Dil Ka Phool - The Flower Of The Heart

Unki yaad mein dil khil jaata hai
Is phool ki tarah
Mere sabhi gham ud jaate hain
Bas dhool ki tarah 

English Translation :

At the thought of her, my heart,
Like this flower, does bloom
And just like so much dust,
Is blown away all my gloom

Photo courtesy and Copyright (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy
All Rights Reserved

My Two Genres of Poetry - 'Cheez' and 'Cheesy'

As a 'Shaayar' (poet) I often suffer from creative impulses. There is a gushing from within that needs to come out and 'spill on to paper' even if it is all in digital form these days. Broadly, there are two categories or genres of creations that come to fruition that I present to the world. I classify them according to the kind of spontaneous response they evoke from the readers.

One makes them go "Waah! Waah! Kya Cheez Hai!!" and the other makes them go "Arey! Kya Cheesy Hai!". Of course, there are times when even if 'Cheesy' something is interesting bad enough to make the reader go 'Wah! Wah! Kya cheesy hai!"

So, briefly, one could categorize my writings into 'Cheez' or 'Cheesy' - you the reader decide which according to your taste.

Here are some samples of each of these two genres is given below

1a) Dhoondta hun bahaar har phool mein,
jab woh mere paas nahin hote
Virla hi hai woh shaks
jiske dil mein aas nahin hote

 English Translation:
I search for spring in every bloom
When she is not here
Rarely is there someone
In whose heart there is no desire

1b) Dhoondta hun waqt akele bibi ke saath
jab bacche ghar ke paas nahin hote
Woh bhi kya kismat wale hain
Jinke ghar saas nahin hote
English Translation:
When the children are not around
I try to find time alone with my wife
The truly fortunate ones are found
With no in-laws in their life


2a) Mere siva tumhe koi aur jachta nahin
Tere bina mere dil ka raag rachta nahin

English Translation: 
Someone other than me is not suitable
Next to you juxtaposed
My heart's music is not able,
Without you, to be composed


2b)  Is pant ke saath yeh kameez bilkul jachta nahin
Nimboo aur pyaaz ke bina yeh mutton pachta nahin
English Translation:
This shirt does not go well with this pant
Sans lemon and onions, digest the mutton I cant!


Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

The Divided Americans

Many are talking about a 'divided' America, particularly during and after the recent elections. Most define this division into two major groups, based on the political views held by the people in the group. One group is supposedly 'The Right' and the other supposedly 'The Left'. 'The Right' is identified with Trump supporters and 'The Left' is identified with all those who oppose them. This is the most neutral and least offensive way in which I can classify or label this division. 
Actual members of the two groups often have far less complementary labels for each other -  'Deplorables' and 'Libtards' being, surprisingly, in more common currency!

 "Right Wing Nuts', 'Leftist Loonies', 'Terrorist Sympathisers','Traitors', 'Extremists', 'Racists', 'Fascists','Communists', 'Idiots' are also among the more commonly used epithets.

I think it is a fallacy in thinking that it is the particular set of political views (either 'Leftist' or 'Rightist') that is the cause and reason for division.

I think that the real reason for the division is not the actual political views held by a person ('Leftist' or 'Rightist'), but how a person deals with another person with an opposing or different view.

I observe that the people who remain divided are all strikingly alike in how they deal with or respond to another person no matter what their political view or opinions. Unless these people change their ways of approaching differences, they will continue to remain divided. There seems to be no scope or easy way for them to convince others or be convinced themselves or accept the differences and yet get along with their opposition.

 I observe that there are two kinds of USAnians -

1) The United Americans - people holding diverse beliefs and political views but all still united as one group,  as one people or one nation, to move the country and society forward, working together.

2) The Disunited Americans - a large set of people holding broadly two sets of opposing political views who do NOT want to convince others or be convinced themselves by any logic or reason or simply accept differences and still work together.  They WANT to remain holding on to their views and only accept people who concur with them into their group.

Here are some common traits of the 'Disuniteds' in the USA. Interestingly enough, I find this exact same phenomenon among the disuniteds of India or other countries, particularly among those educated in English medium, the ruling 'elites', those exposed to the Western culture, media and societies.This is something they seemed to have picked up. They have become effectively 'Un-Unitable'. They thrive and survive on division.

1) Labeling the opposition or its members with an offensive label or name-calling or characterization right at the start of any 'discussion' or 'debate'.

Statements like the following are typical starters coming from the Left or Right -

"What are you smoking?"

"That kind of stupid thing is what a clueless libtard would say - let all the illegals stay and keep the borders open"

"How could you support such a racist, dumb clown and conman who speaks like that?"

"By brainless liberal logic - if you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, you make expect to make people feel safer?"

"Well, enough of these cuckoo brains, the only global warming is the hot air these whackos are blowing out their asses"

"I cannot believe anyone with half a brain or common sense would vote for that thug. That is frightening, dangerous and totally unacceptable to civilzed society. If he is elected, I am leaving the country!!"

"That might be so in your la-la land"

"That traitorous Obozo..."

Think about it: These are not good opening lines with which to start a process of 'coming together' - to create a mood of wanting to come together. In fact, if one wanted to kill off any such impulses the other person may have, the above are excellent examples of useful opening shots.

2) Make up a 'straw man' argument, demolish it, speak inaccurately on behalf of the opposition as if speaking their mind. Say something that is patently false, ridiculous or obviously unacceptable and state it as the position or view of the opposite party.

The following are some typical examples:

"He called all Mexicans rapists, murderers and has no respect for women"

"He is an Israel hater and wants to bring in terrorists into our country across open borders"

"Sure! He would say that! That's what his master Putin tells him to say. I cannot imagine anyone in their right minds willing to have a Russian puppet running this country!"

"They want to destroy the environment, our rivers and lakes and give companies free reign to pollute with no oversight!"

"They want to kill police officers and don't value their lives"

"They don't care about the lives of minorities - Blacks, Latinos, LGBT"

Think about it: If the tactics in Step 1 did not work and put off the person from wanting to have a meaningful discussion, this step might do the job. If even this does not work, there are the following options.

3) Never taking or making the time or effort to LISTEN IN GOOD FAITH to any reasons the others might give to support their view point - show a willingness to be convinced by logic or reasoning

An approach along this track is acting 'too clever' by completely ignoring any attempt by the opposition to present a logical or rational explanation. Of course, while one could ultimately legitamately disagree if not convinced,  that option is forgotten or conveniently ignored. Typically one becomes more concerned or threatened if the other person is actually being reasonable or rational, because that would mean one could be on the path to  having to change one's mind!!  To many, that appears to be the ultimate fear.

A typical response in such situations is feigning 'tactical stupidity or ignorance' as a strategy by grossly and inaccurately simplifying any statement made or splicing the opposition's statement to distort it or spin it and keep harping on it until that person gives up frustrated or hurt or offended. This signifies 'victory' in the effort to keep holding on to one's position 'officially' and not admitting 'defeat'.

"So you are saying that giving everyone access to more guns will make us safer?"

"When you have no respect for the lives of police officers and think it is OK for them to be killed...."

"When elect someone who thinks it is OK to sexually assault women"

"So you are OK with him cozying up to an authoritarian dictator who has killed and tortured his opponents? (Never mind the fact that the person referred to may have been democratically elected in a fairer election)"


4) Never give out clear reasons to support one's own views - show a willingness to try and convince the other by reason or logic

This is usually achieved by stonewalling, talking about peripheral or unrelated issues, turning on more insults, innuendo or spouting a bunch of cliches or hyperboles. This will completely frustrate anyone on the other side listening in good faith and make them want to throttle you - 'Mission Accomplished!!'

"He sympathises with Iranians. That is an enemy of Israel!! He hates us and wants to destroy us and our friends."


"You are being a Nazi! I bet you loved Hitler" (This is often the first and last resort of some on both sides)

"Love Trumps Hate"  (Ask if this applies to Russians)

"No we don't hate anyone as long as they play fair. (Ask if this applies to Chinese, Arabs or Muslims or even other Americans who disagree with you)"


5)  Never accept anything sensible said or reportedly said by someone who is from another or  'enemy' nation because that would somehow imply that common sense or some valuable thought or wisdom can be found in people outside one's own country. 'Politics above Principles' is the expected norm in this approach!

Statements such as the following are typical in this category.

"But that is what the Russians say and would want, is it not?"

"I do not care a rat's a$$ for what that Communist loving pr**k says. He wants to suck up to China!"

"I don't want to hear what a dictator slime-ball says!"

Using even a sensible slogan as a tactical weapon, effectively damages it irreparably in the eyes of a large number of people, especially if its message is not put into practice.

Here are a some  classic examples.

"Love Trumps Hate" (Check whether this applies to Trump and his supporters)

"When they take the low road, we take the high road" (Sounds good but ....)

"Stronger Together" (So what are you trying to bring people together? Do you think your approach is working? or will work?)

"We have started 'winning' again!" (What exactly is being won? At what price? What is being lost? Is it worth it, if one loses unity among a large number of fellow citizens for the long run?)

Summary: Looking at the whole picture, it seems to me that many are divided and will remain divided because that is how they _want_ to be. One can never convince some people to unite or love each other.

I reckon many among the divided will personally agree that it is perfectly OK to feel and show love and respect in every personal dealing with a person one strongly disagrees with, as long as they reciprocate. If their own efforts fail due to the arrogance and ego of the other, people move on to the stage of responding with a sting - to perhaps salvage some personal satisfaction of giving back some of the pain and offense and the merry, vicious cycle continues. It cannot happen by only one side yielding all the time. Humility seems to be a taboo in today's discussions. Willingness to be convinced is another.

If it is to become a more truly United States of America or any other  'united' nation in the world, there has to be less of the above patterns of behaviour in what passes for debate or discussion. Coming together has to come from the heart and soul - a sense of belonging to a greater common group and a desire to deal in good faith for the common good. That cannot be imposed. It has to come from within, either by a flash of wisdom or painful experiences.


Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

Dhoondun Bahaar (I Search For Spring)

Dhoondta hun bahaar har phool mein,
jab woh mere paas nahin hote
Virla hi hai woh shaks 
jiske dil mein aas nahin hote

English Translation:
I search for spring in every bloom
When she is not here
Rarely is there someone 
In whose heart there is no desire



Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

No Such Thing As Too Much Love

बहुत ज्यादा प्यार? ऐसा नहीं 

प्यार चाहे कभी कम हो

प्यार ज्यादा नहीं कर सकता 

तेरा गम कभी कम हो

ये वादा नहीं कर सकता

शुक्र गुज़ारुं मैं उसकी 

जो कुछ प्यार मे मिला है 

अपेक्षा नहीं कुछ नामिले की

न कहूं मुझे कुछ गिला है 

Bahut Jyaada Pyaar? Aisa Nahi

Pyaar chaahe kabhi kum ho
Par jyaada  nahin kar sakta
Tera gham kabhi kum ho
Ye waada nahin kar sakta

Shukr guzaroon main uski
Jo kuch pyaar mein mila hai
Apeksha nahin kuch naamile ki
Na kahoon mujhe kuch gila hai

    English Translation:

No Such Thing As Too Much Love

Showing love less, sometimes I may,
But I could never love you too much.
That your pain will be less one day,
I cannot honestly promise you such


For all that in love I've got
I thank the Lord in gratitude
No expectations of what is not
With no complaining attitude



Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

Dangerous driving and Illegal migrants

Law abiding people in their own country should not have to face deadly consequences of illegal migrants with poor driving skills or attitudes towards law. Illegal immigrants might fail to stop and render assistance in case of an accident, just to save their own skin since they were there illegally. It puts lives at risk. I can relate to this kind of issue coming from India. Fortunately, I learned to drive a car and got my license while I was in the USA legally. I went back to India and had to unlearn most of the road rules, respect for the laws and courtesy in driving just to survive in the mad chaos that was and is still India's road culture, despite having improved a great deal.

I think it works both ways, when people move with a legitimate driving license from countries like India where the traffic culture is 'different' and chaotic. There should be no automatic allowing of people to drive legally in organized countries like the USA on an 'international' license. There needs to be clear evidence of their having 'unlearned' their old driving habits and attitudes AND passing the stringent driving tests in countries like the USA before allowing them to drive, even for LEGAL immigrants.

It is simply not worth putting random law-abiding lives at risk on the roads.
Of course, for the safety of the general public and themselves, drivers from the USA and other developed countries also should be banned from driving in India until they learn to break the rules and drive safely.. ;-)

Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

WHAT and WHO and WHY

I note that when we come across a statement made by someone
- some respond to WHAT was said
- some respond to WHO said it and WHY they might have said it

No doubt the WHAT, WHO and WHY are all related and perhaps even relevant, but if taken together, the real issue is no longer WHAT was said, it becomes personal. Any debate then becomes a different ball-game.


Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

Political soulmates

The topic of politics is amazingly revealing of one's inner nature - we can often be more in agreement and sync with a total stranger than with a close friend or family member! :-)


Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved 

No Deplorables in Australia

Historically, the industries of the rust belt built up the wealth and prosperity of the USA in the last century and until recently. They produced the hardware and real tangible stuff that people need and use for a comfortable modern life. The metropolises at the two coastal ends of the USA became the 'financial', 'cultural', 'fashion' and entertainment hubs based on this wealth from the inner industrial belt of the midwest of the USA. They later became the intangible 'technology' centres too funded from the wealth of the more basic industries and agriculture in the 'middle' states. It seems today that, politically, the 'cultural elites' of the coasts have forgotten or started to look down upon the very kind of working class  people who built up the USA - its wealth and power to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation. Just because the value of a technology stock makes some wealthy does not mean those who worked on older technology or with their hands can be treated without respect or consideration. Here in Australian culture it would be like insulting the sheep farmer or cattle drover or miner on whose labours this country survived and thrived.  Just because a movie industry or technology developed in the big cities makes some very rich if they get out of touch with the large number of country folk who might be struggling and start to label them as 'less educated' or 'deplorable' it will cause great resentment and division in society politically. I find it hard to imagine any major political party or its followers in Australia 'talking' like the so-called 'liberal' media in the USA  about the working class people here who are largely of European descent. They are spoken of with respect in Australian political discourse.

The so called 'liberal' elites in the USA seem to have forgotten the hands that have fed and nurtured their country for over a century until recently. 


Copyright  (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2016
All rights reserved