Rahiman tha to prem tha.....

I read a very interesting comment on 'The Times of India' yesterday; someone had written 'Rahiman tha to prem tha, ab hain bin laden...'

Very early in schools while studying Hindi literature you are introduced to the concept of 'dohe' or couplets. These were famous in the era what is now known as 'Bhaktikal' in Hindi literature. It is from around mid 14^th century to 16^th century. These 'dohe' came from those eclectic times

This era in the mid 1500s was dominated by hermits and saints who did not leave their homes to create a new philosophy; instead they intermingled with the masses to raise its voice. This was the time when Hindustan had an emperor in Akbar the Great. This was the time religion was dominant but who followed which religion was so intermingled that religions as we now know now had lost their meaning. These were the time when Tulsidas was changing the concept on how Ram was being worshiped; he had just stolen 'Ramayan' from the Pundits, Brahmins and Scholars and put it into the hand of common man. This was the same time when Sufi music and Qwallies were being sung in every 'dargah' across north India. A 'julaha' weaver had just made two majorreligions irrelevant. If Ram was being glorified in the familiar language of masses in 'Ramcharitramanas', Surdas thought only of Krishna and Meera was madly in love with him. Malik Mohammad Jayasi had just written 'Padmavati'. It is supposed that Akbar himself with his friends used to visit these greats in disguise and once listing to Meerabai he had forgotten who he really was.

But coming back to Rahim, who was he? Where did he come from? While reading those Hindi literature books in school, I always thought that Rahim was a 'sufi-ish' saint. Rahim was a warrior and no less than Khan-i-khanna in Akbar's army and one of his famous courtiers. His father's name was actually more surprising, he was none other than 'Akbar's mentor', who did everything for Akbar what Humayun should have done, 'Bairam Khan'. Even after the fallout between Akbar and Bairam, Akbar never let his family go. Akbar protected him like an elder brother. 'Abdur Rahim' was born around 1556, this was the time when Akbar was 14 and just been around a year since he had ascended to the throne. So Akbar saw him not only grow up but very eagerly followed his rise in his Army.

He was responsible for annexing Ahmadabad. He had lead a lot of successful battles before Akbar entrusted him to the title of 'Khan-i-Khanna. He then stayed on in Ahmadabad for some time to take care of the province.

However, growing up around Akbar with the influences of his views on religion it is no surprise that Rahim came to be known for his 'Krishna Bhakti'. He had great command on Sanskrit, Persian Arabic and Turkish. He translated 'Buburnama' in Persian for Akbar. However he wrote all his work in local languages, 'Awadhi' and 'Brij'. He wrote Rahim-dohavali which is probably his most famous work. His other works, 'Shringar surath', 'Madanastaka' and 'Ras panchadayi'. He was also a celebrated astrologer and wrote a few books on it too.

He never use to look at the person whom he was giving alms to. When 'Tulsidas' asked him why he had such a peculiar way of giving alms. He replied,

देनहार कोई और है, भेजत जो दिन रैन, लोग भरम हम पर करें, तासो नीचे नैन

'dainhar koi aur hai, bhejat jo din rain, log bharam hum par karen, taso neeche nain'

(The giver is someone else, who gives every day, people confuse him with me, that's why I lower my eyes)

Some of his great couplets are:

रहिमन धागा प्रेम का, मत तोड़ो चटकाए, टूटे से फिर न जुड़े, जुड़े तो घांट पड़ जाये

'rahiman dhaga prem ka, mat todo chatkaye, tute se phir na jude, jude to ghant pad jaye'

जे रहीम उत्तम प्रकर्ति, कर करी सकत कुसंग, चन्दन विष व्यापत नहीं, लिप्तत रहत भुजंग

'je rahim uttam prakarti, kar kari sakat kusang, chandan vish vyapat nahin, liptat rahat bhujang'

कहे रहीम सम्पति सगे, बनत बहुत बहु रित, बिपत कसोटी जो कसे, ते ही सचे मीत

'kahe rahim sampati sage, banat bahut bahu rit, bipat kasoti jo kase, te hi sache meet'

चित्रकूट में रमी रहे, रहिमन अवध नरेस, जा विपदा परत है, वो आवत इस देश

'chitrakoot mein rami rahe, rahiman awadh nares, ja vipda parat hai, vo awat is desh'

रहिमन मोहि न सुहाए, अमी पावे मान बनू, बरु विष दी बुलाये, मान सहित मरबो भलो

'rahiman mohi na suhaye, ami pave maan banu, baru vish dei bulaye, maan sahit marbo bhalo'

ओछों का सतसन, रहिमन तजहु अंगार ज्यों, तातो जरे अंग, सिरे पे कारो लागे

'oocho ka satsan, rahiman tajhu angaar jyon, tato jare ang, sire pe karo lage'

होए जा की छांह ढीग, फल रहीं अति दूर, बड़ेहू सो बिनु काजाही, जैसे तार खजूर

'hoye ja ki chanh dheeg, phal raheen ati door, badehoo so binu kajahi, jaise taar khajoor'

सीत हरित, ताम्र हरित नीत, भुवन भरत नहीं चूक, रहिमन ताहे रवि को कहे, जो घटी लाखे उल्लूक

'seet harit, tamr harit neet, bhuvan bharat nahin chook, rahiman tahe ravi ko kahe, jo ghati lakhe ullook'

साधू सराहें साधुता, जाती जोगिता जान, रहिमन सचे सूर को, बेरी करें बखान

'sadhoo sarahen sadhoota, jati jogita jaan, rahiman sache soor ko, bayri karen bakhan'

समय पे फल होत हैं, समय पे झारी जात, सदा रहें नहीं एक सी, का रहीम पछितात

'samay pay phal hot hain, samay pay jhari jaat, sada rahen nahin ek si, ka rahim pachitat'

सबे कहावें लस्कारी, सब लस्कार कांह जाये, रहिमन सलेह जो सहे, सोई जागीर खाए

'sabe kahavein laskari, sab lascar kanh jaye, rahiman sleh jo sahe, soi jageer khaye'

We the people and Amoral Familism

It was 26^th January and as I drove from South Delhi to NOIDA I encountered very heavy traffic. Delhi's residents seem to be in a perpetual hurry here. They honk as if the world has gone deaf or rather to make the world deaf. They jostle with you in a car, most of the time they drive as if they have just graduated from driving a two wheeler and in a car they can still squeeze through those little spaces as they used to do in their two wheelers. They park and double-park without any worry of traffic rules nor do they care about the problems that others face because of it.

Suddenly I realised that it was 26^th January and India's republic had turned 60. There were cheers all across the media. Some people were critical of what we haven't achieved in these years, however most were upbeat about the past and the future.

I started to wonder do people even understand the meaning of a Republic. Do they know their responsibilities for it? However we are a Republic and we have been one for a long time. We have survived the nascent problems on being one and on the whole we are solving ones which exits. But ......

The traffic of Delhi was showing me that we were living not in a Republic but in anarchy. Why this selfishness? Why do we defecate in the open without a worry of cleanliness or the unhygienic condition it would bring to the residents? Why are we so unaware of our larger social responsibilities? Why do we keep our homes clean but throw the garbage on the streets? Isn't all this against the basic premise of being a Republic.

Now I know that most people would argue that Republic is mostly a political idea of governing. However in a larger context a successful republic is where a people are themselves responsible for others in the society. Here a citizen's behaviour is to create a society which leads to betterment of others and him in every possible way.

What is a Republic? A republic is defined as: A state where supreme political power vests with people and people are governed by elected or nominated representatives. Republic derives from the Latin phrase 'Res publica', which means 'A public product'; hence anything that we do should reflect that basic premise.

The earliest republics come from Greece and in northern India some Buddhist Lachchavi kingdoms which worked on Sanghas and Ganas. Probably they were influenced by the earlier Greek models. Greek model collapsed under its own pressure and Alexander turned it into his empire. The irony is that Aristotle who was his teacher actually wanted an oligarchy based republic. Later more successfully this idea was taken by Romans. Roman city state were the first true example of a republic until again the corruption and nepotism brought it down. Julius Ceaser was primarily responsible for it. Augustus Ceaser created an empire which we admire and loathe equally. For next millennia and half there were monarchies, anarchies and all other forms but the Republics didn't exist.

Then it was time for the two great Republics. Though, it was in England where it spawned from Italian Machiavelli's idea of collective exercise. John Locke in 17^th century vehemently argued that the power should lie with people. English parliament became the first bastion of Republicanisms. However, it was in the US and France where it took roots. The success of the US and France has shown way to almost all the republics that stand today and India is no exception. In the late 19^th century, Marxism and eventually Communism changed the idea of Republics, though now we know that they were far removed from actual Republics. What is an amazing achievement on India's part is that we were as divided as a broken windshield when we got independence and we were able to turn it into a concept of Republic.

Suddenly like Archimedes 'Eureka', it struck me, how many of these Delhites do actually belong to Delhi itself? Most of us who live in these big cities come from small towns. For example I come from a town which is so small that it is miniscule in Indian terms. I can not only walk through my town without breaking into sweat but actually run through it. I started to wonder is it 'amoral familism' which affects us when we migrate to metropolitans. What is 'Amoral Familism'?

Amoral Familism was a term coined by an Italian named, 'Edward Banfield'. In Banfield's work which was done in poverty ridden villages of southern Italy, he summarises that in these societies there is a persistent action to promote the immediate family. He goes on to blame the backwardness to villager's inability to work for common good.

Now neither am I a social scientist nor do I have expertise in it but when I think in India we have a different kind of 'amoral familism'. Here even in the presence of very strong extended family system (unlike the lack of it in Banfield's study) we still are very hidebound, very selfish when it comes to our family. Then we sometimes take this family concept to different circles, sometimes caste or clan based, sometimes to religion or economic levels.

The basic premise of amoral familism is that when rural societies turn into urban one but we still have a psyche of village life. We in India live in concentric circles. Our first responsibility comes for our immediate family, then our extended one, after that our neighbourhood, then comes our ethnic or religious group and beyond. The country or people we do not identify with come last. However, one surprising thing is that our cities show this far more than our villages.

Amoral familism could easily be attributed to why most Indians keep their homes clean but defecate on the road. Why a street corner turns into a garbage dump but people's bedroom is absolutely spic and span. It could also be explained to rash driving where people have very less regard for people they don't know. However this is very dangerous but maybe essential for society's transformation.

But what changes, what changed in America and France initially and then whole of Europe. What changed poor, uneducated, rural, agricultural, authoritarian societies into urban, industrialised democracies. Is democracy the key word here? Governments and people worked hand in hand to create societies. Government worked to remove social classes, disbanded large estates. They got in civil rights and laws which encompassed large masses of people and included the ones on the fringe of the society into the main fold of things. Private enterprises created wealth with the help of government.

Another important fact is the concept of larger society or humanity. Though Indians were far more welcoming to strangers and far more adapting and considerate of so called 'others' but I feel that this urbanization and right wing movements have made us more obstinate. We want to live with Nehru's idea of 'still larger cause of humanity...' & inclusiveness, this still has to be understood by urban Indians.

At least we are moving in the right direction, Right to Education is now a fundamental right instead of just being a directive. It took us 100 years to get there; Gopal Krishna Gokhle had first asked this as the right for Indian children from the Imperial Assembly. There is no other way but education to make society more egalitarian and more altruistic. So a good beginning but societal changes take a long long time to take roots. I hope that India draws from its benevolent villages of the past.