Hammer & the tickle-II

The second part of the post on Soviet era jokes... Enjoy!

1. “What is the difference between the capitalist and the socialist trade?”

A.  “Capitalist trade means everything is to be sold.Socialist trade means everything is to be bought.”

2. “What shall we do if suddenly we feel a desire to work?”

A. “Just rest for a while on a sofa. It will pass.”

3. “What is the easiest way to explain the meaning of the word ‘communism’?”

A.“By means of fists.”

4. “What to do if vodka interferes with the job?”

A. “Get off the job.”

5. “Why Lenin wore regular shoes, but Stalin wore boots?”

A.“At Lenin's time, Russia was still only ankle-high in shit.”

6. “Can a son of a General become a Marshal?”
A. “No, because every Marshal also has a son.”

7. “What is an exchange of opinions?”

A.“When you walk into your boss's office with your opinion and walk out with his.”

8. “What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR?” Both guarantee freedom of speech.”

A. “Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.”

9. Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is in the USA?

A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Just the same, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.

10. “What is permitted and what is prohibited?”

A. “In England, what is permitted, is permitted, and what is prohibited, is prohibited.

      In America everything is permitted except for what is prohibited.

      In Germany everything is prohibited except for what is permitted.

      In France everything is permitted, even what is prohibited.

      In the USSR everything is prohibited, even what is permitted."

11.“Why Solzhenitsyn, Brodsky, Bukovsky, and other dissidents have been exiled from the country?”

A. “Don't you know that the best products are always selected for export?”

12. Yuri Gagarin’s daughter answers the phone.‘No, mummy and daddy are out,’ she says.‘Daddy’s orbiting the earth, and he’ll be back tonight at 7 o’clock.  But mummy’s gone shopping for groceries, so who knows when she’ll be home.’

13. "What is chaos?"

A. "We do not comment on national economics."

14. "Is it true that the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky committed suicide?"

A. "Yes, it is true, and even the record of his very last words is preserved: ´Don't shoot, comrades.´"

15. "Is there censorship of the press and radio in the Soviet Union?"

A."In principle no, but it is unfortunately not possible to go into this question in any detail at the present time."

16. "What will be the results of the next elections?"

A. "Nobody can tell.Somebody has stolen yesterday the exact results of the next elections from the office of the Central Committee of the USSR."

17. "When Nixon visited Moscow, he and Khrushchev had a race around the Kremlin. Nixon came the first. How should our media report on that?"

A: As follows: In the international running competition the General Secretary of the Communist Party took the honorable second place, while President Nixon came in next to last.

18.  What's the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?

A: The capitalist fairy tale starts out; "once upon a time there was....", The Marxist fairy tale starts out; "some day there will be...."

19. "Is it true that the Soviet Union is the most progressive country in the world?"

A: Of course! The life was already better yesterday than it's going to be tomorrow!

20. Khrushchev visited a pig farm and was photographed there. In a newspaper's office, a discussion is under way what should be the caption under the picture. "Comrade Khrushchev among pigs," "Comrade Khrushchev and pigs," "Pigs around comrade Khrushchev,"—all is rejected. Finally the editor makes the decision. The caption is "The third from left - comrade Khrushchev.

Foreign policy woes

The issue of whether or not there was a genocide of Tamils in Lanka has been in the news for several days now. On one hand, you have inflamed passions baying for blood to avenge the murder of Tamils in Lanka, On the other, you have supposedly saner voices advocating caution and pragmatism to handle the situation to ensure that justice gets delivered in Lanka. Between the two, is caught our Central government, tottering from one crisis to another, with no vision and maimed by indecision.

The problem  with a hetereogenous nation like ours is that ethnic groups inevitably spill across political borders. There is no difference between a Hindu Bengali in Bangladesh and a Hindu Bengali in PoschimBongo, similarly, there is no difference between a Lankan Tamil and an Indian Tamil. But the stand taken by the government historically has been that India's citizens are her own. Citizens of neighbours, irrespective of their cultural or religious affiliations are not necessarily India's concern. The only exeption to this was when India championed the cause of  Independent Bangladesh- that might have also been guided by other strategic reasons. Had India bothered to take care of the minorities of its neighbours (Neighbours' minorities inevitably make up India's major communities), Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh would not have been decimated to its current levels.

In the absence of a possibility of a population exchange (similar to the one done between Turkey & Greece in the 30s), It is best that India continues to follow the principle of no meddling in neighbour's affairs. It will do us good to guide and encourage neighbours, using our soft power to get the results that we want. Strong diplomatic actions, e.g. boycotting Lanka might only prove counter-productive by pushing Lanka into China's arms. India must use all the diplomacy at its disposal to put pressure on Lanka to implement a just and lasting solution to alleviate the sufferings of its Tamils. 

But why only talk of Lanka to understand the precarious state of affairs of our Foreign policy? On one hand, you have an incensed nation demanding strong action against Pakistan for beheading an Indian soldier in Indian territory and on the other hand, you have the Foreign Minister of India hosting the visiting Pak PM for lunch. In Maldives too, India just barely managed to get away with a diplomatic crisis, when an erstwhile PM sought refuge in the Indian embassy in Male. Look at Nepal, once a dedicated ally, now resting in China's secure arms. Glance towards Bangladesh, where PM's visit and India's image was dented by Mamta Di's refusal to accept a Central government proposal on Teesta water sharing.

Foreign policy of a regional and aspiring global power like India cannot be an instrument of domestic politics. Foreign policy must be guided by the our strategic objectives and not by narrow political interests. India's weight in International politics can not be squandered away to cater to votebank politics. India must emulate the example of China and use its power and influence to meet strategic aims and win allies. India deserves a government that can build a coherent and pragmatic foreign policy that will do us good!

Old Friends

What happens when you bump into an old friend with whom you have not kept up for long? I mean aside from the feeling of joy and pleasant surprise, It is just another meeting with someone you know, isn't it? You've moved on, as has the other person... And other than the "How are you", and "I heard that" and "Good for you", there isn't much to talk about... especially about the present...

But then suddenly you delve into history... And then the conversation flows... It is suddenly all about the "You remember when" and "That was so foolish" and "You have not changed one bit"... Its almost like the past comes back to the present and that chapter of your life, in which your old friend had a role to play opens up again... Its almost like the past never ended... There was just a comma and a really long pause after that comma that the powers that be chose to fill up now...

I somehow always feel that the present dissolves into nothingness when confronted with good memories of the past... The past returns in all its glory, with all its adventures, the silly incidents, the unbelievable fun... The present, with whatever joys and great achievements just fades into the background, when suddenly, you realize it is time to go... The present returns just as quickly as it had disappeared and the past seems so long ago once again...

That is how it is with old friends... You lose contact and get lost in your own life... But then one day, when you meet, it is like the past never ended... And a wonderful feeling it is...

A spring of hopes... An autumn of despair

                                             
Arab Spring has been replaced by dark and cold winter... It may be too early to start penning down obituaries for the Arab spring, but the representative movement that enthused  the masses from Tunisia to Bahrain is definitely breathing its last. Political Islam has thwarted the growth of truly representative democracies that the masses in many Arab countries were yearning for. All that is left in its wake is the Civil War in Syria, the mass repression in Bahrain and the usurpation of power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Dissent has once again been stifled and the reactionary forces have triumphed in crushing the will of the people.

Iran offers an interesting lesson in history on how political Islam hijacks the voice of the masses. The late 70s was a turbulent period in Iran. The Shah's hold on the nation was weakening. Universally despised for his un-Islamic lifestyle, his autocratic rule and his inability to connect with the impoverished masses, the sun was setting on the Shah's rule in Iran. And so, when protests broke out in Teheran and Esfahan and other cities in Iran, no observer of Iranian affairs was truly surprised. Those protests were mass protests as well, guided by a plethora of organizations whose loyalities lay with Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Democrats and even Islamists. The Shah's rule, everyone expected, would be replaced by a liberal democratic structure with Islam at its heart. But then, Ayatollah Khomeini arrived and with a series of steps that created a Shia version of political Islam, succeeded in excluding all except the Islamists from the political scene. Thus was born the world's first Islamic Republic. And this Islamic republic endures still.

Bangladesh today offers another end of the spectrum. The Arab spring, so to speak has finally washed ashore in Bangladesh. The masses are out on the street, protesting against the betrayal of ideals that had led to the formation of Bangladesh. They are demanding that the ideals that had created Bangladesh- Secularism and Nationalism be reinstated and that the traitors of the Mukti Juddho be brought to trial and justice be done to the millions who lost their lives at the hands of the Pakistan military supported Razkars. They demand true democracy, one that is driven by the masses, not by the fringe Islamist elements in the society. Once again, the reactionary forces, represented by the Jamaat ul Islami are vehemently opposing this mass movement, with the oft-repeated cry of Islam in danger. The government finds itself, precariously placed. It released the forces that protest at Shahbag, but it is weak-kneed when it comes to taking the Islamist forces head on. It is yet to be seen whether the will of the protestors will trump the might of the Islamists.

Political Islam has yet to yield any positive results for the masses. From Afghanistan to Libya, the fields are littered with the bodies of those who were devoured by the so-called Islamic regimes. The attempts of reactionary Mullahs to create a society centered on 7th century Arabia is anachronistic and designed for failure. The time has come for the leaders of the Muslim world to open their eyes to an inclusive and representative structure which guarantees the liberty of the masses. Till such time, every spring will wane into an autumn and disappear into a dark and cold winter.