Sahir Ludhiyanvi wrote many deep-meaning songs for movies. Some of my favorites are "chalo ek baar phir se ajnabi ban jaayen hum donon", "yeh duniya agar mil bhi jaaye to kya hai" and "kabhi kabhi mere dil mein khayal aata hai". Sahir Ludhiyanvi wasn’t just a lyrist, but was a shayar in the true sense. "Kabhi kabhi" was in fact a poem from his collection Talkhiyan. Amitabh Bachchan recited the simplified version brilliantly in the movie with the same name. The original poem is much longer and much more difficult to understand. But once you understand the meaning, its just beautiful and more meaningful than the film version. I found a video of Sahir Saheb reciting the original poem himself on youtube (couldn’t believe my luck):



And here is the text of the original poem along with meanings of difficult words:

Kabhi kabhi mere dil mein khayaal aata hai...

Ke zindagi teri zulfon ki narm chhaon mein
Guzarane paati to shaadaab ho bhi sakati thi
Ye teergi jo meri zeest ka muqaddar hai
Teri nazar ki shuaon mein kho bhi sakati thi

Ajab na tha ke main begaana-e-alam reh kar
Tere jamaal ki raanaaiyon mein kho rahata
Tera gudaaz badan teri neem-baaz aankhein
Inhin haseen fazaaon mein mehav ho rahata

Pukaratin mujhe jab talkhiyan zamaane ki
Tere labon se halaawat ke ghoont pi leta
Hayaat cheekhati phirti barahana-sar, aur main
Ghaneri zulfon ke saaye mein chhup ke ji leta

Magar ye ho na saka, aur ab ye aalam hai
Ke tu nahin, tera gham, teri justajoo bhi nahin
Guzar rahi hai kuchh is tarah zindagi, jaise
Ise kisi ke sahaare ki aarazoo bhi nahin

Zamaane bhar ke dukhon ko lagaa chuka hun gale
Guzar raha hun kuchh anjaani rahguzaaron se
Muheeb saaye meri simt badhate aate hain
Hayaat-o-maut ke pur-haul khaar-zaaron se

Na koi jaada na manzil na roshani ka suraag
Bhatak rahi hai khalaaon mein zindagi meri
Inhin khalaaon mein rah jaoonga kabhi khokar
Main jaanata hun meri hum-nafas, magar yun hi

Kabhi kabhi mere dil mein khayaal aata hai...

Shaadaab - Blissful
Teergi - Darkness
Shuaon - Brightness
Begana-e-alam - Alien to sadness/grief
Jamaal - Beauty
Raanaaiyon - Elegance
Gudaaz - Tender
Neem-baaz - Half-open
Mehav - Drowned
Talkhiyan – Bitterness’s
Halaawat - Deliciousness
Hayaat - Life
Barahana-sar - Uncovered-head
Rahguzaaron - Paths
Muheeb - Dreadful
Simt - Direction
Hayaat-o-maut - Life and death
Pur-haul - Full of terror
khaar-zaaron - Small trees with many thorns
Jaada - Path
Khalaaon - Vacuum
Hum-nafas - Companion, Of the same breath

Here is the one recited by Amitji (Jump to 02:09):




For me the real theme of the poem is in these lines:

Magar ye ho na saka, aur ab ye aalam hai
Ke tu nahin, tera gham, teri justajoo bhi nahin

Try to think about something that you loved dearly and couldn’t get. And try to imagine yourself in a state where you don’t have it, you don’t grieve the loss and don’t have any desire to get it either. All the three are conditions are so difficult to attain simultaneously, at least for me. But once you understand this state of mind of poet, the meaning of the entire poem changes. It is no longer just a ghamgheen poem! Listen to it again...

I am finally done with my Ghazal on the concept of Life. I would like to extend a spacial thanks to a dear friend for proof reading it and helping out in coming up with a nice title. Mulahiza farmaiye:

Zindagi iss kadar tanha kyon hai?
Maut se iss kadar pinha kyon hai?

Woh jo jaane hai qayamat ka matlab
Maut se iss kadar darta kyon hai?

Har koi jeeney ko lutf kehta hai
Zeest sabki toh ghamzada kyon hai?

Zulm sehne ko buzdili maana
Dukh ko sehna phir hausala kyon hai?

Marna gar na-gawaar hai tujhko
Hasti-e-faani pe marta kyon hai?

Kaun hoon main, kahan hoon, meri hasti kya hai?
Kaun hai tu mere jaisa, mujhsa dikhta kyon hai?


Zeest - Life
Pinha - Concealed
Ghamzada - Filled with sorrow
Na-gawaar - Distasteful
Hasti-e-faani - Mortal life/body
Raqeeb - Enemy

Tammana-e-dil bekarar hui jaati hai
Zindagi aur bhi dushwar hui jaati hai

Aankh se khwab bahut door hue jaaten hain
Asliyat khwab se bhi door hui jaati hai

Har khushi dil ko ghamgheen kiye jaati hai
Ek tere gham se zindagi shadab hui jaati hai

Main isse har kadam humrah kiye rehta hoon
Meri vahshat mujh se hi bezaar hui jaati hai


Firaaq - Separation
Shadab - Blissful
Vahshat - Solitude
Bezaar - Fed-up

My shyarana mood continues and so does my musings on the concept of life. I should be able to finish and share my new ghazal on the same topic very soon. In the meanwhile, I came across this beautiful ghazal by Seemaab Akbarabadi that I thought was worth sharing:

Duniya mein hoon duniya ka talabgar nahi hoon
Bazaar se guzra hoon kharidar nahi hoon

Zinda hoon magar zeest ki lazzat nahi baaqi
Har-chand ke hoon hosh mein hoshiyaar nahi hoon

Is khana-e-hasti se guzar jaoonga belaus
Saaya hoon faqut naqsh ba-deewar nahi hoon

Woh gul hoon khizan ne jise barbad kiya hai
Uljoon kisi daman se main woh khar nahi hoon

Talabgar - Desirous
Zeest - Life
Lazzat - Pleasure
Har-chand - Always
Khana-e-hasti - Existence
Belaus - Without gains
Faqut - Just
Naqsh ba-deewar - Carving on the wall
Khizan - Autumn
Khar - Thorn

(Main source: http://www.curlio.com/spc_showarticle.php?id=1156)

What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

How true is this statement by Salman Rushdie! I have neither read Lajja nor Dwikhandito. I am also aware that that these works of art might offend some Muslims or other people in general. If that is so, we should protest in peaceful and civilized manner like grown up gentlemen. A work of art or a book is just a version of the world by its writer's perspective. Truth is one but everyone sees that truth differently. If you don't like someones views, come up with your own version, argue and show the world how your perspective is better. That is how a progressive and open civil society should work.

But the actual point here wasn't the views expressed by Taslima Nasreen in her books that she even took back after those planned demonstrations. The point is that how these communal forces (read CPIM and Congress) used these religious sentiments to divert media attention from a public movement in Nandigram and then in Kolkata. The real tragedy is that Muslims allowed them to manipulate their religious sentiments and we as a "secular" civil society watched the show helplessly. Worse, those who did this, are now claiming to be the champions of Muslim cause. This, according to me, is a complete and collective failure of the system and society.

Both her books have been in print for long and she too has been living in India for a some years now. So what happened suddenly? Answer is Nandigram (see The Ugly Face of Communism in India). When people started protesting in Kolkata against violence in Nandigram and media stated reporting it in a big way, CPI/CPIM staged these protests against Taslima Nasreen and drove her out of Kolkata. Our central government wasn't war behind. She calls the place she was kept in as "the chamber of torture and death" and has accused government officials and our revered foreign affairs minister and second in command after PM, Mr. Pranabh Mukharjee of mental harassment. GOI made mockery of even basic spirit of human values by not even allowing Mrs Nasreen to see a doctor by citing security reasons. And this ultimately forced Mrs Naseen to take the step that they wanted.

Incident after incident, governments in India are bowing to communal elements and our constitutional institutions have failed to up held the secular spirit that our forefathers enriched in the constitution. Be it Gujrat riots or this latest episode, we are just serving the interest of extremist elements of different communities. We are undermining moderate voices. This not secularism, not even schudo secularism, this is blatant communalism, religious extremism, right on the face. The interesting thing is that we just change our sides based on our interests and our cowardice. Sometimes we align ourselves with Advani and co to bring down Babri mosque and never take any action and at some other time we harass, torture and throw out a liberal writer out of the country.

You took the right decision to leave India, Mrs Nasreen. India is no longer an open and progressive society. We are now becoming a model failed state that doesn't follow its own laws but is governed by diktats of fundamentalist of every religion and cast. She herself described the situation after leaving India as:

"A person who couldn't be scared by fundamentalists has been defeated by cold-blooded state terrorism inflicted by the Indian government. My terrible experience has shattered all my notions about a secular, democratic India.”

So has mine! Sadly, I no longer consider India a secular country after watching and analyzing the political developments in last 15-20 years. Right from Shah Bano case to Babri demolition, and from Gujrat massacre to Taslima's exile. It is a shame for all those who call themselves secular and liberal but don't have the guts to take a stand to defend it. Shame on you CPIM, shame on you UPA and shame on you India for being such a spineless communal state.

In the end, instead of Ghalib, I would like to quote actor Nana Patekar's dialog that captures my rage and frustration more appropriately:

Saala ek machhar aadmi ko hijra bana deta hai.

To be, or not to be, that is the question.

As Shakespeare asks in Hamlet, is it better to live or die? Is it better to keep battling with life's challenges than to surrender and embrace death? On the other hand, isn't living just because you are not dead like everybody else, a form of inaction or running away? If life is always a misery, isn't it cowardice to bear it silently? Why not revolt? Why not challenge your fate? Why not refuse to suffer and see what death has for us?

जब सवालों भरी निगाहें
बेरुखी के जवाबों से मिलती हैं
तो एक अजीब सी उलझन पैदा होती है
एक कश्मकश
जो बेचैन कर देती है
सरसराहट बन कर
पूरे जिस्म में दौड़ जाती है
और दौड़ती रहती है
आखों में आरज़ू बन कर
ख्वाबों में जुस्तजू बन कर
और दिल में मोहब्बत बन कर
नहीं...
यह आरज़ू है, जुस्तजू भी लेकिन मुहब्बत...
नहीं...
क्योंकि मोहब्बत का जवाब बेरुखी नहीं हो सकता
क्योंकि मोहब्बत तो सवाल है ही नहीं
यह तो जवाब है
सब सवालों का
मोहब्बत
बेरुखी नहीं...

Before I start with my analysis of the current situation in Pakistan's political landscape, let me applaud the role of General Musharaf, international community specially USA, all constitutional institutions, media and the people of Pakistan in conducting free and fair elections.

No single party has got clear majority in any of the assemblies (national or state), but PPP and PML(N) are being seen as the winners. PPP as the single largest party is expected for form the govt at the center with support of Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf's future seems bleak at this point as PML(Q), the 'King's Party' or 'Qatil League' has been routed badly in the elections everywhere except in some the rural areas where jagirdaris are quite strong and party symbols matter less.

Nawaz Sharif is playing the role of a king maker here. Unlike Zardari, he is a seasoned politician and is looking at his long term prospects. This assembly, as most people are rightly predicting isn't going to last long. Its risky to predict but two years should be long enough. Nawaz Sharif has already his eyes set on two-third majority in the next election which doesn't seems an unlikely scenario given the fact that PPP would have no Benazir Bhutto next time and nor the sympathy wave, coupled with the anti-incumbecy factor that would go against them. He would need it to make constitutional amendment to enable him to become PM for a third time.

The current direction of born-again jamhuriat looks so similar to what it was in its previous incarnations. The current state of affairs in terms of democracy can be analysed by the fact most people have voted on anti Musharraf plank or due the sympathy factor generated due Mohtarma's assassination. The ruling coalition to-be doesn't seem to have any real political agenda except for a few largely useless and symbolic issues like restoration of judges and removing Mush. Then what? Do they have any plan or capability to tackle with religious extremism? Would they be able to really deliver on the issues concerning common man rather than just playing divisive politics. Would the be able to provide a clean and effective administration instead of increasing their Swiss bank balances? Answers to all these questions seems no. Also, we have a very good understanding of the administrative capabilities and habits of Zardari (Mr 10%) and Nawaz Sharif (Mian Zakhmi Sher-e-Punjab). Mr Zardari's true colors have also begin to be seen now. After earlier proposing Makdoom Fahim's name, he now seems desperate to become PM himself. Nawaz Sharif too is hell bent on taking political revenge and is simply heading towards a path where a confrontation with Musharaf and possibally with Army seems inevitable.

Even at a time when Pakistan is on the crossroads and suicide bombings have become a daily feature, they are after power and political revenge. The real fight in Pakistan should not be between Musharaf and Nawaz Sharif, nor between Army and civilian control, it has to be between moderates and extremists. People have already given their verdict and religious parties have lost badly. Now for the sake of Pakistan's existence at least, they should get together, work with each other to rebuild democratic institutions and to defeat backward looking forces for the good of Pakistan and the world.

So much has changed in Pakistan in the last few years yet everything looks the same. In the words of Ghalib:

फिर उसी बेवफ़ा पे मरते हैं
फिर वही ज़िंदगी हमारी है

किस तरह शोक करूँ कैसे रुलाऊँ दिल को,
कई बरसों का दिल से इंतकाम लेना है
कैसे अफ़सोस करूँ कारवाँ के लुटने का,
मेरा माज़ी तो कभी खुशगवार था ही नही
किस को मैं याद करूँ बस कि तड़प उठ्ठे दिल,
किसी हबीब का चेहरा ही मुझे याद नही
और जो याद है मैं उसका कभी हो न सका,
अब उसके रूठ के जाने का ग़म करूँ कैसे?
किसकी तमन्ना करूँ अब कोई मेरे पास नही,
दूर से देखता हूँ मंज़िल को सहम जाता हूँ
किस तरह शोक करूँ कैसे रुलाऊँ दिल को,
कैसे यह आह निकालूँ तुम ही बता दो मुझको
आह को चाहिए एक उम्र असर होने तक,
हम ने एक उम्र बिता दी ये आह नही निकली

(Dedicated to Mirza Asadulla Khan Ghalib, as the inspiration to write every word of this poem has come from his immortal lines "Aah ko chahiye ek umr asar hone tak...".)

Procter: As you all know we are here to hear about the interesting conversation that took place between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds that no one was able to hear. Before we start the proceedings, I should make it clear that it is the duty of all players to entertain the spectators and not each other. So, in future you should be loud enough so that our strategically placed stump microphones could hear it clearly. What you all think they are for, when no umpire ever refers to the third umpire? You must understand that it would increase the TRPs of our broadcasters. That’s how you would get ads. Sachin, at least you should understand.

Sachin: Aaila...You are absolutely right sir. Actually that is exactly what I was telling Bhajji and Andy, when they were talking.

Procter: So Andy, what are your charges?

Andrew: Uncle...uncle... when Bret was returning after bowling a delivery, what I saw...that this Bhajji...he, uncle, patted Bret on his back side.

Procter: Bhajji, this is not decent. After all cricket is a gentle men's game. Why did you do that?

Harbhajan: I just wanted to patt him on the back to say that he is really bowling well. As there was no wicket falling, I thought I should give him some encouragement. Poor Aussies are not used to it. But as I am also not used to batting so long, I was tired and that's why my hand went a bit lower.

Procter: Ok, looks reasonable.

Ponting: But sir....

Procter: So Andy, what did you do then?

Andrew: Me uncle? I didn't had any choice but to intervene. Otherwise my hard earned reputation of Mr. Poke-My-Nose-In-Everything would have been ruined. So I told Bhajji that you should stop your indecent acts or I would complaint to Steve uncle. But he told me to f**k off and called me.....called me.....uh uh...a monkey.....uhuhuh...

Procter: Hmm...Bhajji this is a serious issue. Crowds in Mumbai did the same thing to Andy during thier last India tour. But you people got away with it.

Andrew: Uhuh....uhuh...

Procter: I must tell you that animal rights are very strict here in Australia. You cant abuse a monkey here and get away with it.

Ponting: But sir, this is a kind of racial abuse and not animal rights issue. You should take strict action.

Procter: Yeah Ponting, I was coming to that. Bhajji, did you call Andy a monkey?

Harbhajan: No sir, by god ki kasam! I will explain you everything. After I patted Bret, this monk...uhmm...I mean Andy started abusing me. I said who the hell are you to tell me anything when the guy I have patted is silent? So as we normally do in India, I told him "teri maan ki...". But even before I could complete it with the most important word, he said that I have called him a monkey. You are mai-baap. Now tell me if I have done something wrong?

Kumble: He is right sir. We use it like comma and full stop back in India. You should see during India-Pakistan match, hum kaise ek doosre ki maan-behan ek karte hain. There is nothing racial about it.

Procter: Sounds logical.

Ponting: But...

Harbhajan: No if...no but...sirf jatt...

Procter: Sachin, you were there in the middle. What do you say about the whole thing?

Sachin: I think we played well. And all the boys played well. The ball was coming on to the bat and I knew if I could hang in there for some time it would be lot easier to bat. In the end it is important that we played well as a team....

Procter: I was asking about the incident between Bhajji and Andy.

Sachin: Oh...aaila...I think, Bhajji is right. These things keep happening in the middle.

Procter: I think Bhajji abused Andy, but not racially. At least Australia should not complain about indecent on-field behavior.

Ponting: But sir...

Procter: So I dismiss the....

Harbhajan: (Jumping with joy) Oye...balle balle...(looking towards Procter) 0ye teri maan ki jai....

Procter: Maan-ki...monkey...you calling me a monkey! This is ridiculous. I ban Harbhajan for 3 test matches for racially abusing me...uhmm...I mean Andrew Symonds.

Andrew: Hurray...huray...thank you uncle...I love you uncle.

Ponting: Very good decision. No one should question my integrity.

Kumble: This is cheating. We are not playing. What do you think Sachin?

Sachin: I think we played well. And all the boys played well. The ball was coming on to the bat and I knew if I could hang in there for some time it would be lot easier to bat. In the end it is important that we played well as a team....

Kumble: Shut up Sachin! We will also complain to Pawar uncle.

Harbhajan: Tumhari maan ki ^*%$#.....{sensored}

Watched Matrix yesterday. Yeah, 8 years after it was released and I am still not sure if I was able comprehend it fully. But I liked the theme. It reminded me of a scene of one of my all time favorite Hindi movie Guide, in which Dev Anand says:

ज़िंदगी एक ख्याल है,
जैसे कि मौत एक ख्याल है

न सुख है,
न दुख है,
न दीन है,
न दुनिया

न इंसान,
न भगवान

सिर्फ मैं हूँ, मैं हूँ, मैं हूँ, मैं...
सिर्फ मैं...

The only thing that is real, is illusion!

William Shakespeare rightly said:

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

Benazir Bhutto certainly belonged to the third category. She was elected as PPP chairperson at the age of 25 after her father was executed by Zia-ul-Haq in 1979 with the kind permission of Washington. She soon became the first elected Muslim woman prime minister. Her two stints as prime minster were utterly corrupt, became unpopular and were aborted by the intervetion of president and the army. During her rule, she and her husband Asif Ali Zardari, another feudal lord from Sindh, created new records of corruption and amassed huge wealth. She still has four cases pending against her in different European courts. These cases are in addition to the ones that were dropped by Musharraf again on behest of US. Zardari got her brother, Murtaza Bhutto killed in a police encounter, when she was in power. She obviously never took any action. But Zardari spent 8 years in prison as convict, after her government was dismissed by President Leghari (a PPP veteran) on the charges of corruption and misuse of power. After striking a deal with US and Musharraf she returned to Pakistan to again capture power and loot public money in the name of democracy. Yes, she was moderate and was against Islamic extremism, but never took any concrete steps to curb it. She was too busy in earning money. She was a charismatic leader and was not afraid at all of the greatness that was thrust upon her due to her maiden name Bhutto. In fact, she misused the name of her father to the fullest and discarded his socialist agenda. Made promises and delivered nothing. After her sad demise, her 19 years old son Bilawal has been crowned PPP chairperson to continue the legacy of the Bhutto 'royal' family in the name of democracy.


What an irony, all the women and young leaders that the democracies in south Asia have produced are result of the dynasty politics and the feudal mindset of the public at large!

Two time former prime minister and one of the most popular leader of Pakistan, Mrs Benazir Butto was assassinated on Thursday evening by a suicide bomber, after she was leaving an election rally in Rawalpindi. Blood-soaked history of the subcontinent haunting back and plunging Pakistan deeper into the crisis, its worst after the 1971 debacle.

But the blame doesn't lie with the history alone. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari and her party, Pakistan Peoples Party has directly blamed Gen Musharraf and the goverment for the act. The list of the suspects and the persons who might benefit from her leaving the political scene, is too long. But I think, Musharraf is unlikely to have ordered her killing. There are definitely some elements in the ruling party and the government, who could be behind the murder, along with Islamic extremist militants. She herself named the omnipotent and omnipresent intelligent agencies ISI and IB as the elements who should be held responsible if something happens to her, in the letter to Musharraf after the first assassination attempt on her life at the welcome rally in Karachi, a few months back. Musharraf and the government would have to be responsible for serious laps in security of a prominent leader who was most likely to be the next prime minister and was well known to be at the highest risk along with the president himself. The vehicle that she was travelling was not bullet proof. Can you believe that? She repeatedly complained that the jammers provided for her security were faulty. Yet no action was taken. She was shot on the head and neck just from a few feet. There was no security cordon. She was left to bleed in her car for 10 mins as people expected another blast. Where were the security personal at that time? Should not they have rescued her? And lastly, why was the scene of crime cleaned away so quickly? Was the administration afraid of its own role being known in the investigations or was it trying to save someone else?

Another important question is what to expect next in Pakistan? Well, you are never sure about the turn of events in Pakistan. Most people would have never expected what has happened yesterday. So wait and watch! One thing is sure, that Pakistan is heading towards chaos and uncertainty. Nobody, including Musharraf and America seems to be in control and nobody seems to have a credible plan. The blame for this uncertainty obviously lies on US and president Bush. Musharraf was at least firmly in control when US administration decided to clip his wings. I don't think US top leadership has any idea of the ground situation in Pakistan or how things work there. The much touted 'free and fair' elections are also in deep trouble. Nawaz Sharif has already decided to boycott them. And even if they are held in January, they would be meaningless at best. My heart goes out for the family of Mrs Bhutto and the people of Pakistan. I have no hope that the politicians or army would come together in this situation of despair and try to save their country from the threat of terrorism and extremism by forgetting their political differences and greed for power. But, I wish and hope, that the people of Pakistan would stay firm and determined as a positive force and come out as the saviours of their nation as they have done in the past.

ईद का चाँद दीवाली की रात में निकला,
तन्हा सी रात में महताब भी तन्हा निकला

बसता था मेरे दिल में वो एहसास की तरह,
दिल तोड़ गया वो मगर दिल से नही निकला

उसने न हाय की कोई मुझसे कभी वफ़ा
मैं कैसे कहूं मेरा सनम बेवफा निकाला

माज़ी से शिक़ायत है न मंजिल की जुस्तजू
रस्ता मेरा मंजिल के बहुत दूर से निकला

यह सच है कभी तूने ना समझी मेरी वफ़ा
सच ये भी है की मैं भी न काबिल तेरे निकला

मेरी न हुई ज़ीस्त में कोई दुआ कबूल
एक वो है कि जिसका तो बुत भी खुदा निकला

दिल में तेरी वफ़ा से थी आंखों में रौशनी
दिल तूने बुझाया तो धुआं आँख से निकला

रातें तो दीवाली की होती हैं अँधेरी,
महताब आरजू था मेरी जो ख्वाब में निकला

The finals week is finally over and I am feeling so relieved, free and bored! I was feeling so bored that I had to watch 5 back-to-back episodes of "Sex and the City" to get myself in the mood....to write. People, specially Indians, often ask me this question "Why don't you believe in god?". My response to this is so big and blunt that most people would get offended and yes, bored. But during past three months, I actually promised at least two friends to compile my thought about this. So here I go.

Lets first warm up a bit! In the following video, you can replace "fool" with "kafirr" if you are a Muslim and with "adharmi" if you are a Hindu. You would be at home, in case you are Christian. Wtch the video to know, what I am talking about.

The next video is really funny and is not for people who feel too strongly about their religion/faith. So don't watch it if you can not take some light hearted humor.

This video is hilarious but in fact, raises some very fundamental and obvious questions about the existence for god. We often overlook these basic questions and start debating (and preaching) on complex topics without addressing the basic premises for these topics.

Although I have so much to write on this issue. But the idea of god seems so much fundamentally flawed to me that I think, I don't need to go into gory details of holy scriptures to present my case strongly. I would like to make just three points to present my thoughts on the subject.

First, I am an atheist because I was born an atheist. In fact everybody is born innocent, lovely and atheist. When we are born we have absolutely no idea about god or religion or our culture or language or world. So why some people become Muslims, some become Christians, some Jews or Hindus. So, instead of "why I am an atheist" the real question should be why have "you" become a Muslim or Christian? Why do most people believe in the religion they believe in? Think about it. You are a Christian Protestant not because you were born a Christian Protestant or liked that belief and got converted, but simply because your parents were Christian Protestants. Because you have been told right from the beginning that it is the only right way. Because you were told not to ask question about it. You must have asked questions like why a table is called a table or why does "B" comes after "A" why not "C". Your parents like my parents would have replied that its the way it is and then we never asked questions about these things. We only ask question in areas where we are allowed to questions or where we expect to get some answers. Our parents didn't know the answers as they never got any answers from their parents. The questions about table and ABC are trivial but the question about god or religion is not. Think about it, my Muslim friends. You believe that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger. You are deeply religious, pray five times, fast during Ramadan, don't eat pork. Its good. But think, if you would have born in country side in Italy in a orthodox Christian family, you would have been believing in "father, son and holy spirit", would have been praying in Church in front of idols and would argue that Muslims are mistaken people who would go to hell on judgement day because they don't believe that Christ was son of God.

Forget about any irrationalities in the details of your religion. For five minutes, I believe what is written in Koran is true. I am ready to believe in Bible, old testament, new testament, Gita (Hindu scripture) and all other holy books and beliefs. Even in the belief of some tribe living in jungles of Africa, who worship a stone god for rain and food and offer human sacrifice in return. But I can not believe in each of them simultaneously because they all contradict each other and I have no way to choose between them and say that this religion is the only true religion. I would not claim that my religion is the only true religion because everybody is claiming that and I should have something concrete if I claim that too. And everybody is claiming that because they really believe that it is true. But wait, something is wrong here. You could have been arguing in favour of those African tribals with equal zeal if they would you would have born in that tribe. Simple. So you and I have no moral right, whatsoever to proclaim the superiority of our religion or belief. So I have no reason to believe in one religion or the other. Suppose I got ride of my backlog of religious faith imposed by my parents and society, which religion should I choose then. Try to think with open open mind why do you follow you religion and would you have believed in god the same way that you currently believe in if you had born to different parents in a different part of the world? Would you have been wrong then or are you currently wrong. Try to write down the reasons in favour of our answer.

Second, I really miss god. I seriously wish I could believe in god. Life would have been much easier. Before you start preaching from your holy scriptures to save my soul, let me first clarify my stance. People turn to god in their hour of distress and pain. Their belief, even though false, helps them to coup with their troubled lives. If something bad happens, people believe that what happened was their fate and was the divine plan. They go on to the next task without any guilty feeling of the faults they had committed earlier. They would pray to god and would have faith that god is with them and that gives them tremendous confidence. So is this a bad thing? I think, yes. Its like taking drugs to relive the mental pain and provide you that euphoric feeling. This is escapism. This why Marx calls religion "the opium of masses". And at least I don't need opium to live my life. I would like to face life by looking straight into its eyes like a man. If its hard I will face it. If I make mistakes, I would admit them or at least try to learn from them. If I fall flat, I wont put the blame on someone else. If I make a plan, I wont count on god's helping hand in it. Believe me, this make life tough. But I don't have any other option. I am open to the idea of god and spend a lot of my leisure time studying different religions and schools of thoughts. But more deep I look into a religion more ugly it becomes. But please, I am sick of those people who wants to save my soul. I would be more than happy to debate the issue but I don't want to listen the preaching that assumes the existence of god. All this becomes a waste of time because everything scriptures say is based on the very fact that I don't believe in.

Third, What I think, is the real battle? Science vs religion is not the right issue to discuss. Nor is eastern vs western civilization the main conflict point. I don't think there is any fundamental point of difference between Abrahamic religions vs rest. To me, this conflict is basically between irrational blind faith and the modern rational, logical mind. To me, this is a conflict between modernity and anti-modernism. While some people want to go forward, others are trying to go back. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not.[1] The real battle is reason vs blind faith, its backwardness vs modernization, its intolerance vs inclusiveness, its extremism vs moderation, its logic of power vs power of logic.

The battle is going on and I am optimistic that forces of reason would prevail. As Bertrand Russell puts it:

"Reason may be a small force, but it is constant and works always in one direction, while the forces of unreason destroy one another in futile strife. Therefore every orgy of unreason in the end strengthens the friends of reason, and shows afresh that they are the only true friends of humanity."

But again, before we become extremist atheists and launch some kind of crusade or witch hunt, there is another unanswered critical question. Is religion in its moderate form really an evil thing? Is even the concept of a personal god really harm full? Should we let people worship stones unless they don't throw these stone at us? I think, religion in its moderate form is still unreasonable, but not that bad. Religion, if treated as a personal issue and is not binding might in fact help the society in some ways. After all, even drugs are beneficial as painkillers, if taken with care and advise. I personally have no problems in going along with people from different faiths and backgrounds and in fact like religion a lot. But as I said before, I cant adopt it. Its just so illogical to me.

But having said that, the concept of religion and god seems too dangerous and primitive to me. Religion is fundamentally based on blind faith and false assumptions. Lack of reason is at its core. This is the prime reason that religious fundamentalists are able to muster support from the moderate masses. That is the reason that rulers have used religion as a tool to suppress masses. Faith is one thing that nobody can reason about because it is fundamentally unreasonable. Every religion has exploited and fooled people in the name of god. And people become fool again and again simply because they ARE fools. They are fools because they believed in false concepts at the first place.

Anyways, we actually don't have a choice. Religion is so much intermingled with our culture, society and value system that we cant really imagine a godless world in the near future. So I like it or not, I will have to learn to live with god in the society and follow its culture. But I would continue to live my life in the rational way. What would happen in the future is hard to predict, but I think, religion would become largely meaningless if not obsolete in the years to come.

I know that I am an ignorant fool in the eyes of most people। I am an infidel and would go to hell. All I would like to say is that:

हाँ वो नहीं खुदा परस्त जाओ वो बेवफ़ा सही,
जिसको हो दीन-ओ-दिल अज़ीज़ उसकी गली में जाये क्यों?

I, too have some unreasonable habits and quoting Ghalib is just one of them.

References:

[1] - Taslima Nasreen on Islamic Fundamentalism http://humanists.net/nasrin/harvard%20lecture.htm"