Friday, October 12, 2007


रेत की आंधी
खुली आँखें
आगे बढ़ना है।

चिलचिलाती धूप
नंगे तलवे
रास्ता तय करना है।

चुभता पसीना
सूखी प्यास
चलते रहना है।

चार दिशाएँ
चिथड़ों में नक्शा
वहाँ पहुँचना है।

न कोई पास
न मदद की आस
अकेले तय करना है।

मिट्टी का आकाश
मिट्टी की हवा
मिट्टी को जीतना है।

शक्तिहीन तन
दुखती टांगें
मीलों को पीछे छोड़ना है।

मन में एक आग
आँखों में नशा
हर हाल में करना है।

पर क्यूँ
कौन हूँ मैं
आखिर क्या करना है?

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Lit-Soc Debate

Against: The Society is Justified in Being Homophobic

The term homophobia was originally coined in 1965 as:

A morbid and irrational dread which forcefully suppresses any natural sexual feelings related to homosexuality, which is unnatural. (clinical psychologist George Weinberg)

But it’s not just that. Homophobia is inhumane, rather murderous. There are murders and suicides inspired by the hatred. The numbers run to thousands; no one knows the precise data as in many countries, the deaths of homosexuals are not considered worth recording as a separate category.

They say homosexuality is not natural. Well, homosexual behaviours have been noted in every primate species so far studied, and in man's closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, bisexual behaviour is universal. Among humans, homosexuality is found in all cultures and with about the same frequency.

They say it's disgusting? Well, just because you feel that eating non-vegetarian food is disgusting doesn’t have to mean that people eating tandoori chicken at Minar are abhorrent sinners.

Listen to this. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia (by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr) indicates that 54% of "homophobic" males exhibit latent homosexuality. 24% of the non-"homophobic" men showed some degree of tumescence in response to a male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the "homophobia scale". In addition, 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the "homophobic" men failed to display any arousal. Additionally the "homophobic" men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal.

So all those who endorse homophobia, you better watch yourselves. You might be trying to suppress some natural feelings, you see. And why yell at others when, you never know, you yourself might be one of them. For inspiration, you can look-up to Achilles and Patroclus; Alexander the Great and his childhood friend, Hephaistion, or for that matter one of the honourable cores of Saarang!

The AIDS epidemic has cost millions of lives. Yet when this epidemic first got started in America, the president of the United States actually obstructed efforts to halt it. Hundreds of thousands have suffered and died. Who is responsible: The homophobia of one politician. Ref: And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts.

In India, homosexuality has been illustrated in Khajuraho sculptures, Bhagvad Gita and Kamasutra. There is no evidence of anyone in India ever having been executed for same-sex relations. It is the British colonial rulers who wrote modern homophobia into education, law and politics. No wonder, the 145-year-old colonial Indian Penal Code clearly describes a same sex relationship as an "unnatural offence".

We have listened to fairy tales of prince and princess, had we read about prince-prince or princess-princess stories, we would have been absolutely comfortable with it. Sex education about homosexuality will completely wipe-out homophobia over a period of time. The need is to replace fear with awareness. Thank you. Questions please.

For: The Society is Justified in Being Homophobic

The term homophobia is defined as fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality.It is the moral judgement that homosexuality is wrong. While many claim that homophobia is irrational, neither the American Heritage Dictionary nor the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) includes the term "irrational" in the definition. This is in spite of the fact that the term phobia in itself implies that the fear is irrational. Therefore, to interpret the topic without any bias, let us change the terminology to homo-negativity.

For those who still feel that fear of homosexuality is irrational, i would like to pose
a question to them - could you please define what exactly is rational? They define rational
as anything that is logically valid. Now, what exactly is the purpose of logic? Logic is
just a way to explain what you observe or experience. I submit that fear of homosexuality
is the experience.

Now, logic would be something that would explain why it is so and not why it is not so. You can only say something is rational or not, when you have a choice and you need to make a decision. On the contrary, the status quo is that you simply experience fear and you have no choice but to abominate homosexuality. So, it goes without saying that homophobia can’t be adjudged irrational. If fear of wild animals is justified, if fear of terrorists is justified, if fear of death is justified, homophobia is surely justified.

Now let us delve into the question why fear of homosexuality exists in the society.

Recent medical history suggests that the first victims of the modern AIDS epidemic which began suddenly in about 1980 were promiscuous homosexual males.This is primarily because the human body is not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts.

Besides, homosexuality implicitly implies anal sex which is considered to be comparatively high in risk, for a number of reasons related to the vulnerability of the tissues and the septic nature of the anus.

I would like to add that a homophobe does not engage in violence against homosexuals. Its just that he prefers to stay away from them because there is a natural fear for the unnatural. We homophobes believe the best approach is moral condemnation, which is the approach our society now applies to many other destructive practices, such as adultery, alcohol and tobacco abuse, and suicide. Moral condemnation will not extirpate them, but neither can the law; a climate of disapproval may reduce their frequency and their harm.

I had teamed-up with Tool who was cunningly coaxed into making his public-speaking debut in Lit-Soc. With not a single sentence mugged-up we realized the indispensable usage of print in public-speaking. The strategy was to pretend as if we're looking at our "paper" for statistics and then go on to the next point showing them a phony expression of having found the data needed to make the point. Everything was fine until the rebuttal began. With a few twists and twirls of logic, we 'barely' managed not to come-off the stage in a bare appearance. We finally got through to the finale which is supposedly going to be based on the 'British Parliamentary Debate' template.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

O Fickle Spirit!


It’s an illusion. I see someone wearing that crown. I envy him. I suddenly feel like wearing it. Thus gets triggered what’s called as a tom-&-jerry series; based on the scale of the fight I stage, I either clinch the crown or accept my defeat.

If I win, I no longer feel obsessed. At once, the passion gets evaporated. Then a short time of good air all around comes. I like it. I get used to it soon. This is the ripe time for another shot of envy. But something went wrong somewhere. My likes are so fickle. Some sunny day, I want her. The other day clouds hover above and I like her sister. Next day comes a storm and I fall for her friend. Suddenly it rains and I have found out her brother to be the hulk next door. The cycle is over and I again find her face so sunny. Funny but the bottom-line is that I never know what exactly I am running after. It’s an illusion. Her face, her gait, her hair, her top, her bottom, her side view, her (on) top view – it will all fade away. What began with a wink, ends-up as a kink once she is mine. And I am all set to fall prey to another illusion.

‘Defeat’ comes to those who look for ‘fate’ hidden inside the word. Winners are those who discover the hidden ‘feat’ in defeat and take it up as a challenge. Every challenge is a simple deal. It is a game of give and take. If I give my time, I may get something. If I give my efforts, I will get something. If I give everything I have got; I will get the most of it. And if I am ready to die for it, I will get it all. Every piece of the cake will yearn to be all mine. Pretty simple and straightforward, isn’t it? Oh, and if I am willing to kill for it, I shall win some sentences as bonus. The crux of the story is a question. Is defeat a quicker escape from an illusion than winning?

Probably yes. Defeat lets me get over the present illusion and find the next one. Or may be it is not. Defeat doesn’t free me from the curse of the desire. It just lets me crush and compress it. But the desire remains there, somewhere. Victory, on the contrary, ends the whole story. It isn’t the complete story until it ends happily. However clichéd it may sound, it is a raw fact.

The apprehension materialized and the inference is that my life is but a series of phases marked by the pursuit of different illusionary targets. I spend the whole life running after things in a quest for satisfaction and happiness. Owing it to the insatiable thirst in humans, I spend the whole life realizing even if the juice is worth the squeeze, it’s gone once I drink it and then I have got to squeeze all over again. And then, my comrade, I succumb to spirituality, with a hope to find the perpetual spring of eternal bliss. But again, who knows if the path is right. I am either relying on my guts or have no alternative. Whatever may be the case, the wise and the sagacious say that all the roads lead to (h)OM(e). Fair enough.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Cute Quote

But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, his greatest fulfillment of all he holds dear, is the moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.

Bapu's Talisman

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?

Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

- One of his last thoughts. We have read it on the opening page of every NCERT book. Do we remember?
We dream. We dream for ourselves. We earn. We earn for ourselves. We think we win. Wait, can we win unless everybody wins?
We have responsibilities in our lives. We have goals to achieve. But if there is one greatest responsibility on our shoulders, isn't it to ensure that everybody, including the poorest and the most deprived person out there, is happy? Now, is our next thought, our next action a step in this direction? If not this, what are youths for? What are IITians for?