into a thought experiment involving three interrelated concepts – the state of nature; the natural laws; and the social contract to construct the theory of political obligation. The foundation of the edifice of his theory of sovereignty and obligation is the theory of human nature that Hobbes constructs with his psychological assumptions. 

The State of Nature

Hobbes’s thought experiment, using Galilean method, resolves the society into its constituent atoms in motion, individuals, and the individuals into its constituent elements – desire, appetite, aversion etc. -- and then   recomposes them back to transform the unsocial natural society into an ordered state under a sovereign, an artificial man who becomes the sole spokesperson of the body and motion of society. He makes an imagined pre-social; pre-political state as the starting point – the zero point – the original state and calls it the State of Nature. He makes certain psychological assumptions about the natural human behavior if not regulated by an external force. And then from psychological assumptions, he deduces the social behavior of the individual, who is naturally a rational egoist. It is not a historic state of nature but an imagined one, as admitted by Hobbes himself, abstracted from the existing society. The primitive societies show just opposite human attributes to those of Hobbesian natural man. Hobbesian axiomatic assumptions about the “natural” nature of the self-seeking, solitary individual, overtly-covertly remain the running theme through the various stages of liberalism up to the present neo-liberal stage.

Though Hobbes himself admits, as mentioned above, his state of nature is not historic, but imagined one yet his novel like presentation makes it appear real. Natural behavior of his universal natural man is about how individuals would naturally behave if there was no regulating mechanism of the state. His natural individual in the state of nature is abstracted from the emerging commercial society. Unlike Aristotelian axiomatic natural inequality, Hobbes, in order to defend the newly arising inequalities, which he considers conventional, begins with the assumption of natural equality and freedom to prove it to be the root cause of all the miseries on the basis of his assumptions of human nature.

Hobbes’s State of nature consists of solitary, free and equal individuals. This natural individual, a rational being equipped with the developed faculty of reason, is a self-seeking egoist, involved in the unceasing pursuit of desires that ceases only in death. He is not satisfied with the fulfillment of the present needs but the needs for an unseen future too. He does not want only to use but also to possess, and as much as possible. These were the attribute of the new man, the bourgeois man. Hobbes generalizes and universalizes it to obscure the root cause of newly created unfreedoms and inequalities through the ruin of craft and artisans by transforming the craft production into manufacturing system, with the spread of commerce and the growth of world market on the one hand, and on the other hand, expropriation of peasantry under, what is called the Enclosure movement. Two foundational conditions of capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production and ‘free’ wage labour have thus been prepared by dispossession of the peasantry and artisans leading to their proletarianization. Not only is he not interested in discussing the newly arising inequalities and unfreedoms but condemns the natural equality and natural freedom as the root cause of the worst kind of miseries like the civil war. In fact his state of nature is abstracted from the civil war in England that was, in Hobbesian language culmination of contending claims of Sovereignty in the state of nature.

Hobbes’s free natural men are approximately equal in strength of body and mind.  To prove his point he says that even the weakest can kill the strongest. He seems too obsessed with the fear of violence that cites the killing ability to prove natural equality of men. “For as the strength of body, the weakest has enough strength to kill the strongest, either by secret mechanizations, or by confederacy with others that are in same danger with him.”  As far as the strength of mind is concerned, Hobbes writes “I find yet greater equality than strength.” Prudence is matter of time and experience that can be acquired by anybody. Most persons think themselves as wiser than others, but this in itself, mockingly remarks Hobbes, is proof that men are more equal than unequal. In state of nature, the solitary individuals have natural right to self-preservation and to do whatever they deem fit for it, using the natural power of their body and mind. The solitary individuals in state of nature, diffident and suspicious of each other, present a split personality. This rational egoist, in the unceasing pursuit of desires is a paradoxical creature. On the one hand, he seeks not only his own dominion but also to dominate everyone else and that no one can even touch him or dare to look at him. The attributes of Machiavelli’s Prince are made universal by Hobbes. On the other hand, he also desires a peaceable commodious life. Because of the “naturally” free and equal individuals as they “naturally” are, the reconciliation of the two becomes impossible in the state of nature. The source of this impossibility is the natural equality. Since everyone is equal, equally free and equally ambitious to lord over others, no one can be winner, everyone is loser and there is a war of everyone against everyone. Everyone is living under the constant fear of sudden death. Hobbes leaves the onus of proof on the reader, in order to confirm with his views one has to do nothing but to look into oneself.

Playing on the fear psychosis, the natural rational egoist decides in favor of the peaceable and commodious life. Hobbes draws a dichotomous binary between freedom and the order. He can enjoy the freedom of state of nature under the constant threat of sudden death or give it up for living in an ordered society, wherein he can peacefully enjoy his possessions. And the Prudent individual chooses the order, as the only way to enjoy a peaceable commodious life is the end of the state of nature. Thus and deduces that end of the miseries and the state of constant fear of sudden death, is possible only by ending the state of nature itself. For order, the natural man surrenders the natural freedom and promises political obligation to the laws of the Sovereign, the artificial man – a person or the body of persons – to whom he surrenders the natural rights and becomes social through a social contract.

The Social Contract

As we have seen above, in the context of the protracted civil war in England, the central concern of Thomas Hobbes was the order, order among the unequals, as they existed. Order, in his opinion, could be created only through the absolute political obligation to an absolute sovereign. For this, he constructs a logical state of nature in which the possessive and egoist, power seeking, overambitious, solitary individuals are equal and free and with his theory of human nature, proves the freedom of equal individuals dangerous to their desire of peaceable, commodious life. In the dichotomy between freedom and the order he shows preference for the order.

The end of the State of Nature is the only way of the peaceable and the commodious life for the rational individuals.  For this he constructs a theory of Social Contract, that too, like his theory of the State of Nature, is logical not historic. He does not explain how the solitary, rational egoists, incapable of living together, owing to their “natural” ego, diffidence, competitiveness, come together to make a covenant among themselves? Though he himself does not claim the historicity of the contract, yet the way he presents makes it read like a real contract at some point of time. Like Machiavelli considers fear to be the most reliable basis for the order, Hobbes replaces the adjective, “most reliable” by the “only”. The “naturally”  “free” and “equal” individuals can be made to conduct them only by the fear of some all-powerful authority capable of overawing them all. Rousseau, almost a century later, would correct him by demonstrating that individuals are not warmongers by nature, but they quarrel over things and they are so not naturally but in and through a society, as mentioned above. Hobbes cleverly universalizes a particularly socialized human nature and deduces the need of an absolute power, the sole spokesperson of the body and motion of the society with the “consent” as the source of validity of its authority. All the individuals, as they are, nasty, brutish, diffident who do not trust each other, only Hobbes knows how, come together and collectively pose trust in another person or body of persons to create and ensure conditions  of life free from the constant fear of sudden death. Under the contract people surrender their all the natural rights and powers to a Sovereign, a person or a body of persons – an arterial man, with its own body and motion. The contract is irreversible. People, on the basis of rational calculations of the self-interest, collectively enter into a contract with a sovereign who is not party to this contract by surrendering his natural rights. The words, as Hobbes puts it, have no weight without the sword – the coercive power --and hence people surrender their natural power of self-preservation also.

The command of sovereign is the law. Thus through the contract people create a law making and enforcing public authority deriving the validity from the consent of people. Thus beginning with liberal assumptions arrives at absolutist conclusions. Nevertheless, the theory of governance by consent of the free and equal individuals has revolutionary implications, as inadvertent consequence. Sometimes inadvertent consequences prove to be more substantial than the intended ones.  In course of time the free and equal individuals, living not in isolation but in and through a society, would reclaim their natural freedom and equality – the human emancipation. The sovereign himself is not the party to the contract and hence remains in the state of nature with all the human attributes. Hobbes, thus demolished the prevailing notions of divine theories of the origin of state and propounds the social Contract theory, in this sense his theory is revolutionary.     

The Sovereign

The sovereign, thus created by consent is absolute and indivisible. It not only interprets but makes and enforces the law. Thus Hobbes envisages three functions of the state, law making; law interpreting; law enforcing – legislative; judicial and executive.  Hobbes though concentrates all the three powers into one authority, yet provides basis for the development of the theory of the separation of power by future liberals. People, by virtue of having consented to be governed are not only having legally extractable prudential obligation to obey the sovereign but Hobbes would like us to believe that as is dictated by the reason the obligation is moral too.

Who would be the sovereign as, according to Hobbes, all men are naturally equal in physical and mental strength that he meticulously demonstrates in the first chapter of Leviathan. Hobbes finds an easy way out of the complex problem by bringing in the notions of sovereignty by institution, i.e. by agreement and sovereignty by acquisition, i.e. sovereignty by conquest. He acknowledges the historic fact that most of the sovereignties are established by conquest. As his state of nature that is a state without the regulating mechanism of a centralized government. Therefore if there is no government with absolute authority people will plunge into miserable state of nature. Therefore the prudent individuals must pay their unconditional obligation to the sovereign by acquisition in the same way as they would have done had they created it by consent.

Thus, we see that Hobbes begins with liberal assumptions to arrive at an absolutist conclusion.

---

[i] A small note on the ruin of craft-guilds and the enclosure movement.

असहनशील दानिशमंद

जी हां, मैं हूं मोहन भागवत

हिंदु-राष्ट्र का चितपावनी स्वागत

मैं व्यक्ति नहीं व्यवस्था हूं

नागपुर में बैठा लगाम देश की कसता हूं

हमारा धर्म है बहुत सहिष्णु

हमारे अवतारी भगवान हैं भगवान विष्णु

जब भी बढ़ता है पाखंड पर अत्याचार

अवतरित होते हैं करने वे असुरसंहार

कलयुग में बदला है असुरों ने भेष

बन गये हैं कम्युनिस्ट, बुद्धिजीवी और म्लेच्छ 

 बुद्धिजीवी है असहनशीलता की जीवंत मिशाल

करता है तर्कों से अवतारों की लीला पर सवाल

कर दिया सहिष्णु भक्तों चंद चरमपंथी हलाल 

उठा लिया दानिशमंदों ने विद्रोह की मशाल

कलयुग के अवतारों पर होती संवैधानिक सीमा

बना देते वरना इन सबका कीमा 

इनके विचारों मैं है कटु असहनशीलता

कब तक धीरज धरेगी हमारी सहनशीलता  

करेंगे भक्त खत्म इनमें संख्याबल की आस्था

करेंगे दानिशमंदी की वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था

लग गये हैं इस मिशन में दीनानाथ बत्रा

टीवी पर काबिज पराक्रमी संवित पात्रा

वैसे तो चैनलों पर है हमारी पूरी निगरानी  

फिर भी कुछ कहते हैं नामाकूल कहानी

उन्हें भी खरीद लेंगे हमारे अंबानी

थिंक-टैंक हमारे सिन्हा राकेश 

मचाता जो विमर्श में भाषा का भदेस 

पाते रहे अवतार पुरुष यदि ऐसे ही जनादेश

बना देंगे भारत को ऋषि-मुनियों का देश

होगा तब हिंदुओं में स्वर्णयुग का जुनून 

हिंदुराष्ट्र में लागू होगा मनु महराज का कानून 

(ईमिः 02.11.2015)