bpraveen

I am leaving LiveJournal and moving over to a new blogging domain. To those of you who were unfortunate to have read my previous posts, and who still want to continue checking this incessantly dormant blog from time to time, can now point their browsers, feed readers and probably one of them internet DDoS guns at: http://bpraveen.posterous.com

ముందు మాట: ఈ వ్యాసంలో ప్రతి మాట కావాలనే తెలంగాణావారిని కించపరిచే విధంగా, తెలంగాణావారి మనోభావాలను దెబ్బతీసే విధంగా, తెలంగాణా స్వాతంత్ర్య (మరియు పునర్నిర్మాణ) ఉద్యమాన్ని నీరుగార్చే విధంగా వుంటుందని గుర్తించవలసిందిగా మనవి. ఇది నచ్చని వారు, అటువంటి ప్రతి మాటని ఒకటికి రెండు సార్లు చదివి తరించగలరని నా ఆకాంక్ష.

నేనొక ఆంధ్రా పెట్టుబడీదారుడను. ఆంధ్రా పెట్టుబడీదారుడను అనే పద ప్రయోగం అనవసరం. తెలంగాణాలో పెట్టుబడీదారులు వుండరు. దానికి ఒక కారణం తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలైన అందరూ కేవలం తెలంగాణా దేశ భక్తులు. రెండో కారణం తెలంగాణా భాషలో అసలు పెట్టుబడీదారుడు అనే పదమే లేకపోవటం. పెట్టుబడీదారుడు అనేది తెలుగు పదం.

నాకు తెలంగాణాలో ఒక రైస్ మిల్లు, రియల్ ఎస్టేట్ బిజినెస్, ఒక ఐటీ కంపెనీ వున్నాయి. వీటిలో నేను, అందరి పెట్టుబడీదారుల లాగానే కేవలం ఆంధ్రా వారికే ఉద్యోగాలు ఇచ్చాను. కావాలని తెలిసి తెలిసి తెలంగాణా గడ్డకు, ఆ గడ్డ బిడ్డలకు అన్యాయం చేశాను. ఈ వ్యాపారాల మూలంగా నాకు పలు ఆంధ్రా రాజకీయనాయకులతో పరిచయం ఏర్పడింది. ఆంధ్రా రాజకీయనాయకులు అనే పద ప్రయోగం అనవసరం. తెలంగాణాలో రాజకీయనాయకులు వుండరు. దానికి ఒక కారణం తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలైన అందరూ కేవలం తెలంగాణా దేశ భక్తులు. రెండో కారణం తెలంగాణా భాషలో అసలు రాజకీయనాయకుడు అనే పదమే లేకపోవటం. రాజకీయనాయకుడు అనేది తెలుగు పదం.

ఆ పరిచయం ప్రణయానికి పరిణయానికి దారితీయక పోయినా, నాకు ఉపయోగపడే స్నేహం దాకా వచ్చింది. ఆ స్నేహం కారణంగా మా బంధువులకు స్నేహితులకు తెలంగాణాలో విద్య ఉద్యోగ వ్యాపార అవకాశలు వచ్చి, వారు తెలంగాణాకు వలస రావటం జరిగింది. ఇక్కడి తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలపైన మా వారి పెత్తనం అజమాయిషీ జులుం పెరిగింది. క్రమంగా మా వారు తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలను అణగదొక్కుతూ, అలా అణగదొక్కిన తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డల్నే మెట్లుగా చేసి, అంచెలంచెలుగా ఎదిగారు. వారి భాషని యాసని అడుగడునా అవహేళనాపహాస్యం చేశారు. మానవత్వం అనే పసికందుని హత్య చేసిన కసాయి హంతకులయ్యారు.

నేను చేసిన చెడ్డ పనులు, నాకు ఈనాటికిగానీ తెలియరాలేదు. ఇప్పటిదాకా జరిగిన సంఘటనలని తెలంగాణా ఉద్యమకెలిడియోస్కోపుకోణంలోంచి చూస్తే నేను చేసిన నేరాలు ఘోరాలు, తప్పులు పాపాలు, అక్రమాలూ అన్యాయాలు అన్నీ నన్ను కొట్టొచ్చినట్టు కనిపించాయి. తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డల ఉనికి కోసం జరుగుతున్న ఒక పోరాటౌద్యమమన్న నిష్ఠూర నిజం నాకు కనిపించి వినిపించి ఊగించి ఊదరగొట్టింది.

2009 2010లలో జరిగిన రాళ్ళు రువ్వటం వంటివి, గొడవలని కొట్టిపారేశాను. వాటిని గొడవలనటం పొరపాటు. తెలంగాణాలో స్వాతంత్ర్య పోరాటాలు, ఆత్మ గౌరవ ఆందోళనలు తప్ప గొడవలు జరగవు. దానికి ఒక కారణం తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలైన అందరూ కేవలం తెలంగాణా దేశ భక్తులు. రెండో కారణం తెలంగాణా భాషలో అసలు గొడవ అనే పదమే లేకపోవటం. గొడవ అనేది తెలుగు పదం. గొడవ అనేది ఆంధ్రా వారైన కోదండరామి రెడ్డి గారి దర్శకత్వంలో, రెడ్డి గారి అబ్బయి తొలి పరిచయంగా ఫ్లాపైన ఒక సినిమా. అయితే ఈ విషయం ప్రస్తుతం అనవసరం.

ఇప్పటిదాకా తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డల ఆందోళనలు ఒక ఎత్తు. నిన్న, అంటే ఫిబ్రవరి 17న, తెలంగాణా గాంధీ అయిన కేసీఆర్ అనుయాయిలైన తెలంగాణా నెహ్రూ అయిన హరీష్ రావు తెలంగాణా పటేల్ అయిన కేటీఆర్ల ఆగ్రహం సాక్షాత్తు అసెంబ్లీలో కట్టలు తెంచుకోవటం ఒక ఎత్తు.

ముందుకు వెళ్ళే ముందు ఒక్క సారి వెనక్కి తిరిగి చూద్దాం. తెలంగాణా పాలిటి తెల్ల దొరలమైన మేము చేసిన ఆకృత్యాలకి నిలువుటద్దం ఈనాటి స్థితి. తెలంగాణా చరిత్రలో మొదటి స్వాతంత్ర్య పోరాటం 1969-1971లలో జరిగిన ఉద్యమం. తెలంగాణా చరిత్రలో జరిగిన సైమన్ గో బ్యాక్, 2010 మార్చిలో జరిగిన శ్రీకృష్ణ గో బ్యాక్ ప్రదర్శన. తెలంగాణా చరిత్రలో జరిగిన సహాయనిరాకరణ నిన్న, అంటే ఫిబ్రవరి 17న మొదలయ్యింది. తెలంగాణా చరిత్రలో అజాద్ హింద్ ఫౌజు అక్షరాలా అన్నలే!

ఇంకా లోతుగా ఆలోచిస్తే, తెలంగాణా చరిత్రలో ముఘల్ చక్రవర్తులు నిజంగా నిజాములే అని, తెలంగాణా చరిత్రలో గంగా నది గలా గలా పారే గోదావరే అనీ, ఈనాటి ఈ తెలంగాణా గడ్డ ప్రత్యేక రాష్ట్ర వాంఛ ఆ నాటి ఆ భారత ఖండ స్వేఛ్ఛా ఇఛ్ఛ అని ఇట్టే అర్ధమయ్యింది. జ్ఞానోదయమయ్యింది.

వాస్తవాలు చట్టాలు అనే ఒట్టి మాటలు మాట్లాడే వారికి నిన్న, అంటే ఫిబ్రవరి 17న అసెంబ్లీ బయట జరిగిన 'దాడి' సమంజసమేననిపించింది. అయితే ఇక్కడ మనం అర్ధం చేసుకోవాల్సిన విషయాలు రెండున్నాయి.

ఒకటి: దాడి జరిగింది. కానీ అది తెలంగాణా ప్రజా ప్రతినిధులు చేయలేదు. తెలంగాణాలో ప్రజా ప్రతినిధులు దాడి చేయరు. దానికి ఒక కారణం తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలైన అందరూ కేవలం తెలంగాణా దేశ భక్తులు. రెండో కారణం తెలంగాణా భాషలో అసలు దాడి అనే పదమే లేకపోవటం. దాడి అనేది తెలుగు పదం.

రెండు: ఎలాగైతే తెలంగాణాలో అడ్డంగా నరికెయ్యటం అంటే కేవలం అభిప్రాయ భేదమనే అర్ధం వస్తుందో, అలాగే చేయిచేసుకోవటం అంటే కేవలం నిరసన తెలియజేయటం. ప్రజాస్వామ్యం గురించి లెక్చర్లు దంచే వారికి శాంతియుతంగా నిరసన తెలియజేయటం అప్రజాస్వామ్యం అని అనిపించింది. కలికాలం! కానీ తప్పకుండా తెలంగాణాకు కలిసొచ్చే కాలం.

జై తెలంగాణా!

చివరి మాట: ఈ పై వ్రాయబడిన వాటికి సంబంధించిన ఆధారాలు మీకు ఎంత ప్రయత్నించినా దొరకవు. దానికి ఒక కారణం తెలంగాణా గడ్డ బిడ్డలైన అందరూ కేవలం తెలంగాణా దేశ భక్తులు. రెండో కారణం తెలంగాణా భాషలో అసలు ఆధారాలు అనే పదమే లేకపోవటం. ఆధారాలు అనేది తెలుగు పదం.

తెలంగాణా ఇవ్వకపోతే ఎలాగైతే జైబోలోతెలంగాణా చలన చిత్రం రెండవ భాగం విడుదల అవుతుందో, అలాగే ఈ సంచలన వ్యాసం రెండవ భాగం పోస్టవుతుంది. యుపీఏ భాగస్వాములూ! ఇక మీ ఇష్టం.

వ్యాసం సరిగ్గా కనపడనిచో ఈ లింక్ పనిచేస్తుందేమో ప్రయత్నించండి:

Before I begin this post, let me acknowledge something. I seem to have stirred up the hornet's nest with my previous post. So as to not alienate a key demographic, let me clarify my position. I was not advocating anything in the that post as to what one's personal choices should/could be. It doesn't matter if those are/aren't my personal beliefs. I was trying to point out that in a secular republic, the society needs to adopt a constitutionally agreeable perspective. Let me switch gears from this mood of my being an insensitive, morally corrupt, and (yet) a legal NTI (Non Traditional Indian).

On the evening of Mar 19 2010, I attended the Suvarna Bengaluru Pranaalike (I would translate it as Plans for Golden Bangalore.) meeting at Puttanachetty Town Hall. The BBMP elections were then a week away, and were successfully conducted on Mar 28 2010 by the way (Whew! A Rare Rhythm! Must be all those poetry blogs that I read). The meeting invited three major parties Congress, BJP and JD(S) to discuss their ideas on city's pressing issues (no pun intended). You can read the coverage of that event here and here.

In the first portion of the meeting, the three parties talked about what wasn't in their manifestos. (Obviously) They didn't about talk what was in their manifestos, because that would have been redundant. Luckily, for the residents of the city who attended the meeting, issues that were beyond the scope of the meeting also were detailed. Talk about getting your time's worth! I thought it was hugely inconsiderate on the part of the respected moderator to rudely cut-off Narayan Swamy, when the former MP went over his allotted ten minutes time (he only deviated by five minutes, duh!). I mean, come on. Truth isn't like a tweet. It can't be delivered in 140 characters or less. More often than not, a point has to be inevitably driven just like a nail by a hammer.

The second and final portion was discussion on issues. The party representatives discussed the questions (which were passed from the audience and consolidated by the respected moderator). The admirable event organizers ensured that difficult questions were posed even though the party representatives could have potentially felt uncomfortable. Some unsatisfiables (not me) might have thought that the following questions weren't answered (obvious that no one can answer questions that aren't posed, ha!):

• How would you describe the collective victory of all the parties over what are probably fascist forces in getting bbmp elections to be conducted now, upholding the supreme court decision (irrespective of the court's actual directive to conduct the elections by the end of 2008)?


• What kind of trivial issues your municipal administration might have faced, when dealing with the state administration formed by a party other than yours? How were they successfully avoided?


• How did the feedback mechanisms you instituted, helped you improve the municipal interfaces to a competitive state-of-the-art world-class level of city governance?


• How many times has your party offered constructive suggestions to improve the workings of the corporation offices, to a city administration made up of a different party? How much of them in spm (suggestions per million) were lost due to background noise? What kind of issues did you NOT have to face because of the (touch wood) coherence of all the parties?


• How would you describe your feelings w.r.t the decades long war on corruption being finally won by the elected representatives of the people, for the people?


• How would you ask the people of the city to rejoice the future municipal works (extrapolating from those that were done on a war front in the five weeks before the bbmp elections) for the coming five years?

But aren't these precisely the questions that were (probably) addressed in all the party manifestos (which for obvious reasons, weren't even tangentially discussed)? Asking for more is just greedy. And in a not-yet-capitalist India, greed isn't good. Yet.

Just as the meeting was about be concluded in a dignified manner, an old gentleman, who was sitting two seats away from me, got up and caused a scene. He addressed the party representatives directly without going through the respected moderator! Some nerve! Sure, he might (claim to) be a retired government employee, who spent his years in the service of the government, but shouldn't the meeting rules apply to all equally? He might have gone door-to-door (or so he says) collecting data on the kind of problems the residents of his locality faced, but isn't his duty to come up with working prototype solutions (with all the free retired time) instead of complaining about the problems faced? He also asserted to have sent registered mail to all the parties (that attended the meeting) and has not yet received any replies. Holding the parties & representatives responsible, was clearly irresponsible.

In this age of electronic communication, post (regular or registered) might get lost. Diplomatically, that ought be taken up with "Department of Posts" which happens to be under Central Government and hence, beyond the scope of the meeting. All parties that attended the meeting, provably envisioning and building India for the next generation, can be righteously exonerated. Further, according to RTI Act (PDF), such requests must be sent to concerned administrative divisions, instead of the parties. The truth might be out there, but one has to responsibly look in the 'Right' places. All in all, I thought the old man was clearly out of touch.

In spite of all this, I think the biggest success of the meeting was getting all the party representatives, and hence the parties, to agree and acknowledge the challenges. Promises were tactfully extracted and the responsible representatives of genuine people-pleasing parties made solemn pledges. They agreed that corruption and transparency in government were important and gave their word (which they probably gave during previous elections too) to take care of them. The other important lesson that was taught repeatedly by all parties, was the role of people. I presume, that it is now empirically established that if people don't oversee the city administration, corruption being re-incarnated and transparency in government waning into translucence and opaqueness is only natural and logical.

Democrazy (pardon my spell-checker), has patiently prevailed and finally won. Thank our stars! It is in the very nature of the stars that they are very far off and offer no appreciable warmth or necessary light for our sustenance. But that isn't the fault of the stars. It is ours.

About two years back, I wrote a slightly modified version of the following on MY office white board before I left home for the day:
If you were on a sinking ship and yelled, "Women and children first!" how much feminist opposition do you think you'd get? ... Women want to fight men for equal pay, but how often do they fight a man for the check? ... And any man who questions a woman's physical capabilities gets branded a sexist -- but who do they call when there's a spider to be killed? Convenient feminism -- crackpot theory or dangerous lunacy?
~ Bill Maher, ABC TV (1993). Politically Incorrect
(My apologies for being unable to provide you with a better source. But this will have to do for now.)

Having then recently gotten a new white board and four markers (red, blue, green and black), my enthusiasm got the better of me to fill the board. More over I thought that there was a certain amount of legitimate fun in that joke and scribbled it across.

The next morning when I came back, I was completely surprised by a response written underneath. The surprise was two-fold. The board was read by someone else other than me and I was also getting comments! (Kind of like how I feel when people read this blog and comment too! This shouldn't be construed as a pitiable plea for more readership, even though it is exactly that.)

I will not post that response here (partly because I don't quite remember it verbatim and partly because this post doesn't have too much to with the exact response itself). I took the comment in good fun and declared to stand by what I wrote, even if it portrayed me as an anti-feminist and being against women's rights. But deep inside, I viewed myself on a higher moral ground because I thought in reality I greatly respected women and their fight for equal rights.

Those illusions melted away during the screening of Ishqiya. (The movie is pretty engaging. Given the vastness of my hindi knowledge, it was a piece of cake for me to follow the Uttarpradesh dialect.)

While walking out from the movie, I realized that I had formed a negative impression of the character Krishna, played (quite well) by Vidya Balan. Ignoring the deftness of the story tellers which made me form such an impression, I questioned myself on the reason for such an unfriendly attitude. In the movie, the character Krishna (a hindu widow, who recently lost her husband) flirts with both the primary characters Khalujaan (played by Naseeruddin Shah) and Babban (played by Arshad Warsi). Towards the end, she is shown to have intercourse with Babban. I think, my disdain for Krishna's character sprouted due to this kind of behavior. Ironically, that was the first and lasting impression my women-respecting mind chose to form, while watching the movie.

What is wrong with that Krishna did? It (the intercourse) does not amount to adultery, for her husband is dead (and Babban is unmarried). Why is flirting with two men at once wrong? As fellow citizens (which is the only legally valid relationship), others can only objectify if such behavior is within the confines of the law of the land, and can not ascertain whether its right or wrong. For in a democratic republic, just as there is no correct or incorrect vote, there is no right or wrong doing. Only legal or illegal deed. In fact, Krisha deserves those equal rights (for women), for she didn't do anything illegal. (May be its time I stopped making those unnecessary feminist references in my posts. Observant ones amongst you might have already noticed that I stopped making such references since the last post.)

On a not so related note, Yesterday, the supreme court of india commented this. Soon the debates on television began. Lets, only for the sake of convenience, label the ones angry at / opposing what the court said as conservatives.

An important conservative objection is that these comments are against 'Indian values'. In spite of the risk of sparking off harsh repercussions, I deconstructed the term 'Indian values' by replacing it with 'Hindu tradition' (I sincerely apologize for not being even remotely versed with the traditions of Islam, Christianity and other religions. For the purposes of this discussion, there is no loss of generality even if it was another religion).

In a constitutional republic like India, individual freedom takes away all the honors (the cake, icing and even the plate). Citizens are free to practice a religion of their choice (or not adopt any faith at all), marry a partner of their choice (or not marry at all), as long as they abide by the law. In such a state, imposing conservative restrictions in the name of protecting traditions and preserving values is against that fundamental principle of freedom. Certainly the supreme court doesn't support such a relationship between two minors or between a minor and an adult. However between two mutually consenting adults, as long as they tread with in the confines of the law, live-in relationships or pre-marital intercourse isn't a punishable offense.

But let me also point out another thing to conservatives. The tradition of a time changes according to what the individuals encompassing a group, think is acceptable and allowed. Once upon a time in India, Sati Sahagamana was a revered tradition. Is it still followed? There used to be a matrimonial practice when swords of two families were married in a ritual and threw two complete strangers into wedlock (apologies for not being able to provide a reference. please treat this sentence as an outright lie). How many of these are we seeing now?

Traditions change. As an old generation gives way and a new generation comes along, the mindset of the individuals representing the society changes, causing a change in what is agreeable a.k.a tradition. Beyond the law, whatever additional rules one lives by (religion or not, vegetarian or not), are one's own personal choice. Even if those guidelines are practiced by a majority of the population, it is against the spirit of a secular constitution to accept them as binding for the entire nation.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that I have no recollection of any dislike for either of the two male characters (Khalujaan & Babban). May be I thought men are always like that or I didn't. But so much for my women-respecting mind.

Before I go on ranting about the imaginary traditions here at the blog, I will summarize the kind of imaginary comments I would have liked to receive by now, but didn't: While the next to last post evoked reactions where after reading some wanted to commit suicide, the last post caused people to burst with anger to the extent of threatening homicide.

New rules (if you get a chance and can stand offensive language, catch the New Rules segment of Real Time with Bill Maher). We will henceforth NOT discuss title woes. Its an established fact (which has been established in the last two posts) that serious bloggers like me have trouble coming up with catchy yet appropriate titles for their posts. And to eliminate the need for having such discussions, I will henceforth choose completely insane and pointless general titles (like that of this post) to the extent possible. What's in a Title anyway? I have to point out that books are judged based on their covers and movies on their trailers. And, real tangible products are judged based on their jazzy intangible ads.

Everyone who knows me, knows quite well that I don't quite at all like Shekar Kammula's movies. One might outrageously speculate that, the hatred is only because I am jealous of the attention he gets, but as I already mentioned, that's outrageous. Its not only because of jealousy, but also because of my alleged male chauvinistic piggy nature that, I can't stand the strong female characters in his movies. (If you can stand really offensive language, read the quote involving kitchen and pie here, which comes pretty close to my own male chauvinist piggy opinions.)

I will discuss more about my chauvinistic nature in one of my later posts, but let me quickly get to Kammula's latest movie లీడర్ (Leader). As fate has it, I have voluntarily seen this movie twice! The first time I went along because there were some extra tickets with no takers and the second time I went all alone to a weekday second show.

If I were to guess, the second half turned out the way it did because (probably) Shekar challenged himself to make a political movie without any bloodshed or fights. The oldest such trick would be to play the dice game. But it wouldn't get well with audiences if the protagonist takes this path (which was taken by the villains then).

The next recent historic move is to marry into one's rival's family (an example of such can be found in this movie). This second method opens up many avenues for the writer/director. And particularly for a director like Kammula, the soft romance can now find place in the script. Completely needless to add here, I didn't quite like the second half that much.

But one of the reasons I voluntarily watched the movie twice, is the following dialogue by an MLA character, played by గొల్లపూడి మారుతీ రావు (Gollapudi Maruthi Rao):
ఒకడు రోజంతా కష్టపడి సంపాదించిన డబ్బులతో చికెన్ బిర్యానీ కొనుక్కుని తినబోతున్నాడనుకో. వాడి బిర్యానీ లో చికెన్ ముక్కని ఎవరైనా లాక్కుంటే, అలసిపోయున్నాడు కాబట్టి, పోన్లెమ్మని అన్నంలో పప్పుకలుపుకుని తింటాడు. పప్పు లాక్కున్నారనుకో, చారు కలుపుకుని తింటాడు. అన్నమే లాక్కున్నారనుకో, వాడు ఆకలితో లేచి తిండికోసం అటూఇటూ చూస్తాడు. అప్పుడే మనం 'రైస్ ఫ్రీ ' అని ఓ స్కీం పెడితే వాడు కష్టాన్నీ చికెన్నీ మర్చిపోయి ఆనందంగా అన్నంకోసం కూర్చుంటాడు!

Crude english translation follows:
Consider a person who is about to eat chicken biryani that he bought after a hard day"s work. If someone takes away the chicken piece from biryani, because he is tired due to the day's hard work, he lets it go and eats the rice with dal. If someone takes away the dal, he eats the rice with rasam. But if the rice itself is taken away, then he hungrily gets up and looks here and there for food. Just then if we announce a 'Rice Free' scheme, he forgets the hard day's work, the chicken and happily sits down for rice!

Here is where Shekar summarizes our entire political system spot on. The plan is extremely cunning. Take away everything except whatever is half-of-bare-minimum. Come every election, promise delta increments to the current status quo, pointing out that the goal is to reach the bare-minimum. Presto! Back in power.

A while ago, I was accused of standing in the sidelines and hence not having the right to criticize the government because I, per se, wasn't doing anything to solve the problem. I debated myself on that accusation for about two years now. I whole-heartedly agree that I could and may be should do more (whatever that more is). But I would be doing that more, just and only because I can and choose to. There are no legal imperatives in me doing that more.

Sadly, this country runs on laws and NOT on moralities. Infact as a constitutional secular republic, this country should run on laws and should NOT run on moralities. Individuals can follow moralities of their choice up and above the law, as long they are within the confines on the law. Granted, there are grey areas. Luckily, the definition of legal and illegal aren't always unclear.

No matter whether I do that more or not, I will always have the right to criticize the government in power so long as I conduct myself within the confines of the law of this land. As a citizen it deeply pains me to see so many NGOs thriving in this country (one should get angry and get me wrong at this point). Non Governmental Organizations doing the work of Government? Talented individuals sacrificing their careers because the Government failed to do its job?

As a republic, since independence (also since when we can no longer blame someone else for our state of affairs) consider the number of terms elected governments were in power. Consider the number of yearly budgets passed. Consider the number of five year plans proposed. Shouldn't we have gone much farther than where we are now? Isn't the blame and shame the most with who are governing and the least with who could have overseen?