व्‍यंग — 'किस ऑफ लव' के आगे क्‍या है

व्‍यंग

'किस ऑफ लव' के आगे क्‍या है

— अम्‍बा चरण वशिष्‍ठ

बेटा:     पिताजी।

पिता:    हां, बेटा।

बेटा:     आपने समाचार पढ़ा कि कुछ लोगों ने कोची के एक

रैस्‍तरां में हंगामा मचाया कि यहां कुछ अनैतिक व्‍यवहार हो रहा है\ 

पिता:    यदि वहां कुछ ग़लत नहीं हो रहा था तो उस संगठन

को ऐसा कुछ नहीं करना चाहिये था।

बेटा:     आप ने पढ़ा कि इन नैतिकता के ठेकेदारों द्वारा 'मौरल पुलिसिंग' का डंडा बरसाने के विरोध में मैरीन ड्राइव तथा अन्‍य कई स्‍थानों पर पर विरोध प्रदर्शन के तौर पर ''किस ऑफ लव'' का आयोजन किया जा रहा है\

पिता:    बेटा, मुझे तो यह कुछ समझ नहीं आ रहा है।

बेटा:     पिताजी, विरोध के तौर पर कुछ संस्‍थायें व लोग वहां इकट्ठे होंगे और सामूहिक तौर पर पुरूष व महिलायें एक दूसरे का सब के सामने सार्वजनिक रूप से चुम्‍बन लेकर विरोध प्रदर्शन करेंगे।

पिता:    तो क्‍या वह सब पति-पत्नि ही होंगे\

बेटा:     पिताजी, आप फिर वही बात कर रहे हैं जिसका वह विरोध कर रहे हैं। यदि एक दूसरे का चुम्‍बन ले रहे जोड़ों से कोई यह पूछने की हिमाकत करेगा कि तुम पति-पत्नि हो कि नहीं, तो फिर उस पर भी ''मौरल पुलिसिंग'' का आरोप नहीं लग जायेगा।

पिता:    बात तो तुम्‍हारी ठीक है। पर इसका मतलब तो यह हुआ कि वहां पहुंचा हर पुरूष व महिला किसी का भी बेरोक-टोक चुम्‍बन ले पायेगा।

बेटा:     यही तो हमारी नई उदारवादी सभ्‍यता का कमाल है, पिताजी। इसीलिये तो इस सभ्‍यता से लोग जुड़ते जा रहे हैं।

पिता:    पर बेटा, इस विरोध आयोजन के लोग तो यह भी कहते हैं कि वह इस आयोजन द्वारा एड्स के विरूद्ध माहौल खड़ा करेंगे।

बेटा:     ऐसा विरोध प्रदर्शन एड्स के विरूद्ध लड़ाई में कारगर सिद्ध होता है तब तो सरकार को भी ऐसे ''किस्‍स ऑफ लव''  आयोजन हर गांव व मुहल्‍ले में करवाने पड़ेंगे।

पिता:    सरकार को तो तब सचमुच ही सोचना पड़ेगा।

बेटा:     पर पिताजी, मैंने यह भी पढ़ा कि पुलिस ने ''किस्‍स ऑफ लव'' के आयोजन की अनुमति देने से इनकार कर दिया है।

पिता:    तब तो बेटा पुलिस पर भी ''मौरल पुलिसिंग'' का आरोप लग जायेगा जबकि पुलिस का सरोकार अपराध से है नैतिकता से नहीं।

बेटा:     पर आयोजकों ने तो अपनी भीषम प्रतिज्ञा का ऐलान कर दिया है कि वह कुछ भी हो इस विरोध प्रदर्शन का आयोजन कर के ही रहेंगे चाहे कुछ भी हो जाये।

पिता:    ऐसा लगता है कि आयोजक अपने लक्ष्‍य के प्रति कटिबद्ध हैं और लगन के सच्‍चे।

बेटा:     मुझे भी ऐसा ही लगता है। पर पिताजी, यदि पुलिस ने भी उनकी सारी तैय्यारियों और मन्‍शा पर पानी फेर दिया तो लगता है कि वह अपने लक्ष्‍य के प्रति इतने सच्‍चे हैं कि वह चुप नहीं बैठेंगे और और भी सख्‍़त कार्रवाई कर सकते हैं।

पिता:    मुझे भी कुछ ऐसा ही लगता है।

बेटा:     इससे भी आगे बढ़ कर तो यही सख्‍़त विरोध प्रदर्शन हो सकता है कि वह मैरीन ड्राइव तथा अन्‍य सार्व‍जनिक स्‍थानों पर बिस्‍तर बिछा देंगे और जोड़े आकर वह सब कुछ करेंगे सब के सामने जो अन्‍यथा वह अपने कमरे की चार दीवारी में सब की नज़र से दूर अन्‍धेरे में करते हैं\

पिता:    यह तू उनसे ही पूछ।                      ***

No human right to his opinion to Mumbai eatery owner

Speaking my mind

No human right to his opinion to Mumbai eatery owner

Youth Congress enforces its law & diktat

When certain organizations and groups disturb Valentine Day celebrations, when they chase away a couple in amorous positions in public places, when they vandalise exhibitions of paintings by late renowned painter M. F. Hussain, our liberals, intelligentsia, secular media and human rights organizations cry hoarse at what they call "moral policing".  They denounce it as an outrage against personal/individual freedom of opinion and expression.  They dub it as an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech and expression of opinion guaranteed under the Constitution in the Indian democracy.

So far, it looked the Congress which had so far been castigating Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Sena etc. for vandalism in similar cases, is now trying to emulate those it condemned severely. Still more surprising is the so far silence of the so-called liberals and human rights organizations. Are our human rights activists and organizations are, intriguingly, maintaining a dubious silence only because the owner of the eater does not appear either to be a terrorist or a hardened criminal, like those in the Ishrat Jahan 'fake' encounter case?

To have a full grasp of what and why it happened, it would be interesting to go through the stories carried by almost every daily in the national capital. This is what The Statesman carried in its story headlined "Storm in a tea cup" on July 24:

"A plain jibe printed as a small footnote on a bill or receipt by a restaurant owner that takes a swipe at the United Progressive Alliance questioning the fiscal sense behind levying surcharge on air-conditioned hotels provoked a humourless protest from hordes of Youth Congress activists yesterday afternoon that finally forced a busy eatery, Aditi Pure Veg Restaurant, to shut down until further “orders” from the YC protesters.  
The owner, Mr Srinivas Shetty, says it is his right ~ since “India is an independent country” to have his say and express it openly. The hotel bills issued over the last fortnight carried a footnote that read, “As per UPA government, eating money (2G, coal, CWG scam) is a necessity and eating food in an A/C restaurant is a luxury.” He was protesting against the surcharge which the owners as a rule pass on to customers. His point of argument was that a cup of tea at his hotel costs Rs 12, but a customer is charged extra if he sits and sips the brew in an A/C hall.  
Angry YC activists did not see reason in Mr Shetty's argument. They bluntly told him that they have been instructed by their leaders in Delhi to force a shut down. One of the activists said that last week, on a visit to the KEM Hospital, across the street, some of his fellow YC members noticed the “derogatory” message printed on the bill. The issue, according to protesters, was referred to Delhi, seeking advice on how to tackle the insult. The missive from Delhi was clear: shut down the eatery, claimed the agitators. The YC men were led by local MLA Mr Kalidas Kolambkar and activist Mr Ganesh Yadav. 
After forcing the shut down they marched to the nearby police station to file a defamation complaint The cops say they have registered an NC (non-cognizable) offence under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code that pertains to printing defamatory material for public display. 
The protesters warned the owner, Mr Shetty, that they would not allow him to resume business unless he gives an apology and withdraws the objectionable bill-book. Mr Shetty has no option but to accept the rude diktat. He has to print new bill books now. The Association of Hotels and Restaurants, or AHAR, has cold-shouldered the Aditi owner, saying it was a dispute between two parties. Nevertheless, Mr Shetty claims he has managed to successfully drive his point home." (http://www.thestatesman.net/news/7001-storm-in-a-tea-cup.html)

The above story raises many pertinent questions:

Does the owner of the restaurant have no right to express his views and opinion in this kind of democracy we have under UPA? If the restaurant owner has violated any law of the land, who will take cognizance of it – the police, the investigating agency, the courts or would the Youth Congress workers act as the complainant, investigator and the court, all in one?

Under what law of the land the YC workers have the right to force a busy eatery, Aditi Pure Veg Restaurant, to shut down until further “orders” from the YC protesters?

What is more demeaning is the claim of the YC leadership that they referred the matter to Delhi to "seek advice" as to how to tackle the situation. "The missive from Delhi was clear: shut down the eatery". Under what authority can the Congress leadership order and force the restaurant to "shut down"? Are we heading towards a rule by hooliganism? Are we witnessing the revival of once infamous jungle raj in Bihar?

Astonishingly, it is not against the YC workers who took the law into their hands and forced the eatery to shut down, but the owner against whom a non-bailable criminal offence has been registered.

Clearly the Congress leadership has one law for itself and quite the opposite for others.                                                                                                          ***