Hello readers,
With reference to our task on "patriotic Euphoria" assigned by Dilip Barad(sir), I am inscribing this so that we may know, what is its significance, how much it matters in our life, how we have become so ignorant of all these things as failing to recognise, what are our duties. Being an Indian citizen, we're always concerned with our rights, but not with our duties. Concerning our duties and morals, how we can built our country, in a new direction, lead some ignorants to see where they are lacking their insight, and though we don't know where it will lead us, but atleast our forth coming generation would incarnate those morals and values in their lives and perhaps develop our country towards "a new India"❤️💛💚
Hello readers,
With reference to our task on "patriotic Euphoria" assigned by Dilip Barad(sir), I am inscribing this so that we may know, what is its significance, how much it matters in our life, how we have become so ignorant of all these things as failing to recognise, what are our duties. Being an Indian citizen, we're always concerned with our rights, but not with our duties. Concerning our duties and morals, how we can built our country, in a new direction, lead some ignorants to see where they are lacking their insight, and though we don't know where it will lead us, but atleast our forth coming generation would incarnate those morals and values in their lives and perhaps develop our country towards "a new India"❤️💛💚
As we know friends that our India was dominated by "British rulers" from 1858-1947, with constant struggles of our freedom fighters. Subsequently, it was made free on 15th August,1947 and as a result on mid-night 14 and 15 there emerged out "two dominion independent states" Pakistan and India. But still due to some problems, faced by India, it literally seems as it hasn't gained freedom in literal sense. According to the short film of W.H. Auden(The bloody line) where "Ciril Redcliff" a British officer is claimed to have drawn 'a bloody line' between India and Pakistan, and it was due to "Redcliff" that there is separation, or else it won't be. But he 'W.H. Auden' is only able to see the black dots, in the form of bloody line, but don't know the story of how 'Redcliff' was pressurised by some officials to do so, though refused '300 pounds' as a reward of drawing a line between India and Pakistan.
Perhaps it must have happened then that he was threatened for his life, so he forcefully drew a line of separation considering that, that as he is about to move for England, as it also has been bankrupted, who is going to come in India but perhaps didn't think about the people, living in India, about its aftermath consequences. Then a question arises in our mind that, was the dilemmatic decision of drawing a line was justifiable, concerning Redcliff's conscience? Or it was a selfish move from India as ignorant of coming sequences? Having refused for money, can remove him from the guilt of separating two countries hand in hand? Refusal of money was only enough to exonerate himself from the guilt of committing immoral deed?
For Example : We also have an example of those volunteers, who believe in sacrificing their lives for the sake of their motherland.
"Mera Karma Tu Mera dharma Tu, tera Sab Kuch main Mera Sab Kuch Tu".https://youtu.be/BEh5CyF-Ozs
It seems that if he would have denied to 'draw a line between two nations' perhaps he would have lost his life, so he thought that as he is about to leave India, why to think further on it and to release himself from guilt he denied 300 pounds, to console himself that he isn't involved in separation of any nation but it doesn't seem ethically right, as did by a morally influenced person. If we see at another side he would have lost his life for the sake of the country, Then perhaps he would have justly paid his duties towards a country, then a person belonging to a nation.
As said in "Bhagwat Rawat's poem"about 'Nation vs. Country'. Where nation means in Hindi 'a rajya' or in English 'a state'. While country means 'Desh', which has intimacy in the word altogether with its bondage. So we may perhaps think that what 'Ciril Redcliff' did then was justifiable, looking in this context? It seems as he wasn't belonging to India but he was an intruder belonging to England. Where we can fairly see the person's perspective of nation and country, how it is reflected, concerning Redcliff'.
Again coming to 'Bhagwat Rawat', we see that he is emphasizing "the concept of country" rather than on nation. For him or concerning his poem, it means that 'a country is built on many diverse nations as children are part of his/her parents/family from where they cannot be separated. Though diverse in many ways but they would be recognised by their roots so is the country.
For Example: "India", Having diversity in many aspects, though it has many states in it but spreading roots are India, and its branches are various states. So how country can be separated from states.
Here also we can take an example of 'Diljale movie' where the protagonist 'Ajay Devgan' is trapped, and as he failed to gain trust of his beloved, he goes astray and joins terrorism with other accomplices. But later on he was realized, as he was first a lover of his country now he isn't. He seems to be a destroyer of his country by his beloved in a song.
"Mera mulk Mera desh Mera yeh watan, shaanti Ka unnati Ka pyaar Ka chalan".https://youtu.be/94KSCBJPCz4
Furthermore 'Bhagwat Rawat' says that the emotions of one's country should be as severe as an outsider, working in another area or nation but misses his 'desh' and he won't be satiated until he is roofed in his own place.
Gradually we learn as proceed forward that who will be the initiator, to mirror all these deficiencies in front of his people. As formerly we have seen that 'Sonali bendre' becomes a medium to make Ajay Devgan realise of his wrong doings.
While here we have 'Navazuddin Siddique', who without fearing writes for prostitutes, and highlights the taints of the society. So that people realize where they are lacking and where they need to improve.
Perhaps if he isn't highlighting the current situation of the society, or always presenting by polishing it but not presenting in its actual state, then what would be the society? And if it is going to happen constantly, then we people can't expect or hope for any change in our existing world. Though we get nervous, weary and disappointed by reading the actual state of society, we should always encounter the actual situation. If it isn't happening then we must be living in illusion. Why not by being open in actuality, we could modify ourselves as well as our society. So we may knew in the form of our literature that how our 'literature' or 'adab' as said by "Navazuddin Siddique'" changes from time to time, and it has to as it has impact of its society. It would be better to be frustrated than by being in imaginary mockery.
Concerning our India, K.R.S. Iyengar says that "what was the purpose of our freedom fighters in gaining freedom, isn't yet fulfilled". As they had dreamt "unity in diversity" for which we Indians are still lacking due to unknown external influences, who are still hidden in vaguely state or existing in misleading way.
For example: Salman Rushdie, as he is an open criticized, he was banished from India but now in foreign nation he is living freely and his criticism is embraced whole-heartedly for the nation's welfare.
If citizens of any country, aware of the existing facts, and has that digestion power to accept defeciences in them as well as in their countries, can solely lead their nation towards a newer one.
No comments:
Post a Comment