Brutal: A painting of British soldiers shooting civilians in Amritsar on April 13, 1919

Jallianwala Bagh

One of the worst political crimes of the twentieth century was committed in Punjab during 1919. Popular resentment had been accumulating in Punjab since the beginning of the War (World War I), mainly due to the ruthless drive – by the British — for recruiting soldiers and forced contribution to the war fund. Gandhiji’s call for a country-wide hartal to protest against the Black Acts received a tremendous response from Punjab on March 30 and again on April 6.

The agitated mood of the people and Hindu-Muslim solidarity demonstrated on the hartal (strike) days and on April 9 celebration of the Ramnavami festival made the Lt.Governor Michael O’Dwyer’s administration panicky.

Gandhiji’s entry into Punjab was banned: two popular leaders of Amritsar. Kitchlew and Satya Pal, were arrested. These provocations led to hartals and mass demonstrations in Lahore, Kasur, Gujranwala and Amritsar.

In Amritsar, the police firing on demonstrators provoked some of them to commit acts of violence. The next day the city was handed over to Brigadier-General Dyer. Dyer began his regime through indiscriminate arrests and ban on meeting and gatherings.

On April 13-the day of Baisakhi festival – a meeting was called in the afternoon at the Jallianwala Bagh a ground enclosed on all sides. Thousands of people, many of whom had come from surrounding villages to the fairs in Amritsar and were unaware of the ban order, gathered in the meeting.

Suddenly Dyer appeared there with troops and without any warning to the people, ordered firing on the completely peaceful and defenceless crowd. The fusillade continued till Dyer’s ammunition ran out. Atleast about a thousand people, if not more, are estimated to have been killed. This cold-blooded carnage, Dyer admitted later, was perpetrated ‘to strike into the whole of Punjab’. The massacre stunned the people and became a turning point in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.

Rabindranath Tagore’s Wrote a Strong Letter of Protest to the Viceroy, dated May 31, 1919, renouncing his Knighthood
“….The disproportionate severity of the punishments inflicted upon the unfortunate people and the methods of carrying them out, we are convinced, are without parallel in the history of civilised governments…. The accounts of insults and sufferings undergone by our brothers in the Punjab have trickled through the gagged silence, reaching every corner of India and the universal agony of indignation roused in the hearts of our people has been ignored by our rulers,-possibly congratulating themselves for what they imagine as salutary lessons….the very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen, who, for their so called insignificance, are liable to suffer a degradation not fit for human beings….”

The Hunter Committee

The Hunter Committee was appointed by the British government. Halfway through its proceedings, the Hunter Committee had also suffered the setback of being boycotted by Indian nationalists, represented by the Congress, because of the government’s refusal to release Punjab leaders on bail.

Of the eight, the Hunter Committee had three Indian members. The conduct of the Indian members is a study in principled independence and courage.

Example of the Cross Examination of General Dyer

Brigadier Reginald Dyer was in charge of British troops and ordered the massacre in Amritsar

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘You took two armoured cars with you?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Those cars had machine guns?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘And when you took them you meant to use the machine guns against the crowd, did you?”
Dyer: ‘If necessary. If the necessity arose, and I was attacked, or anything else like that, I presume I would have used them.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘When you arrived there you were not able to take the armoured cars in because the passage was too narrow?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Supposing the passage was sufficient to allow the armoured cars to go in, would you have opened fire with the machine guns?’
Dyer: ‘I think, probably, yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘In that case the casualties would have been very much higher?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘And you did not open fire with the machine guns simply by the accident of the armoured cars not being able to get in?’
Dyer: ‘I have answered you. I have said that if they had been there the probability is that I would have opened fire with them.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘With the machine guns straight?’
Dyer: ‘With the machine guns.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘I take it that your idea in taking that action was to strike terror?’
Dyer: ‘Call it what you like. I was going to punish them. My idea from the military point of view was to make a wide impression.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘To strike terror not only in the city of Amritsar, but throughout the Punjab?’
Dyer: ‘Yes, throughout the Punjab. I wanted to reduce their morale; the morale of the rebels.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Did it occur to you that by adopting this method of “frightfulness” –excuse the term-you were really doing a great disservice to the British Raj by driving discontent deep?’
Dyer: ‘I did not like the idea of doing it, but I also realized that it was the only means of saving life and that any reasonable man with justice in his mind would realize that I had done the right thing; it was a merciful though horrible act and they ought to be thankful to me for doing it. I thought I would be doing a jolly lot of good and they would realize that they were not to be wicked.’

This erudite exchange on the pointed killings ordered by Dyer on April 13, 1919 – the Jallianwala Bagh massacre– took place during the hearings of the Hunter Committee. The hearings took place in Lahore on November 19, 1919. These questions were part of a detailed and rigorous cross examination of General Dyer. It was Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, a lawyer from Bharuch, Gujarat based in Bombay who had conducted this particular cross-examnation.

The bullet marks are still visible

Setalvad’s cross examination followed Lord Hunter’s and that of one more British member. Dyer had already admitted to Lord Hunter that although ‘a good many’ in the crowd might not have heard of his ban on the public meeting, he had ordered the firing at Jallianwala Bagh without giving any warning. He went further when he said before the Committee that, although he could have ‘dispersed them perhaps even without firing’. He felt it was his ‘duty to go on firing until (the crowd) dispersed’.

An eight-member committee headed by Lord William Hunter, former solicitor general in Scotland constituted the Inquiry Committee. Apart from Setalvad, then Vice Chancellor, Bombay University,  two other Indians were part of the Committee. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Pandit Jagat Narain, Member of the Legislative Council of the Lt. Governor of U.P. and Sultan Ahmed Khan, Member for Appeals, Gwalior State.

Lord Hunter, Justice Rankin and WF Rice, Add. Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department, Major-General Sir George Barrow, Commanding the Peshawar Dn and Smith, Member of the Legislative Council of the Lt. Governor of U.P. were the members. The questioning was done, in turn, by eight members.

Following up on the admissions by Dyer to the two British members before him, Setalvad probed Dyer on the two armoured cars that he had been forced to leave out. Dyer’s callousness stood exposed: even after the firing had left almost 400 dead and many more injured, when asked by Setalvad if he had taken any measures for the relief of the wounded, Dyer replied, ‘‘No, certainly not. It was not my job. But the hospitals were open and the medical officers were there. The wounded only had to apply for help.’

All three Indian members of the Hunter Committee displayed a remarkable degree of independence faced with sharp differences with the British members. The differences arose over the recording of conclusions.

The Hunter Committee ended up giving two reports – the majority report by the five British members and the minority report by three Indian members.

Both reports indicted Dyer, in no uncertain terms. The differences were in in the degree of condemnation, in so far as Jallianwala Bagh was concerned.

The report by the British members’ report condemned the action by Dyer on two counts: that he opened fire without warning and that he went on firing after the crowd had ‘begun to disperse’. Though his intention to create a moral effect throughout Punjab was ‘a mistaken conception of duty’, the British members thought it was ‘distinctly improbable that the crowd would have dispersed without being fired on’. Even the British members of the Hunter Committee, rejected the official stand that Dyer’s action had ‘saved the situation in the Punjab and averted a rebellion on a scale similar to the (1857) mutiny’.

The minority report, drafted by Chimanlal Setalvad, on behalf of all the Indian members was not only more severe in general. It specifically condemned Dyer for ‘suggesting that he would have made use of machine guns if they could have been brought into action.’ Members expressed strong anguish at the fact that even after the crowd had begun to disperse, Dyer had continued the firing ‘until his ammunition was spent.’

Citing Dyer’s own admission in cross examination, the Indians disagreed with the opinion expressed by the British members of the Committee that the crowd was unlikely to have dispersed without the firing. In conclusion, the Indian members of the Hunter Committee described Dyer’s conduct ‘as inhuman and un-British and as having caused great disservice to British rule in India’.

Faced with both reports, the then Viceroy of India, Chelmsford conceded that Dyer ‘acted beyond the necessity of the case, beyond what any reasonable man could have thought to be necessary, and that he did not act with as much humanity as the case permitted’. Dyer had no option but to resign and return to England in disgrace.

Apologists for the Raj in Britain however, bought into Dyer’s claim that it was this bloody firing by Dyer that had saved the Raj in India. This not only reduced the punishment meted out to Dyer, he was also treated as some sort of a hero on his return.  In fact, the inquiry itself could only be instituted only after in indemnity law had been passed protecting Dyer and other recalcitrant officers from criminal liability.

Setalvad had been knighted by the British monarch, just a few months before the Jallianwala Bagh inquiry. He was then vice-chancellor of Bombay University. In his memoirs published in 1946, Recollections and Reflections, Setalvad disclosed that within the British and Indian members of the Hunter Committee had developed ‘a sharp cleavage of opinion’.

(Large portions of this article have relied upon excerpts from the autobiography of Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Recollections and Reflections; Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was the great grandfather of Teesta Setalvad )

The post Bloodbath on Baisakhi: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, April 13, 1919 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on 28, Nov 2020

In 2010, Maharashtra’s then Minister of Public Works Department Chhagan Bhujbal handed ‘Gulamgiri’ a book written by Mahatma Jyotirao Phule to former US President Barack Obama. The dedication section of the book read:

“To the good people of the United States as a token of admiration for their sublime, disinterested and self-sacrificing devotion in the cause of Negro Slavery; and with an earnest desire, that my countrymen may take their noble example as their guide in the emancipation of their Sudra Brethern from the trammels of Brahmin thralldom.”

Obama was surprised to see an Indian author pay tribute to the US civil movement in 1873 and sadly so are many Indians even today.

Although nearly every Indian studiously uses the prefix ‘Mahatma’ before the social reformer’s name, who died on November 28, 1890, few people know about the events and factors that led to the bestowal of such a title.

Phule’s family originally belonged to the Mali community that constituted one of the Shudra castes in Maharashtra. As such, Phule was treated like a lower-caste by people around him which influenced his future efforts to bring about the development of lower-caste communities. Following his community’s customs, Phule was also married to a girl of his father’s choosing, at the age of 13.

However, the influential moments that led to his social endeavours occurred in 1848. That year, Phule resolved to challenge the caste-system and social restrictions following a wedding ceremony of his Brahmin friend in 1848 wherein the bridegroom’s relatives insulted and abused Phule for participating in an upper-caste ceremony.

Again in 1848, he read ‘The Right of Man’ by Thomas Paine that inspired Phule to focus on women’s education and not just lower-caste men. Accordingly, he taught his wife Savitribai how to read and write in the same year. The couple went on to establish the first indigenous girls-school in Pune. During this time, they also met Muslim teacher Fatima Sheikh who offered them residence and went on to work at Phules’ school. The trio were at the forefront of providing education to children of marginalised communities.

The Phules also opened two more schools for children from then untouchable castes like Mahar and Mang.

Other than education, Phule also worked for the empowerment of widows. Phule was deeply upset by an incident in 1863 when a Brahmin widow was sentenced to jail for killing her new-born baby that she had originally tried to abort. Moved by the incident, Phule along with his wife and dear friend Sadashiv Ballal Govande began an infanticide prevention centre. Soon pamphlets appeared all over Pune advertising the centre.

 “Widows, come here and deliver your baby safely and secretly. It is up to your discretion whether you want to keep the baby in the centre or take it with you. This orphanage will take care of the children [left behind]” read the pamphlets.

It must be understood that this was an age when women had little to no bodily autonomy. Female infanticide was common and the Phule couple themselves were married in their childhood. Other women were married to older men and became widows even before reaching their teenage years. Pained by this realisation, he decided to become an advocate of widow remarriage.

While striving to bring about these social changes, Phule also attacked the Vedas, the most fundamental texts of upper-caste Hindus as a “false consciousness.” He also openly called Rama in Ramayana a symbol of Aryan oppression.

Another little known information is that Phule introduced the Marathi word ‘Dalit’ – meaning broken or crushed – that was later popularised by Dalit Panthers.

He created the Satya Shodhak Samaj (Society of Seekers of Truth) that worked for the social rights and political access of women, Shudras, Dalits, and other under-privileged groups in Maharashtra in 1873. Individuals from any caste and class were invited to the organisation.

Another surprising fact about the social activist is that Phule worked as a merchant, cultivator and municipal contractor in 1882 – professions once unimaginable for his flower-selling family.

As a government contractor, he supplied building materials required for the construction of a dam on the Mula-Mutha river near Pune in the 1870s. Later in 1876, Phule became the Municipal Commissioner (council member) in Pune and served unelected until 1883.

Related:

Reading Dr. Ambedkar’s Who Were The Shudras
Demolition of caste system essential for the survival of democracy in India
Remembering Jyotiba Phule, on His 189th Birth Anniversary, April 11
Love-Letters like no other

The post Remembering Mahatma Jyotirao Phule appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on: 11 Apr 2016

On his 189^th Birth Anniversary, April 11, we bring to you excerpts from Jyotiba Phule’s path breaking work, severely criticising Brahminism and the Caste System

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827

If a Bhat happened to pass by a river where a Shudra as washing his clothes, the Shudra had to collect all his clothes and proceed to a far distant spot, lest some drops of the (contaminated) water should be sprayed on the Bhat. Even then, if a drop of water were to touch the body of the Bhat from there, or even if the Bhat so imagined it, the Bhat did not hesitate to fling his utensil angrily at the head of the Shudra who would collapse to the ground, his head bleeding profusely.

On recovering from the swoon the Shudra would collect his blood- stained clothes and wend his way home silently. He could not complain to the Government Officials, as the administration was dominated by the Bhats. More often than not he would be punished stringently for complaining against the Bhats. This was the height of injustice!

It was difficult for the Shudras to move about freely in the streets for their daily routine, most of all in the mornings when persons and things cast long shadows about them. If a `Bhat Saheb’ were to come along from the opposite direction, the Shudra had to stop by the road until such time as the `Bhat Saheb’ passed by – for fear of casting his polluting shadow on him. He was free to proceed further only after the `Bhat Saheb’ had passed by him.

Should a Shudra be unlucky enough to cast his polluting shadow on a Bhat inadvertently, the Bhat used to belabour him mercilessly and would go to bathe at the river to wash off the pollution. The Shudras were forbidden even to spit in the streets. Should he happen to pass through a Brahmin (Bhat) locality he had to carry an earthen-pot slung about his neck to collect his spittle. (Should a Bhat Officer find a spittle from a Shudra’s mouth on the road, woe betide the Shudra!)…….

[[The Shudra suffered many such indignities and disabilities and were looking forward to their release from their persecutors as prisoners fondly do. The all-merciful Providence took pity on the Shudras and brought about the British raj to India by its divine dispensation which emancipated the Shudras from the physical (bodily) thraldom (slavery). We are much beholden to the British rulers. We shall never forget their kindness to us. It was the British rulers who freed us from the centuries-old oppression of the Bhat and assured a hopeful future for our children. Had the British not come on the scene (in India) (as our rulers) the Bhat would surely have crushed us in no time (long ago.)]]

Some may well wonder as to how the Bhats managed to crush the depressed and down-trodden people here even though they (the Shudras) outnumbered them tenfold. It was well-known that one clever person can master ten ignorant persons
(e.g. a shepherd and his flock). Should the ten ignorant men be united (be of one mind), they would surely prevail over that clever one. But if the ten are disunited they would easily be duped by that clever one. The Bhats have invented a very cunning method to sow seeds of dissension among the Shudras. The Bhats were naturally apprehensive of the growing numbers of the depressed and down- trodden people. They knew that keeping them disunited alone ensured their (the Bhats’) continued mastery ever them. It was the only way of keeping them as abject slaves indefinitely, and only thus would they be able to indulge in a life of gross indulgence and luxury ensured by the `sweat of the Shudras’ brows. To that end in view, the Bhats invented the pernicious fiction of the caste-system, compiled (learned) treatises to serve their own self-interest and indoctrinated the pliable minds of the ignorant Shudras (masses) accordingly.

Some of the Shudras put up a gallant fight against this blatant injustice. They were segregated into a separate category (class). In order to wreak vengeance on them (for their temerity) the Bhats persuaded those whom we today term as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (tillers, peasants) etc. not to stigmatise them as untouchables.

Being deprived of their means of livelihood, they were driven to the extremity of eating the flesh of dead animals. Some of the members of the Shudras community today proudly call themselves as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (peasants), gold-smiths, tailors, iron smiths, carpenters etc, on the basis of the avocation (trade) they pursued (practised), Little do they know that our ancestors and those of the so¬called untouchables (Mahars, Mangs etc.) were blood-brothers (traced their lineage to the same family stock).

Their ancestors fought bravely in defence of their motherland against the invading usurpers (the Bhats) and hence, the wily Bhats reduced them to penury and misery. It is a thousand pities that being unmindful of this state of affairs, the Shudras began to hate their own kith and kin.

The Bhats invented an elaborate system of caste-distinction based on the way the other Shudras behaved towards them, condemning some to the lowest rung and some to a slightly higher rung. Thus they permanently made them into their proteges and by means of the powerful weapon of the `iniquitous caste system,’ drove a permanent wedge among the Shudras.

It was a classic case of the cats who went to law! The Bhats created dissensions among the depressed and the down- trodden masses and are battening on the differences (are leading luxurious lives thereby).

The depressed and down­trodden masses in India were freed from the physical bodily) slavery of the Bhats as a result of the advent of the British raj here. But we are sorry to state that the benevolent British Government have not addressed themselves to the important task of providing education to the said masses. That is why the Shudras continue to be ignorant, and hence, their ‘mental slavery’ regarding the spurious religious tracts of the Bhats continues unabated. They cannot even appeal to the Government for the redressal of their wrongs. The Government is not yet aware of the way the Bhats exploit the masses in their day to day problems as also in the administrative machinery. We pray to the Almighty to enable the Government to kindly pay attention to this urgent task and to free the masses from their mental slavery to the machinations of the Bhats.

I am deeply beholden to Shri Vinayak Babji Bhandarkar and Rao Saheb Shri Rajanna Lingu for their continued encouragement to me in the writing of this treatise.

(From the Introduction to ‘Slavery’ by Mahatma Jyotiba Phule)
­­­­­­­

The post Jyotiba Phule’s Trenchant Critique of Caste: Gulamgiri appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Coronation …

“By the beginning of 1673 the idea of a public coronation began to materialize, and when preparations were fully completed, the event took place at fort Raigad, on Saturday 5 June 1674, the day of the sun’s entering the constellation Leo.

The orthodox Brahman opinion was not favourable to Shivaji’s claim to be recognised as a Kshatriya by blood, although he had proved this claim by action. More than a thousand years had passed since such a ceremony was last performed, and on that account men’s memories had been entirely dimmed. All ancient learning of the Deccan had migrated to Benares after the invasion of Ala–ud–din Khilji and the Muslim conquest of the Deccan.

Ancient families noted for hereditary learning like the Devs, the Dharmadhikaris, the Sheshas, the Bhattas, the Maunis, had left their hearths and homes at Paithan, with all their sacred books, and opened their new university of letters on the bank of the holy Ganges. The ignorant unthinking folks of Paithan had now no voice of authority left in them. Benares now began to dominate Hindu thought and learning. So Shivaji had to negotiate with Gaga Bhatt of Benares, a learned representative of that school of Hindu law–givers. He was invited to Raigad to arrange the details in such a way as to suit the needs of the present moment as much as to conform to ancient usage.”

(New History of The Marathas, Govind Sakharam Sardesai).

(Archived from the October 2001 issue of Communalism Combat)

The post The Story of Shivaji’s Coronation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(In March 1994, as part of our campaign to track the parochial processes that deter even ‘secular’ governments from fair explorations into history, we had interviewed Dr Arvind Deshpande, then chairman of the Maharshtra State Text Book Board. We reproduce excerpts from that exchange)

Since its inception in 1980–81, the main objective before the Maharashtra State Text Book Bureau that we were part of was that the ‘secular element should be jousted up in our history books…’ Shivaji, for example, has always been depicted as a Hindu hero. But the moment you do this, unknowingly, unconsciously, the bias creeps in.

For the first four to five years we were extremely conscious of this. So we did our utmost to remove these biases in order to prevent their creeping into the curriculum. Soon enough, we were faced with the consequences — opposition either from the minority or the majority community.

This was our bitter experience with a Std. IV textbook. In 1986, with the introduction of the New Education Policy, the entire syllabus was revised. In history, too, new elements were added: Regional History, Indian Culture and Civics. In preparing and publishing textbooks, we are severely restricted by the cost factor. As they have to be affordable for lakhs of SSC students throughout the state, the books are restricted to 96 pages. Now, while looking at the Std. IV history textbook, we found that 80 of these 96 pages dealt with Shivaji alone. This left little room for any other element that we wanted to
introduce.

In keeping with our objective of introducing a new value system, in the revised draft we had to rewrite portions of it, reduce the section on Shivaji. Professor Bhosale (RR Bhosale, another bureau member) also agreed. Paragraphs were changed, some re–drafted. Meanwhile, someone leaked information to the press. Even before the re–drafted book was released or published, merely on surmises and guesswork, we had to face a vicious media campaign led by Kesari (Marathi daily). We were charged with “removing the inspiring part of history and making it insipid.” Until then, we had only had a trial reading of the book for three days with 60 teachers, two from each district in Maharashtra. During this, no one seemed to have any objection. But suddenly, after the vicious campaigns in the press, the same government that had entrusted us with the task of “jousting the secular and humanist element in history” completely backed out.

This was in 1991, when the Sudhakarrao Naik–led minority government was in power. Defending our work on the floor of the house, the state education minister said that we were only trying to de–individualise history, that all of Indian history had been personality-oriented, that history should focus attention on the social forces at work and not only on individual personalities. But the chief minister succumbed and promised the agitated legislators, who cut across all party lines, that not one word in the 25–year–old textbook would be changed. As a result, the communal overtones remain; the incitement to violence is still there. All the work that we had put in for the revised draft is lost forever. We were all asked to surrender our copies to the government.

The key question is, why are issues of history being raked up again and again?

(Dr Deshpande spoke to co-editor Communalism Combat, Teesta Setalvad in 1994; this account has been archived from the earlier editions of Communalism Combat, March 1994 and October, 2001)

The post Reason, emotion and history appeared first on SabrangIndia.

March the 23rd (2016) is the 85th anniversary of the martyrdom of three of India’s great revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, who were hanged at Lahore for working to overthrow the colonial, ‘firangee’ government. The British government thought that with the physical elimination of these freedom fighters their ideas and dreams of a secular and egalitarian independent India would also dissipate and disappear. The rulers were patently wrong as these revolutionaries and heir ideals continue to be an integral part of the people’s memory, their exploits sung far and wide in people’s lore.

On this 85th anniversary of their martyrdom we should remember, and not overlook the fact, that though it was the British colonial powers who hanged them, there were at the time organisations like Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Muslim League in pre-1947 India which not only remained alien to the ideals of these revolutionaries but also maintained a criminal silence on their hanging.

It is both comic, ironical and shocking therefore that, of these three communal outfits, it is the RSS — which consciously kept itself completely aloof from the anti-colonial struggle –that has, of late, laid claim to the tradition and contributions of these great revolutionaries. Literature is being produced and the discourse too seeks to appropriate them with false a-historic linkages to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.

During the NDA I regime when its two senior swayamsewaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishan Advani ruled the country, they had made the astonishing claim that Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the RSS met Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1925 and continued attending meetings with these revolutionaries and even provided shelter to Rajguru in 1927 when he was underground after killing Sanders.[i]

In 2007, for the first time in its history, the Hindi organ of the RSS, Panchjanya came out with a special issue on Bhagat Singh. In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras, known as Balasahab Deoras, the third chief of the RSS, narrated an incident when Hedgewar saved him and others from following the path of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Interestingly, this appeared in a publication of RSS itself:
“While studying in college (we) youth were generally attracted towards the ideals of revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. Emulating Bhagat Singh we should do some or other act of bravery, this came to our mind often. We were less attracted towards Sangh (RSS) since current politics, revolution etc. that attracted the hearts of youth were generally less discussed in the Sangh. When Bhagat Singh and his companions were awarded death sentence, at that time our hearts were so excited that some friends together [we] vowed to do something directly and planned something terrible and in order to make it succeed decided to run away from homes. But to run away without informing our Doctorji [Hedgewar] will not be proper, considering it we decided to inform Doctorji about our decision. To inform this fact to Doctorji was assigned to me by the group of friends.

“We together went to Doctorji and with great courage I explained my feelings before him. After listening to our plan Doctorji took a meeting of ours for discarding this foolish plan and making us to realize the superiority of the work of Sangh. This meeting continued for seven days and in the night from ten to three. The brilliant ideas of Doctorji and his valuable leadership brought fundamental change in our ideas and ideals of life. Since that day we took leave of mindlessly made plans and our lives got new direction and our mind got stabilized in the work of Sangh.”[ii]

Moreover there is ample proof available in the documents of the RSS that establish that the RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad and their associates. There are passages in theBunch of Thoughts [collection of speeches and writings of Golwalkar treated as a holy book by the RSS cadres] decrying the whole tradition of martyrs:
“There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.”[iii]
Golwalkar goes on to tell the RSS cadres that only those people should be adored who have been successful in their lives:
“It is obvious that those who were failures in life must have had some serious drawback in them. How can one, who is defeated, give light and lead others to success?”[iv]

In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

In fact, Golwalkar’s book has a chapter titled ‘Worshippers of Victory’ in which he openly commits to the fact that he and RSS worship only those who are victorious.
“Let us now see what type of great lives have been worshipped in this land. Have we ever idealised those who were a failure in achieving life’s goal? No, never. Our tradition has taught us to adore and worship only those who have proved fully successful in their life-mission. A slave of circumstances has never been our ideal. The hero who becomes the master of the situation, changes it by sheer dint of his calibre[sic] and character and wholly succeeds in achieving his life’s aspirations, has been our ideal. It is such great souls, who by their self-effulgence, lit up the dismal darkness surrounding all round, inspired confidence in frustrated hearts, breathed life into the near-dead and held aloft the living vision of success and inspiration, that our culture commands us to worship.”[v]

Golwalkar did not name Bhagat Singh but according to his philosophy of life since Bhagat Singh and his companions did not succeed in achieving their goal they did not deserve any respect. According to his formula the British rulers would and should be the natural object of worship as they were able to kill revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

It is difficult to find a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs of the Indian Freedom Movement than this.

It will be shocking for any Indian who loves and respects the martyrs of the Freedom Movement to know what Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS, “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.”[vi]

‘Shameful’ is too mild a word to describe the attitude of the RSS towards these young freedom fighters, who had sacrificed their all in the struggle against the British colonial powers. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadurshah Zafar, had emerged as the rallying point and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857. Golwalkar while making fun of him said:
“In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India had given the clarion call—Ghazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/Takhte London tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (As long as there remains the least trace of love of faith in the hearts of our heroes, so long, the sword of Hindustan will reach the throne of London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows that.”[vii]

What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country is obvious from the following statement as well. He had the temerity to ask the great revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the motherland the following question (as if he was representing the British masters):
“But one should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest of the nation. It is borne by the experience up to now that this fire in the heart is unbearable to the common people.”[viii]

Perhaps this was the reason that RSS produced no freedom fighter, not to mention no martyr in the movement against the colonial rule. Unfortunately, there is not a single line challenging, exposing, criticising or confronting the inhuman rule of the British masters in the entire literature of the RSS from 1925 to 1947. Those who are familiar with the glorious Freedom Struggle of India and sacrifices of martyrs like Bhagat Singh must challenge this evil appropriation of our heroes by the Hindutva camp which betrayed the liberation struggle. We should not allow these communal stooges of the British rulers to kill Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev once again.

(The author taught political science at the University of Delhi. He is a well known writer and columnist)

The post Bhagat Singh, the Tradition of Martrydom and Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First published on: OCTOBER 30, 2020

“In today’s times, everything including religion is a political issue” – former Tribal Advisory Council (TAC) member Ratan Tirkey.

This is the first rule that one must keep in mind while reading about Jharkhand adivasis’ demand for Sarna code. The other argument to remember:

“The demand for a sarna code or adi-dharam is primarily a social issue.” – TAC member Ratan Tirkey.

For years, tribal communities in the state asked for a separate ‘Sarna’ religion code in Census and other administrative forms. Their demand for a distinct religious identity has intensified recently in anticipation of the Census 2021. Various Adivasi parties including the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) – current ruling party – supported indigenous groups by observing demonstrations and writing letters to Chief Minister Hemant Soren.

“Adi-dharma [Adivasi dharma] was practised much before sanatan dharma. Yet, their demand for a separate religion is denied, in turn denying their identity. Adivasis are forcefully converted to other religions. What kind of existence can one have if they don’t have an identity,” asked JMM General Secretary Supriyo Bhattacharya.

Sarna is a place of worship as well as a naturalist religion practised among Adivasi communities. Unlike Hindu rituals wherein people worship idols, adivasis who adhere to Sarna as a religion worship natural elements such as the sal tree or Mother Earth. This belief system is considered Hinduised due to certain similarities between the two faiths. However, adivasis claim that its blind grouping into Hinduism has adversely affected their population count.

A brief analysis of Census records shows that the Adivasi population has reduced from 38.03 percent of the state population in 1931 to 26.02 percent of the state population in 2011. This showed that the tribal population in Jharkhand had reduced by 12 percent in eight decades alone.

Here is a detailed table on the tribal demographic in Jharkhand. 

The TAC was organised to understand the reduction in Adivasi population while other communities thrived. Its sub-committee conducted a survey in 2018-19 to understand potential problems suffered by the indigenous groups.

Council member Tirkey told SabrangIndia that Adivasis questioned during the survey blamed a lack of a separate religion and social identity as the major cause of their reducing population. Adivasis have been demanding a separate religious identity ever since Independence, he said.

“They do not recognise Hinduism as their religion yet they are forced to choose that option because there is no longer a separate column for them under the religion section of the Census form. This could reduce the Adivasi population by 73 percent. They argued that Sarnas should have a separate option just as Christians and Jains do,” said Tirkey.

Moreover, Adivasis demanded that their forms be filled with pens and not in pencils because Census workers often forcibly change their religion to Hinduism. The New York Times wrote an article in 2013 regarding religious conversion in Jharkhand wherein an Adivasi family converted from Hinduism to Christianity and back between two generations because of fiscal pressure. It also stated that entire villages were collectively converted for a demographic effect.

According to Tirkey, religious identity has become an important issue for Adivasis due to its effects on the state’s budget allotment for tribal welfare. Further it also affects policies and special provisions given to tribal communities under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. As per Panchayat Provisions (Scheduled Extension Campaign), population is considered as the basis for reservation for tribals at different posts of each panchayat of the scheduled area. Similarly, population also decides which areas can enjoy the provision of the Fifth Schedule.

“Owing to the reducing tribal population on record, there has been a growing demand over the last several years to remove Adivasi districts in Jharkhand from the scheduled areas,” wrote Tirkey in a report.

Further, he wrote that the recognition of ‘Sarna’ as a separate religion – denied which Adivasis are willing to boycott Census altogether – could avail Adivasis with Special Central Assistance and land rights along with Constitutional rights. He said the denial of tribal identity is a scheme to reject the fundamental rights of Adivasis. Tirkey sourced the problem to the demand for a Briha Jharkhand constituting parts of Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand.

“If that demand had been addressed properly, today no tribal community would have demanded a separate religious code,” he said.

Despite such arguments, the Census Commissioner said that the demand for a Sarna code – a term only recognised by Jharkhand Adivasis – cannot be accepted for the nation-wide survey. He reasoned that tribal communities in other parts of India would also demand separate codes which would complicate the administrative process.

However, some researchers have pointed out that this problem could be easily avoided by clubbing all variants of Sarna religion under an umbrella term of “Adi-Dharam” to denote such naturalist faiths. This term was established by Padmashree Dr. Ramdayal Munda who was a former Rajya Sabha member and the Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University, Jharkhand.

According to anthropologist Dr. G. N. Jha at Vinod Bhave University, there are 32 tribal groups in Jharkhand all of whom support the Sarna code demand. Santhal, Munda, Ho and Oraon are the most vocal tribes.

However, there are Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) such as Asur, Agaria, Birhor, Birjia, Korwa, Mal Paharia, Kumarbhag Paharia, Parhaiya, Sauria Paharia and Savar involved in hunting and food-gathering occupations recently even labour. Similarly, Karmali, Lohra, Mahli, and Chik Baraik are artisan communities that live in similar hand-to-mouth situations.

“These communities are too preoccupied with earning their bread and butter to demand identity rights,” said Jha who has worked with tribal communities for 26 years.

When asked about the Sarna code, Jha pointed out that such a change could drastically change demographic data, splitting the 26-27 percent of tribal population into various new sub-sections like Christian tribals or Hindu tribals or Sarna tribals. Yet, he also conceded that there was a definite need for a separate identity so that Adivasis could organise together and work towards the development of their community.

“Identity should be there but for the development of the country, and not for inducing conflict or tension in society,” he said.

Related:

Jharkhand Adivasis brutally beaten up by CRPF men: Fact Finding Report

Conversions and anti-Christian violence in India

Sardar Sarovar Dam and the denial of Adivasi rights

MP: Adivasi activists illegally detained and tortured by forest officials

The post Sarna code: More than just a political tactic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is a lot of debate about bursting firecrackers on Diwali with regards to damage to the environment. Some defenders of firecrackers have made claims that firecracker ban on Diwali is anti-Hindu. So it might surprise some people to learn that the tradition actually has it roots in how Mughal emperors celebrated Diwali.

It was Muhammad bin Tughlaq, who ruled Delhi from 1324 to 1351, who became the first emperor to celebrate a Hindu festival inside his court. It was celebrated modestly with bonhomie and good food, organized by Tughlaq’s Hindu wives.

This tradition continued down generations till Akbar took the Mughal throne and insisted that Diwali become a grand festival in the Mughal court. The Rang Mahal in Red Fort was the designated centre for the royal celebrations of Jashn-e-Chiraghan (festival of lights) as Diwali was called then, and the festivities were carried out under the Mughal king himself.

Akbar also began the tradition of giving sweets as Diwali greetings.Chefs from across kingdoms cooked delicacies in the Mughal court for the occasion. The ghevar, petha, kheer, peda, jalebi, phirni and shahitukda became part of the celebratory thali that welcomed guests to the palace for Diwali celebrations. On Diwali in Akbar’s court, the Ramayana was read, followed by a play depicting Lord Ram’s return to Ayodhya. This tradition strengthened Akbar’s empire, (noted by his biographer Abu’lFazl in Ain-i-Akbari), as it helped the king bond better with his Hindu subjects, and encouraged many Muslim merchants to take part in the festivities.

Shah Jahan took the celebrations a step further by incorporating Muslim new year festival “Navroz” into Diwali, making it a joint biggest festival of the empire. He invited chefs from all over India and imported ingredients from Persia, for the chefs to prepare the most decadent sweets for ChhappanThal (consisting of sweets from 56 kingdoms) which became a Diwali tradition. Aurangzeb also followed the tradition of sending sweets to noblemen on Diwali.

Another ritual that marked Diwali during the Mughal empirewas the traditional lighting of the Surajkrant, the empire’s permanent source of fire and light.According to historian R Nath, the process began at noon. When the sun entered the 19th degree of Aries, the royal servants exposed a round shining stone called the Surajkant to the sun’s rays. A piece of cotton was held near the stone, which would then catch fire from the heat. This celestial fire was preserved in a vessel called Agingir (fire-pot) and later used to light up “Akash Diya” (sky lamp) which was a giant lamp on top of a 40 yard high pole, supported by sixteen ropes.

Shah Jahanapparently began the Akash Diya tradition as an ode to religious harmony when he set up the city of Shahjahanabad.The tradition of fireworks during Diwaliis also attributed to Shah Jahan who put up an elaborate fireworks display on the banks of the Yamuna every Diwali.

Even the last of the Mughal emperors, Bahadur Shah Zafar organised plays to be performed around the theme of Diwali at the Red Fort, along with Laxmi Puja, which was opento public. Fireworks would also be set off near Jama Masjid, Delhi, for the occasion. William Dalrymple’s book, ‘The Last Mughal: The Fall of Delhi, 1857’, says, “Zafar would weigh himself against seven kinds of grain, gold, coral, etc and directed their distribution among the poor.” The Hindu officers were presented gifts on the special occasion.

In contemporary India, we see these traditions live on in the form of syncretic celebrations of Diwali by Muslims. From the lighting up of Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai to decorations and diyas adorning the HazratNizammudinDargah in Delhi, Muslims are very much a part of Diwali celebrations of this nation. The dargah of Baba HazratMaqbool Hussein Madani near Shanivar Wada, Pune, has been decorated with diyas on every Diwali since twenty years, when a Hindu family in the area had requested to light a diya at the Dargah. Gradually, other people started following the practice and now every year, residents of Shanivar Wada collect money to buy diyas and decorations to light up this Dargah which was constructed in the 13^th century.

Kammruddin Shah’s Dargah in Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, has a similar story. Hindus and Muslims celebrate Diwali at this Dargah together to honour a 250 year old story of friendship between Sufi saint Kammruddin Shah and Hindu saint Chanchalnathji who used to meet in a cave that connected the Dargah and Chanchalnathji’sAashram. The residents believe it is their moral duty to continue the tradition of Hindu-Muslim unity by lighting diyas and fireworks together at the Dargah.

While the debate about fireworks rages on, people need to keep in mind that this is not a communal issue but an environmental one. Hindus and Muslims of India do not need to be mired in another divisive issue which has no roots in logic. We have celebrated and honoured Diwali together for centuries, and we need to follow the examples of friendship and harmony to unite for causes that matter. We are all building our next generation’s future right now, wouldn’t we want them to grow up in a nurturing, harmonious, and healthy environment?

This Diwali, if you choose to celebrate, read about environmental consciousness, air and noise pollution; and celebrate Diwali with your friends and neighbours irrespective of caste and religion. May the light from the diyas penetrate all our lives with warmth and love, Happy Diwali!

Related articles

1. Toxic Air To Blame For Lung Cancer; No Longer Just A Smoker’s Disease
2. Fireworks and Firearms: The Festival of Lights in the Mughal Court
3. The colourful history of Holi and Islam
4. Syncretic Spiritualism Comes Alive at Baba Boudhangiri: 15 Years of KKSV
5. Piety and Noise Pollution, The Face Off – India 2005

The post Diwali has been celebrated by Muslims for centuries appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First published on: November 2009

Delivering judgement in a 1984 anti-Sikh communal massacre case, a Delhi trial court observed, “After the assassination of late Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, anti-Sikh riots broke out in different areas of the capital, killing thousands of Sikhs. [The] law and order machinery was completely paralysed because of inaction/connivance of the police… In the name of investigation a farce was carried out… It seems the prosecution expected that the trial will be equally a farce and cases would be summarily disposed of thereby drawing a curtain on the legal drama.”1

Today we are confronted with a peculiar schism where the truth of who are the perpetrators and masterminds of the communal pogrom of 1984 is part of public knowledge but it invariably fails to translate into proof beyond reasonable doubt in courts of law.

In the aftermath of the anti-Sikh pogrom, victims have approached the criminal justice system, seeking punishment for the guilty. The consequent judicial verdicts demonstrate that wanton killings and looting in communal pogroms invariably end in acquittals, barring a few rare convictions.

Why this pattern of impunity

Beyond the lament of injustice, it is important to discern and identify the reasons why both the law and the judiciary fail to deliver justice to the victims of communal carnage. The present legal system has failed to award penalty for communal crimes, for these events overturn some fundamental premises on which the criminal justice system is based. The rubric of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not designed to adjudicate and punish the perpetrators of a communal pogrom.

The violence unleashed against the Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and Christians in Orissa in 2008 is usually labelled ‘riots’. The term ‘riot’ as defined in Section 146 of the IPC or the commonly used phrase, ‘communal riot’, implies a violent clash between members of different religious communities, causing loss of life, limb and property to both. This phrase is inaccurate to describe the communal violence under discussion, which was a premeditated and organised targeting of the minority community, carried out with the explicit and/or implicit sanction and support of the state, its representatives and functionaries. The term ‘pogrom’ is more appropriate to describe the events of 1984.2

A corollary would be that the list of accused persons to be prosecuted must include not only those whose hands killed, sexually assaulted, looted and burnt but also the minds that planned, incited, abetted, conspired and provided financial and other resources as well as those who abandoned their constitutional duty to protect the people caught in the vortex of communal violence.

A successful prosecution hinges on professional investigation by the police. The Kusum Mittal report indicted 72 and recommended summary dismissal of six senior Delhi police officers for their culpability in the 1984 carnage. The executive exonerated them all. After the massacre, for the police the registration of crimes and investigation of offences are a matter of political expediency. In a case of 1984, a Delhi trial court stated, “After the rioters had done their job, the rest of the job to frustrate the investigation was done by the police.”3 The shoddy and partisan investigation conducted by the police undermines the very foundation of the prosecution.

The absence of an independent and effective investigating agency is felt most acutely when victims and survivors have to beseech the very police force that through myriad acts of omission and commission was complicit in the communal crimes. The directive of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh judgement is a beginning in the direction of a professional investigating agency but much more remains to be done.

Experiences from across the country indicate that the malaise runs much deeper. The police as a force have displayed an institutional bias against religious minority communities. A communalised police force, enjoying de facto and de jure immunity and subject to weak mechanisms of accountability, will only reinforce the already etched patterns of impunity for communal crimes. This deep sectarian institutional bias displayed by the police force against minority communities is further aggravated by the de facto and de jure immunity enjoyed by them. A serious hurdle in punishing public servants is the shield of legal immunity provided by Section 197 of the CrPC, which must be repealed.

The underlying premise, of the state as the parent and protector, stands completely distorted when the political executive dons the mantle of the mastermind and becomes an accomplice in communal crimes. The present legal apparatus requires the executive, which stands deeply implicated, to discharge the onerous task of prosecuting itself and its henchmen. In such a scenario, the filing of closure reports by the CBI against Congress leaders, or the Tehelka sting operation showing public prosecutors in Gujarat scheming to derail trials, should come as no surprise. For the prosecution of communal crimes, the law must grant the public prosecutor a measure of institutional autonomy and functional discretion.

Although the IPC defines murder, rioting, rape, it is insufficient for convicting either the mobs or the masterminds. The criminal provisions of conspiracy and abetment are also inadequate to nail the sponsors of communal crimes. Sections of the IPC simply list and describe the acts that are labelled crimes. The IPC does not envisage mass crimes where an entire community is systematically targeted by reason of their religious identity and this attack is carried out with the direct and/or indirect complicity of state institutions and agents. For the guilty to be nailed, the law will have to be amended to adopt a distinct typology of crimes akin to the ‘crimes of genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ as codified in the statute of the International Criminal Court.

The CrPC prescribes the procedure for purposes of investigation and trial notwithstanding that during the pogrom the investigators and prosecutors were themselves complicit in the crimes and later obliterated traces of the same. The Indian Evidence Act too demands the same kind and degree of proof for communal crimes as otherwise. For instance, delay in lodging the FIR by a survivor, or absence of corroborative material evidence, or non-mention of names of accused in the statements recorded by the police, or absence of a medical report can lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the victim without taking cognisance of the difficult circumstances prevailing at the time. It is therefore critical to formulate new rules of procedure and evidence, sensitive to the context of communal violence.

Women whose bodies become sites of contestation and community ‘honour’ rarely get redress. The failure of the present law to even provide a definitional description of the brutality and scale of sexual violence suffered by women emboldens its denial.

The weakness of the law is most glaring in its abject and recurring failure to punish those who sponsor and profit from the carnage. To extend criminal liability beyond the actual perpetrator and affix culpability of political leaders and persons in positions of social, administrative, civil or military authority, the principle of command/superior responsibility must be incorporated. This would make the leaders criminally responsible for failing to take reasonable measures to prevent crimes committed by subordinates under their effective control and about which they can reasonably be presumed to have had knowledge. Thus the escape route deployed by political leaders, of ignorance and inaction, while their party men kill and burn, could be plugged. It is time to shift the burden of responsibility from the victim witness to those at the helm.

Clearly, the jurisprudential yardstick of ‘normal times’ cannot be indiscriminately applied to decide trials marked by an extraordinary collusion of state agencies and institutions. This challenge must be met not by whittling down the guarantees and rights of the accused but rather by exacting greater accountability from the state and empowering the victim.

As the home minister sagely advises us to ‘let the law take its own course’, it is pertinent to point out that the delay in punishing the guilty of 1984 for 25 years indicates an urgent need to forge new legal tools to alter this pattern of continuing injustice and rampant impunity. The UPA government has yet to fulfil its promise of introducing a comprehensive legislation against communal violence. A flawed beginning in this respect has been made by the government through the introduction of a bill that has been rejected outright by citizens’ groups. Criticising the same, a public statement stated, “What we have before us today is a dangerous piece of legislation called the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, which will not only fail to secure justice for communal crimes but will actually strengthen the shield of protection enjoyed by the state, its political leaders and its officials for their acts of omission and commission in these crimes. It is a bill which conceives of communal violence as a ‘one-time’ event rather than as a long-term politically motivated process and seeks to prevent it only by giving greater powers to (often communally tainted) state governments. Further, it continues to perpetuate the silence around gender-based crimes.”4

Notes

1 ASJ OP Dwivedi, State vs Kishori & Ors, Karkardooma, Delhi, SC No. 53/95, FIR No. 426/84. p. 1.

2 Jyoti Grewal argues that the 1984 anti-Sikh violence was a pogrom in Betrayed by the State: The Anti-Sikh Pogrom of 1984, Penguin Books India, 2007, pp. 14.

3 ASJ SN Dhingra, State vs Kishori & Ors, Karkardooma, Delhi, SC No. 42/95, FIR No. 426/84, p. 9.

4 Public statement released at the National Consultation on the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, June 16, 2007, New Delhi.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2009  Year 16    No.145, Cover Story 5

The post Regimes of impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Refinery prakalp, yei Kokanat ho, kara virodh virodh, kara virodha.

(The refinery project that’s arriving in Konkan, let’s oppose, let’s oppose.)

This was the chant that can be heard from door to door across villages in Ratnagiri district’s Rajapur taluka, and yet, have not reached the ears of the current Maharashtra government. On April 22, activists Satyajit Chavan and Mangesh Chavan, who have been actively involved in the movement against the Barsu-Solgaon refinery project in villages in Ratnagiri district’s Rajapur taluka, were detained by Ratnagiri police. The above-mentioned activists were placed in preventive detention, according to Ratnagiri Police Station In-Charge Surve, a female officer who preferred to not divulge her first name, as the administration was set to begin a survey of the proposed area for the refinery in the Barsu-Solgaon surroundings, something that the villagers have been opposing vehemently for the past two years.

According to the Indie Journal, Surve also stated that the two activists have long been involved in protests in the districts, and were also involved in Jaitapur protests. Due to this, they have been placed in preventive detention in order to avoid any untoward incidents. When asked if they would be held until the survey was completed, she stated that it was up to the court.

Referring to the aforementioned detention, Deepak Joshi, an activist and Goval resident, told the Indie Journal that they learned late Saturday night that Satyajit and Mangesh had been detained. They had been at the police station since the morning and have been trying to find out more, but have not been able to get any information.

Prior to this imposition of section 144, a few says ago, many activists, including Satyajit, had called on Konkan residents to come to Rajapur and protest the survey in solidarity with the residents of Barsu-Solgaon as the survey discussion had begun in the region at the time.

He had spoken to Indie Journal at the time, and had said that “In order to get approvals to start the project, the government needs to submit a pre-feasibility report to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC). They came to the villages to try and conduct the survey multiple times in June and August last year, but the people did not let them. It seems that the government is under pressure to take things ahead now, and hence they are trying to conduct the survey using the police force.”

Activist under attack for exercising their right to protest

This is not Satyajit’s first legal stumbling block since the movement began, he had already been fighting an externment notice from the district, along with a few other activists. Satyajit Chavan has been extensively working in the villages surrounding Barsu-Solgaon, where the Saudi-Aramco-backed fossil fuel petrochemical project was relocated after it was withdrawn from the original Nanar site, which was only 50 kilometers away, due to strong local opposition. He has been an active participant in regional environmental and human rights movements, beginning with the district’s opposition to the Jaitapur nuclear power project.

Kamlakar Gurav, another activist who resides in Devache Gothane and is a part of the Barsu-Solgaon Panchakroshi, provided that even though Mangesh was not as actively involved in the protest against the refinery project as Satyajit this time, he was more active at the time of Jaitapur, he has still been detained by the authorities.

Additionally, the police have also targeted Amol Bole, a Shivane resident and the President of the Barsu Solgaon Refinery Virodhi Sanghatana. The Tehsil administration and the Rajapur Magistrate’s Office issued an order stating that ‘Drilling work is to begin at the proposed site, and Amol Ramesh Bole is prohibited from entering or moving around Rajapur Taluka,’ as provided by the Indie Journal.

It is essential to note that the Tehsil administration has prohibited public movement and gathering within a one-kilometer radius of the drilling site at Barsu Sada, Barsu, Panhale Tarfe Rajapur, Dhopeshwar, Goval, and Khalchi Wadi Goval from April 22 to May 1, invoking Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In February 2023, following the use of intimidation tactics against protesters opposing the said project, journalist Shashikant Varishe, who had been actively reporting the issue, was murdered after being run over by an influential refinery supporter, hours after the journalist published a news report against the latter. Amberkar, who was driving his vehicle Mahindra Thar, reportedly ran over Varishe, who was standing by his two-wheeler vehicle Activa near the Mangal Gas Agency Indian Oil Petrol Pump in Rajapur.

 Varishe had published a report in the local newspaper Dainik Mahanagari Times the same day he was attacked, referring to Amberkar as an “accused in serious offences.” as provided by his report, Amberkar has previously been arrested for intimidating and assaulting people opposing the Nanar refinery project, and now the Barsu-Solgaon refinery project. He had also placed banners in the nearby Angnewadi village expressing his support for the refinery. His photograph was displayed alongside that of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, and Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on banners. Varishe had questioned in his report how the government is associated with someone accused of such serious crimes.

According to the Indie Journal, the Gram Panchayats in the Barsu-Solgaon region had also passed resolutions stating that the surveys will not be conducted in the region, and had submitted the same to the Ratnagiri District Collector Office. As a result, the District Collector, Devender Singh, had organized a meeting with protesters and refinery supporters in Rajapur on April 22. However, because the protestors were only informed 30 minutes before the meeting time, many people who wanted to attend could not get to Rajapur on such short notice, and only four protesters arrived. Meanwhile, supporters of the refinery were out in force.

According to one activist, as reported by the Indie Journal, unsurprisingly, the Collector devoted more time to listen to supporters and barely listened to protestors, indicating that the administration was adamant about conducting the survey here no matter what.

The activists believe that detaining activists is a strategy to keep them away from both the protesters and the movement if the survey is conducted. “We are going to ensure that the survey will not take place. We will continue to oppose the project peacefully,” the activists said, according to the Indie Journal.

Background of the refinery

The Ratnagiri Refinery and Petrochemical Project, proposed in 2014 by the Modi government and the Maharashtra BJP-Shiv Sena government, has been endorsed as Asia’s largest oil refinery. It was supposed to be a joint venture between three Indian PSUs – Indian Oil, HPCL, and BPCL – and Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and the National Oil Company of the United Arab Emirates.

The project was proposed to be located in Nanar over a 200-square-kilometer area. While land-grabbers, speculators, and BJP leaders eager to expand the party’s presence in the Konkan region embraced the project concept, locals and activists led protests against the proposed project, citing concerns that the Konkan area has already been overloaded and overcrowded with several major plants, which has already resulted in the environment taking a heavy toll.

It is important to note that, since the Tarapur nuclear power plant was built in 1969, a slew of projects have sprung up along the coast, polluting the air and discharging hazardous effluents into the creeks without treatment. Locals and activists have highlighted time and again that all of these projects have wreaked havoc on the environment, resulting in massive water and air pollution, the destruction of local livelihood chains, and massive displacement and dispossession of people. As a result, each project has been the subject of lengthy protests since its inception, with an increasing number of people feeling the adverse effects. 

It is also worth noting that previously, in the face of growing public opposition, the Shiv Sena had insisted on the project’s cancellation, and the BJP had been forced to accept the demands of the Shiv Sena and cancel the project. However, with the BJP regaining power by splitting the Shiv Sena, the Shinde-Fadnavis government had announced its intention to restart the project. Previously, the Uddhav Thackeray government proposed downsizing the project and relocating it north of the old site, adjacent to the Jaitapur project, in the Barsu-Solgaon-Devache Ghotane area. Despite the outrage and criticism, the Shinde government had revived the original project idea last year.

A few months ago, in November 2022, the government sent armed police personnel of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) and the Riot Control Police to carry out a route march in Rajapur and the surrounding villages where the refinery is planned. Along with Rajapur police, 60 RAF personnel and 29 Riot Control personnel were part of this march.

Related:

SC observes preventive detention laws to have a colonial legacy with a high potential for abuse and misuse

Journalist Shashikant Warishe murdered for uncovering anomalies in the Barsu Refinery project

SC raises concern over frivolous use of NSA

TERROR LAWS UNDER A PROTO-FASCIST REGIME

A LEGAL HISTORY OF NSA: INDEPENDENT INDIA’S VERSION OF THE DRACONIAN ROWLATT ACT

NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS PROMOTE JURISDICTION OF SUSPICION AND DENY REMEDIES: GAUTAM BHATIA

14 months on, Kashmiri journalist, Fahad Shah’s detention under PSA quashed

India, with seven journalists jailed, draws criticism over its curtailment of media freedoms

The post Activist actively involved in protesting against the Barsu-Solgaon refinery project detained by police appeared first on SabrangIndia.