Appropriating Icons, Now Its Tina Dabi’s Turn

May 17, 2016

Why are Modi Bhakts and Votaries of the Hindu Rashtra so Keen to Appropriate Dalit Woman UPSC Topper Tina Dabi?
Bhakts tried to say Tina Dabi was Anti-Reservation, Tina Dabi Clarifies her Views on Facebook

Photo Credit: PTI

UPDATE:
In this interview with National Dastak Tina Dabi speaks of her great admiration for Babasaheb Ambedkar.

It all began he day before yesterday, May 15, at about 6.39 p.m. Tina Dabi the lively young IAS topper who crashed several glass ceilings to make it to the front pages of Indian newspapers faced her real life media challenge. Thirty five or so fake accounts opened by many propagandists who seem to believe that Social media is the new mode of revolution –be it of the Hindutvawaadi or any other kind –tried to appropriate her as a pro-Modi (Modi bhakt some would say) anti-reservationist.
Vigilants on the other side of the ideological spectrum caught this move out.

Here are Tina Dabi’s own words after this sharp dose of Goebbelsian reality

Tina Dabi, 18 hrs ·
Hello Friends,
It has come to my notice that some anti-social elements have made around 35 fake facebook profiles and pages under my name and are posting obnoxious statements posing as me.
I want to clarify that none of the ridiculous statements being made under my name are my opinions.
Its really heartbreaking for me to see that a few anti social elements can't even allow a simple girl who has done hardwork to remain in peace.
I request one and all to kindly report all such fake profiles and pages made under my name as their sole purpose is just to tarnish my image.
I thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

Apparently there are 35 false accounts of the UPSC topper!

Kavita Krishnan, the erudite writrer, political activist and feminist was among those who ‘exposed the fraud.’ Shilpi Tiwari it appears was the one guilty of this pseudo promotion. Zealous in her sangh inspired campaign, we are told that she assiduously circulated the controversial (and sic) video about Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) showing it to be a ‘den of vice.’

Here are some posts
Kavita Krishnan ने पोल खोली:
Same Sanghi Shilpi Tiwari who circulated fake videos of JNU, is circulating fake posts of ‪#‎TinaDabi, IAS topper, to show her as pro Modi, anti reservation. See Ms Dabi's real post expressing sadness at the fake profiles and posts.
Kavita Krishnan added 2 new photos.
7 hrs ·
Same Sanghi Shilpi Tiwari who circulated fake videos of JNU, is circulating fake posts of ‪#‎TinaDabi, IAS topper, to show her as pro Modi, anti reservation. See Ms Dabi's real post (ABOVE) expressing sadness at the fake profiles and posts.

This was the fake post of Shilpi Tiwari

But that Shilip is part of the Modi Bhakt Gang can be seen from this post 12 hours ago

स्वतंत्रता दिवस की शुभकामनाएं।
८०० वर्ष उपरांत भारत / दिल्ली में भारतीयों का राज। १६ मई, २०१६ – नया हिन्दू स्वराज्य।Independence Day of wishes.
After 800 years in Delhi / India Indian Raj. May 16, 2016-new hindu swaraj.

The Image is here

There is also more juicy unauthenticated vitriol against both the Left and the Congress !

Is our Democracy Cracking, asks India’s 26th Chief Justice, A.M. Ahmadi

May 17, 2016

Two Years of the Modi Regime: India's 26th Chief Justice makes some sharp observations through this leading question

May 16, 2016

The Preamble of our Constitution resolves India into a Secular Democratic Republic and promises to secure to all its citizens JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, and to promote to all FRATERNITY thereby assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. The Constitution has rightly been construed as a living and organic document of great significance. It must be construed and applied broadly and liberally.

In Part III thereof are set out the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Article 12 broadly defines ‘the State’ to include the Government, Parliament of India and the Government and the legislature of each of the States and all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The definition is therefore wide enough to include every executive organ as well as the legislative bodies, the Parliament and State Legislatures.

The ideals of “Socialism and Secularism were added to the Preamble by the 42^nd Amendment and attempts made to delete them from the Preamble have fortunately failed for the simple reason that even otherwise they were/are writ large in the text of the Constitution, vide the Directive Principles in Part IV, particularly, Article 39 of the Constitution.

The agonising endeavours made, by the party of Prime Minister Modi, to undo what the 42^nd Amendment did, remains a direct threat to the political scenario within the country. The concepts of Socialism and Secularism cannot be static and indeed have been construed as ever evolving. Every country evolves that which is best suited to it and with the passage of time it undergoes a change best suited to its changed character/scenario.

During our Independence movement, we saw the meaning of the concepts of Socialism and Secularism nuanced and ever-changing. For example, between the Gandhian model and the Nehruvian model of Secularism, there were differences. In the Gandhian model religion played an important role, not so in the Nehruvian model.

I appeal to those in power to avoid making hate speeches against other Sister/Brother Indians and realise that she/he is in fact harming the self and weakening our cherished democracy.

Prime Minister Nehru believed that ‘Religion’ had divided India and ‘will kill it one day’. He, therefore, strongly advocated non-interference of religion in State affairs. He strongly believed that the State should discourage its role even in civil society as it will hinder the fostering of unity and integrity of the Nation. How right he was; we are today witnessing how religion has been responsible in dividing the Nation and how its ill-effects have played havoc with our endeavours in achieving the unity and integrity of our Nation.

During Nehruvian rule, religious passions were curbed but once he was gone religious passions erupted which often, even the police force refused to prevent; large-scale violence erupted and the police force became increasingly partisan and hostile towards the minorities. On several occasions, it was adjudged to be aiding and participating in the trouble-mongering.

Other difficulties confronting our democratic system have arisen from increasing social pressures. Growing Hindutva militancy poses a grave threat to India’s internal stability today. Ever since the period of the Babri Masjid demolition, Hindutva forces with the support of the party in power and a almost brazen hostility fostered and legitimised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have initiated a hate-Muslim campaign through their cadres; men and women who boast and threaten violence at the slightest pretext, e.g. over the orchestrated and contrived Beef Issue. It is as if these boastful cadres have been Licensed to Kill, sanguine in the belief that the Governmental agencies will come to their rescue, if required. Instead of curbing religious militancy with a firm hand, the inaction and deafening silence on the part of those in positions of power –as also law enforcement authorities – conveys an implied concurrence with hate utterances and gives the offenders a sense of impunity.

Our Democracy has functioned reasonably well as far as elections are concerned if we ignore the blots caused by increasingly recurring bouts of communal and caste violence (riots). Now, with the Hindutva right wing firmly in power, the same cannot be said so far as India’s internal stability as a democracy is concerned. The fringe elements of the ruling party, have mounted increased social pressures through their Hindutva-inspired cadres on the minorities. These elements have shown no concern for the Dalits whose cause Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar cherished and passionately argued, pleading for their upliftment. This poses a serious threat to domestic peace and stability, thereby weakening all our democratic institutions.

Due to the aggressive interference by hard core religio-political Hindutva elements in every aspect of public life, an atmosphere of intolerance has been generated –and legitimised –towards the minorities. Needless to say, that this level of public discourse has weakened our democratic values/principles and their functioning. Consequently even the enmeshed human rights engrafted in Part III of our Constitution have suffered. The expanse of democracy is not confined only to general elections every five years but is a larger guarantee embodied in Article 21 (the Protection of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

Professor Russell Bova, the erstwhile Associate Professor of political science at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, rightly observed: “A close association between democracy and liberty has long been taken for granted. At least a minimal package of human freedoms, including rights of association, opposition and free speech and expression, is in fact required if democratic institutions, such as elections are to be meaningful. Most definitions of the term “democracy” include reference to such freedoms”. (So also does the Indian Constitution). Both in theory and practice, the relationship between democracy and human rights have existed ever since the charter of Human Rights came to be drawn up/enforced from 1948 and have been ipso facto considered as a consequence of democracy.

Freedom of speech and expression, a right conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of our Constitution has been recognised as an essential element of a functioning democracy. Any effort to suppress the exercise of this right can only affect the strength of a functioning democracy. Unfortunately ever since the present NDA Government headed by Prime Minister Modi came to power, there has been a consistent effort to suppress freedom of speech and expression.

The present Government has shown intolerance towards any criticism of its functioning/policies by threatening prosecution under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition). Dialogue and criticism of Government’s actions and policies are essential elements of a functioning of Democracy.

Time and again the President of India has emphasised in and out of Parliament, within and outside the country, the importance of dissent: often fierce debates and discussions have preceded any particular threatened Governmental action and policy; it is only at the end of a fierce debate that there emerges a final outcome (or resolution, or decision) on the issue so debated. If fierce opposition cannot be tolerated whether in or outside Parliament, democratic functioning itself will become dysfunctional, sounding a death nail to Democracy. Strong dissent and heated dialogue are the essentials of a Republican Democracy.

Fundamental Rights granted to the citizens of the country were considered by our Constitution makers to be sacrosanct and inviolable and that is why the Constitution appointed the Supreme Court as its guardian to protect the citizen’s fundamental rights. That is why Article 32 in Part III of our Constitution entrusts the Supreme Court of India with the responsibility/duty to protect the rights of citizens as the ‘custodian’ of their Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

India is a heterogeneous society within which peoples of all faiths live under the shade of a single umbrella, the Indian Constitution. We in India are proud of our composite culture. Indian civilization is plural, has always been so, has the benefit of richly blended cultures, the Hindu is one, the Muslim is next, we have many others Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh and various tribal entities whose cultures have got intertwined with the passage of time to constitute India’s rich composite rainbow of cultures. Each one has contributed to the present day colourful Rainbow of cultures. Every Indian has imbibed a bit of every culture and is an admixture of various cultures providing different life styles and festivities.

This composite Indian culture is, therefore, not monolithic but comprises of grains of different cultures contributed by the people belonging to different faiths. Every Indian, therefore, is an amalgam of cultures. Any attempt to damage this secular fabric of cultures would end up in destroying a part of every Indian. So any attempt by those constituting the majority of the Indian culture, to harm any part of our composite culture would render every Indian a disabled person, thereby weakening composite Indian culture and also Democratic Institutions.

I appeal to those in power to avoid making hate speeches against other Sister/Brother Indians and realise that she/he is in fact harming the self and weakening our cherished democracy.

I am afraid we, in India, have failed to realise the benefits of Secularism and fraternity. For winning elections our political parties have used religion, hate speeches and muscle power, resulting in the loss of life of our citizens and destruction of property; largely, of the Muslim and Christian minorities who are generally thus targeted. What bravery is this of the Majority! in an unevenly levelled/imbalanced playing field? Barbaric, brute force, supported by the authorities and the uniformed forces, versus a crippled Minority? A Secular State must show concern for its citizenry and not for a particular religion or communities; only then can the State foster a spirit of unity and integrity.

The UPA Government set up the Sachar Committee to study the plight of the Muslims in India but dragged its feet when it came to implementing its recommendations, particularly the setting up of an Equal Opportunity Commission, the most important recommendation even though the commission came to the broad conclusion that the economic conditions of Indian Muslims was worse, applying many parameters, than even the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

The present BJP regime is not expected to allow the Muslim group of citizens a better life in view of the inherently anti-Muslim/Christian utterances by its fringe elements in and outside Parliament. The RSS is virtually in command. The Prime Minister, gives sound bites that are legally and constitutionally correct but does not follow them up through interventions by his administration on the ground. Since no effort is made by the ruling party to curb its fringe elements, the inaction and silence itself betrays a partisan behaviour on its part. The party in power will, rightly, be seen to be acting with malafide intent.

The State, within a democratic form of governance, cannot be partial to one religious group and run down others. The constitutional direction of equality and non-discrimination must be honoured. The fringe elements in saffron garb belonging to the RSS/VHPcannot be allowed to, in and outside Parliament, threaten and shout at Muslims to leave the country and migrate to the neighbouring country. To the RSS elements who did not fight for ‘azadi’, freedom may not be so dear to their hearts, but to those whose ancestors shed their blood, India and the freedom struggle is precious and valuable; it cannot be allowed to be frittered away.

At the time of the unfortunate partition of the country, those Indian Muslims who stayed back to live in this country made a conscious choice not to migrate to Pakistan and cannot now be pushed out like aliens. Such utterances must be nipped in the bud and not allowed currency. Those who make such demands must be silenced with a firm hand. The elements influenced by the RSS must not be allowed to spread poison in the minds of the younger generation, who are also the future Rulers of India.

In the past, whenever, any affirmative action was proposed by the Congress (UPA) Government, the BJP raised the antenna of ‘appeasement’ to shoot down such efforts by calling them pseudo-secular.I would prefer pseudo-secularists rather than hard-core Hindutvavadis.

Unfortunately, the Minority Ministry has also proved to be ‘a lame duck’. Funds allocated for minority causes to State Governments are diverted elsewhere. By not implementing any measures to actively bring India’s 17 crore Muslims into the main stream of Sub ka Saath Sub ka Vikas programmes, the Nation is denying unto itself the services of skilled Muslims, who are excellent craftsmen, as can be seen from the brass works from Muradabad, the weaves of Banarasi silks, and the delicate stitchces of Lucknowi chicken embroidery.

Nehru’s model of secularism, and its special flavour, lasted until about the 1980s and needs to be revived if democracy in India, has to survive. With the weakening of the Congress party, there came the Hindutva thrust, the Rath-Yatra of Mr. Advani, and VHP’s crusade for Ram- Jumna Bhoomi, which claimed the Hindutva forces had their origin in India whereas Secularism was denigrated as being of western origin, therefore, not within the ambit of the State’s duty to promote or nurture. They (the Hindutvavadis) contend that the minorities can feel free to profess and cherish their faith, but the Hindutva ideologues profess superior status for their faith and contend that the Islam and Christianity are religions whose roots are not of distinct Indian origin. Not only that, but the Hindutva brigade has threatened forcible conversion through ‘Ghar Vapsi’ programmes. This ideology has naturally given rise to a sense of insecurity in the minds of theIndian Minorities— both Muslims and Christians.

In my view this line of thinking is flawed because Indian civilisation is not monolithic but is an amalgam of many religious influences/cultures, of which Hinduism is only one; besides Hinduism itself is plural. The Indian Muslims have been deeply ingrained within Indian culture; in fact they have enriched the Indian culture by contributing to its art, literature, music and Urdu poetry (ghazals) recited by renowned singers who have been decorated by Presidential awards. The Sufi Qawalls’ contribution to the Indian culture also cannot be ignored.

The ideological conundrums created by forces owing allegience to Hindutva, the RSS, the VHP and other fringe elements, pitting caste and religious groups against each other, particularly during elections, notwithstanding BJP’s efforts to project itself as a moderate party by its slogan ‘Sub ka Sath, Sub ka Vikas’ has failed to forge a national consensus and furnish a sense of Security/Stability in the minds of the minorities, particularly, Muslims/Christians.

The strategy of the sober elements in the BJP have not been effective due to the repeated hate speeches by the Hindu radical elements in Parliament and across the country, matched with no serious effort by those in power to chasten them against vitiating India’s cultural unity. This is not to speak of the deliberate and self-conscious effort by fringe elements to vitiate the communal atmosphere when elections are round the corner to garner votes on religious grounds. It is time that the Hindutva forces realise that the minorities have no grouse against the majority community (it is only construed the other way) and would like to have cordial relations provided they are not measured through the prism of hatred.

It is in this backdrop that we must endeavour to answer the pertinent question. Democracy substitutes (or uses) election(s) to replace the corrupt few by a fresh stock: democracy is a mechanism to get rid of the corrupt and the incompetent. Sir Winston Churchill once warned the British Parliament against giving India freedom claiming that Indian politicians were yet not ready to run a country so vast. Most of what he said has come true today. During the Congress Rule its adherence to secularism was branded by the BJP as Pseudo-secularism and appeasement of the Minority; yet Secularism it is, pseudo, if you may.

Western governments who faced similar problems, though not as grim as ours, have tried to work these out through measures in education, economic, security and through political strategies of affirmative action. Through these efforts, a more equitable and non-discriminatory polity, and a more empowered citizenry has emerged. We, in India are doing just the opposite, pushing the minorities into ghettos and denying them their basic human rights and decent living conditions.

Is it not depressing that the social media does not ever raise issues which torment the minorities? Turning the personal into the political, Democrats opened their convention with testimonials to Barak Obama as a husband, father, brother and above all, a leader able to transcend the Nation’s long divide across racial and gender lines. Mr. Edward Kennedy said “Barak Obama will close the book on the old politics of race and gender, of group against group, of straight against gay”…

I wish our Prime Minister was listening then, since he is one who claims to be close to the outgoing US President. Without being daunted by the RSS he should follow the path and policy of the outgoing US President and deal with the Muslim, Christian and the Dalits in the same way. Guided by a sense of Insaniyat and following the path of Raj Dharma as advised by Prime Minister Vajpayee, his predecessor as prime minister who was also a gentleman to the core.

It is time to rise above religious prejudices and hatred. Our Democracy has certainly developed deep fissures and cracks and unless remedial action is promptly taken we will cease to be called a genuine Democracy.

“Ta ke sare zamane ko de sakun;
Khuda se mai aman-o-sukun mangta hu.”

JAI HIND

(The writer is the former Chief Justice of India. He was India’s 26^th Chief Justice serving between 1994-1997)

Reference:

Senator Kennedy's Obama endorsement speech, 2008

How Sangh Parivar and ‘Dalit Capitalists’ are Sanitising Dr Ambedkar’s Radical Vision

May 17, 2016

Image courtesy: Columbia University

These are no ordinary times to discuss Dalit vision* or rather reach a consensus around what could be called Dalit Vision. You have on one hand the upheaval witnessed in the country especially among educated young Dalits and broader democratic sections symbolised by the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula and the mass movement which it has generated. On the other hand you have renowned Dalit leaders paying obeisance before rabid reactionary forces. You have on one hand slogans of ‘Jai Bhim’ and ‘Lal Salaam’ being raised in unison on campuses across the country. On the other hand is the process of mythologising Dr Ambedkar and marginalising ‘his’ meaning.

Today as we embark on the task of understanding/analysing/debating Dalit Vision we have before us its multiple readings. A new radical reading of it is visible in the experiences of the Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle at IIT Madras or Ambedkar Students Association at HCU. At the other end of the spectrum are people who venerate globalisation as the panacea of Dalits’ ills, or tell us that castes will vanish with the advance of capitalism. They proclaim to being the true legatee of this vision.

In fact a possibility does exist that the emancipatory thrust in Dr Ambedkar’s worldview is slowly being marginalised on the altar of pragmatic politics or around our immediate concerns of daily life. As an aside, it is important to remember that Dr Ambedkar did have apprehensions about it and had cautioned his followers to this effect.

In one of the most poignant moments of his life, at a public meeting held in Agra in February 1956 – where there was a large gathering of newly educated youth from oppressed communities – he became emotional (in fact the late Prof Tulsi Ram has written that he literally cried) when he realised that his followers were not bothered about society or other depressed sections.

Dr Ambedkar and a lakh of his followers convert to Buddhism. Photo credit: Lionsroar.com

2.
How does one proceed then to define/debate/discuss Dalit Vision in the present context, which is beyond rhetoric, decorative politicos and Brahminical hegemony?

One way is to 'collect' all these 'visions' or readings and find some commonality in them. Definitely an impossible task! What commonality could be derived from a 'vision' which in one manifestation supports status quoist politics and the other opposes it.

Perhaps the best option available is to not look at its present day exponents or its various manifestations available but go back to its best exponent ever and see how he envisioned things, how he analysed 'his' present or how he forecasted the 'future'. What sort of cautions did he share with his comrades to be taken note of? Taking him as our pole star, let us look at 'our' present, and define Dalit Vision for our times.
This revisiting would also serve another purpose.

We have been witness to a new brand of converts, supposedly to Ambedkar's worldview, who have started claiming him more aggressively these days surpassing even his loyal followers. Our search would also help demonstrate how the forefathers of these new converts derided him while he was alive and even after his death, and how he opposed their politics tooth and nail and cautioned his followers about it.

Today when the “new converts” are competing with each other to lay claim over his legacy let us not forget that one of their ideologues had even penned a monograph, 'Worshipping False Gods', running into several hundred pages in mid-nineties – spewing undiluted venom against Dr Ambedkar: (http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/falsifying-the-truth/203929). It was an act for which the author was suitably rewarded by his ‘parivar’ when they held the reins of power at the Centre for the first time, an act for which one is yet to see any apology or self-criticism from them.

Image credit: Bolana.in

3.
Everybody would agree that it is a challenging task to encapsulate a great wo/man's vision in a few words. Of a person who as a public figure impacted not only her/his generation but future generations, initiated or channelised debates in society, led struggles, mobilised people, wrote thousands of pages and left a legacy for all of us to carry forward.

For a presentation within the given time constraint, it is next to impossible to look at Ambedkar's complete journey or rather quest to usher what Prof Gopal Guru calls 'an enlightened, inclusive India' from a 'bahishkrut' India.
Given the time constraint, one may focus more on the last decade of his life – the most tumultuous period in his as well as the newly independent nation's life – to know the important concerns which troubled his mind and how he envisioned the future trajectory of the movement he led and how he tried to chart a roadmap for the nascent nation given the support/cooperation and at times resistance from leading stalwarts of his time.

Such a focus would obviously rob us of an opportunity to look at the historic Mahad Satyagraha – which we in Marathi call as 'Mahad Kranti' (1927) an important milestone in his political life. Nor will we be able to look at the historic rally he organised against Khot Pratha– a feudal practice – along with communists, or his growing disillusionment with Hinduism, witnessed after the unsuccessful satyagraha for temple entry at 'Kalaram Mandir, Nashik' which continued for five years. Or the way he formed the Independent Labour Party, or how he told his followers (in his speech to Dalit Rail Workers) that they have to fight the twin enemies of 'capitalism' and 'Brahminism' etc and many other milestones of his life.

4.
First of all, what was his vision for independent India? Or how did he envision a future roadmap for India? Yes, he has been rightly called the chief architect of the Constitution and it was his intervention/presence – definitely with due support from Nehru and others – that he could include important pro-people or pro-marginalised provisions into it. But we cannot be under any illusion that it was only 'his vision' which triumphed ultimately.

The making of the Constitution itself was marked by pressures and counter-pressures from believers of radical change at one end and from the status quoists at the other. What emerged in the end can at best be called a compromise document between various contending forces, ideas.

Dr Ambedkar's distinction between the birth of political democracy in India – a one-man-one-vote regime – and the long road he saw ahead for its maturation into social democracy –a one-man-one-value regime – while dedicating the Constitution to the nation was in fact a reminder of the fact that the struggle is still far from over.

At another place he similarly underlined the limitations of such a constitutional exercise in a backward society like ours:

“Indians today are governed by two ideologies. Their political ideal set in the preamble of the Constitution affirms a life of liberty, equality and fraternity whereas their social ideal embedded in their religion denies it to them”.

(As an aside let me mention here that I continue to have my reservations about Dr Ambedkar's participation in the making of the Constitution. What would have been the course of history had he decided to remain outside and fought for inclusion of pro-people provisions? While one can marvel at the strategic move by Gandhi who insisted on his inclusion – despite his lifelong struggle against Congress – why did Dr Ambedkar feel compelled to take up the work? But this, of course needs to be sorted out another time).

If we are keen to know Ambedkar’s 'vision' about a future India it can be discerned in his less discussed monograph: 'States and Minorities: What are Their Rights and How to Secure them in the Constitution of Free India'. The monograph was basically a '[m]emorandum on the Safeguards for the Scheduled Castes for being submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the Scheduled Castes Federation' he led. (http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/10A.%20Statesand%20Minorities%20Preface.htm)

The said monograph by the political organisation he led then does not limit itself to 'safeguards' but also warns of the danger of majoritarianism, incompatibility of Hinduism with any change, and suggests a model of economic development which he himself describes as “state socialism”.

Image credit: Drambedkarbooks.org

5.
It would be quite enlightening for many of us how in the same monograph he envisaged that “State shall not recognise any religion as State religion” and “guarantee to every citizen liberty of conscience”. Coming to the aspect of protection against economic exploitation, he declared that “key industries shall be owned and run by the State” and even basic industries “shall be owned by the State and run by the State”. He was of the opinion that “agriculture shall be State industry.” The State shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size, and these shall be cultivated as a collective farm, in accordance with rules and directions by the government and “tenants shall share among themselves in the manner prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of charges properly leviable on the farm”.

He further explains this clause in the following words:

“The main purpose behind the clause is to put an obligation on the State to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out in the clause proposes State ownership in agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry.”…”State Socialism is essential for the rapid industrialisation of India. Private enterprise cannot do it and if it did it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians. Consolidation of Holdings and Tenancy legislation are worse than useless.”

Interestingly, he does not propose that the idea of State Socialism be left to legislatures. He argued instead that it should be a “law of the Constitution”:

“The plan has two special features. One is that it proposes State Socialism in important fields of economic life. The second special feature of the plan is that it does not leave the establishment of State Socialism to the will of the Legislature. It establishes State Socialism by the Law of the Constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any act of the Legislature and the Executive.”

6.
In the same monograph he clearly differentiates between 'Untouchables' and 'Hindus'.

Gone were the days when he felt that Hinduism would reform itself from within. He had already declared more than a decade earlier at the Yeola conference in 1935: “I was born a Hindu, I had no choice. But I will not die a Hindu because I do have a choice.”

Ambedkar is unequivocal that the “Hindu population which is hostile to them (untouchables)” and emphasises that it is “not ashamed of committing any inequity or atrocity against them”. He is also not hopeful about their situation under Swaraj:

What can Swaraj mean to the Untouchables? It can only mean one thing, namely, that while today it is only the administration that is in the hands of the Hindus, under Swaraj the legislature and executive will also be in the hands of the Hindus, it goes without saying that such a Swaraj would aggravate the sufferings of the Untouchables. For, in addition to a hostile administration, there will be an indifferent legislature and a callous executive. The result will be that the administration unbridled in venom and in harshness, uncontrolled by the legislature and the executive, may pursue its policy of inequity towards the Untouchables without any curb. To put it differently, under Swaraj the Untouchables will have no way of escape from the destiny of degradation which Hindus and Hinduism have fixed for them…

He was very much aware about the dangers of majoritarianism implicit in the way Indian nationalism has developed which according to him:

[h]as developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called Nationalism.

And to protect the rights of the minorities (remember he does not restrict himself to religious minorities here but also includes the 'scheduled castes' in his definition) he proposes a form of executive which could serve following purposes

(i) To prevent the majority from forming a government without giving any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter.
(ii) To prevent the majority from having exclusive control over administration and thereby make the tyranny of the minority by the majority possible.
(iii) To prevent the inclusion by the majority party in the executive representatives of the minorities who have no confidence of the minorities.
(iv) To provide a stable executive necessary for good and efficient administration.

In fact, his fears vis-a-vis the majoritarian impulses were evident in the political manifesto of the Scheduled Castes Federation itself — the political outfit which was set up by him in 1942 which rejected the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha as “reactionary” organizations.

“The Scheduled Castes Federation will not have any alliance with any reactionary party such as the Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS,”

(See Vol 10 of Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar Charitragranth, a Marathi book by Changdev Bhavanrao Khairmode, or refer to: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2016/04/appropriating-ambedkar#sthash.b53dwFL4.dpuf)

And anyone who has looked at the making of Indian constitution would tell us why Dr Ambedkar considered them 'reactionary' parties. History is witness to the fact that they opposed its making and suggested in their organs that instead of a new constitution, the newly independent nation should adopt Manusmriti. A laughable suggestion right now but was seriously raised by its proponents.

“The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”…“no mention of the unique constitutional developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity [among Hindus in India]. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”.

— Editorial in Organiser, November 30, 1949, on the final draft of the Constitution which had just been presented to the Constituent Assembly by Ambedkar.

In his monograph, 'Pakistan or Partition of India', he reiterates his fears about the possible majoritarian turn at the hands of those who vouched for 'Hindu Raj':

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will no doubt be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”

– Ambedkar, Pakistan or Partition of India, p. 358

Dr Ambedkar speaking at Yeola; Photo Credit: Lockermedia.com

7.
Much on the lines of lack of debate/discussion around 'States and Minorities', another important intervention during that period led by him has also received little attention. It was related to the struggle for the Hindu Code Bill, the first attempt in independent India to reform Hindu personal laws to give greater rights to Hindu women. The attempt was to put a stamp on monogamy and also ensure separation rights to women and also grant them rights in property. We know very well that it was a key reason that Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet led by Nehru because he felt that despite lot of attempts not much headway could be made in granting these rights. In his resignation letter he underlined the importance he attached to the bill:

“To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap. This is the significance I attached to the Hindu Code.” – (See more at: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2016/04/appropriating-ambedkar#sthash.b53dwFL4.dpuf)

How the Hindutva Right and the conservative sections within the Congress coupled with the saffron robed swamis and sadhus had joined hands to oppose the enactment of Hindu Code Bill is a fact of history. In fact, this motley combination of reactionary, status quoist forces did not limit itself to issuing statements. It opposed the bill on the streets and led large scale mobilisation at pan-India level against the bill. There were occasions when they even tried to storm Dr Ambedkar's residence in Delhi.

The main argument peddled against Ambedkar was that the bill was an attack on “Hindu religion and culture”. One can get an idea of the resistance to the bill listening to the intervention by Acharya Kriplani on the floor of the house. While supporting the bill he said:

"I am afraid I do not see the point in Hindu religion being in danger. Hindu religion is not in danger when Hindus are thieves, rogues, black marketeers and bribe-takers. Hindu religion is not endangered by people who want to reform a particular law. May be, they are over-zealous, but it is better to be over-zealous in things idealistic than be corrupt in material things. "
— Acharya Kriplani on the floor of the house while discussing Hindu Code Bill, (24 Dec 1949, Economic Weekly)

An excerpt from Ramchandra Guha's book gives us further indication concerning the resistance to the bill:

“The anti-Hindu code bill committee held hundreds of meetings throughout India, where sundry swamis denounced the proposed legislation. The participants in this movement presented themselves as religious warriors (dharmaveer) fighting a religious war (dharmayudh). The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh threw its weight behind the agitation. On the 11th of December, 1949, the RSS organised a public meeting at the Ramlila grounds in Delhi, where speaker after speaker condemned the bill. One called it ‘an atom bomb on Hindu society’… The next day a group of RSS workers marched on the assembly buildings, shouting ‘Down with Hindu code bill’… The protesters burnt effigies of the prime minister and Dr Ambedkar, and then vandalised the car of Sheikh Abdullah.” ('India after Gandhi', Guha; See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/bhagwats-ambedkar/#sthash.6ZNPVwHq.dpuf)

Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, founder of BJP’s predecessor, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, had said the Bill would “shatter the magnificent structure of Hindu culture.”

In fact, like Mahatma Phule – whom Ambedkar called the 'Greatest Shudra' and included him in the triumvirate of Buddha, Kabir whom he considered to be his teachers – the concern for women's emancipation was always an integral part of any movement led by Ambedkar.

I will accept and follow the teachings of Buddha. I will keep my people away from the different opinions of Hinyan and Mahayan, two religious orders. Our Bouddha Dhamma is a new Bouddha Dhamma, Navayan.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, press interview on 13 October 1956, at Sham Hotel, Nagpur.

An important development in the last decade of his life was his decision to embrace Buddhism with lakhs of followers. Apart from his deep fascination for Buddhism from younger days, his conversion to Buddhism had also to do with his contention that the 'untouchables' were in fact former Buddhists. He elaborates it in his book 'The Untouchables: A Thesis on the Origin of Untouchability’ (1948). (For details: https://kafila.org/2016/04/26/jayadeva-uyangoda-on-ambedkars-legacy/).

Thus it could be said for Ambedkar it was a return to his/their original religion rather than a conversion. Interestingly, one finds deep commonality between Dr Ambedkar and Jyothee Thass, the great Tamil-Buddhist scholar, who also maintained that 'Untouchables' were early Buddhists.

His 'conversion' to Buddhism was also renouncement of Hinduism which according to him had:

'[p]roved detrimental to progress and prosperity of my predecessors and which has regarded human beings as unequal and despicable' (See Pledge 19).

The 22 pledges he administered to his followers on the occasion can broadly be categorise them into four – complete rejection of Hindu gods (e.g., “I will not accept Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh as god and will not worship them”); their worship and the related rituals (“I will not perform Shraddha Paksh or Pind Dana (rituals to respect the dead); acceptance of the principles and teachings of Buddhism; declaration that “all human beings are equal” and “no faith in divine incarnation”.

An important aspect of this 'return' or 'conversion' is the fact that it was also a reinterpretation of Buddhism which he described as Navayan – a new vehicle. Apart from a long monograph, 'Buddha and His Dhamma', where he tries to revisit Buddha one, can get a glimpse of his reading of Buddha and his teachings from the speech he delivered in Kathmandu, merely a fortnight before his death which was posthumously published as, 'Buddha Or Karl Marx’. (http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/20.Buddha%20or%20Karl%20Marx.htm)

Summarising 'The Creed of Buddhism' while underlining necessity of 'religion for a free society' he says many things which would be rather unacceptable to a scholar or follower of religion where he seems to reject the 'necessity of God' as well as shastras and rituals. Some examples: “Religion must relate to facts of life and not to theories and speculations about God, or soul or heaven or earth”; “It is wrong to make God the centre of Religion”; “It is wrong to make salvation of the soul as the centre of Religion”; “It is wrong to make animal sacrifices to be the centre of religion”; “Real religion lives in the heart of man and not in the shastras”; “Man and morality must be the centre of religion. If not, religion is a cruel superstition”; “It is not enough for morality to be the ideal of life. Since there is no God it must become the law of life.”

Ambedkar distances himself from popular definitions of religion first by criticising the way religion(s) have tried to explain the origin and end of world around and says that its “function is to reconstruct the world and to make it happy”. He explores the source of unhappiness and does not talk about “sins” or “otherworldly affairs” but says that “unhappiness in the world is due to conflict of interest and the only way to solve it is to follow the Ashtanga Marga”.

Further elaborating on 'Creed of Buddhism' he says that “private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another” and that “it is necessary for the good of society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause”. While religions the world over have remained the basis of 'othering' – which in extreme cases have even resulted in large-scale genocides – in Buddhism as perceived by Ambedkar, “All human beings are equal”; “Worth and not birth is the measure of man”.

While supporting the “War for truth and justice” and also emphasising that the “Victor has duties towards the Vanquished” in the last portion of his summary of ‘Creed of Buddhism', he not only challenges monopoly of the few over learning (Everyone has a right to learn; Learning is as necessary for man to live as food is), he also states that “Everything is subject to the law of causation” and: “Nothing is final. Nothing is infallible. Nothing is binding forever. Everything is subject to inquiry and examination. Nothing is permanent or sanatan. Everything is subject to change. Being is always becoming.”

This speech – as the title shows – also throws light on his views about Marxism. Of course it is not for the first time that he had expressed his views on the theme. In his famous booklet, 'Annihilation of Caste', he had already made it clear that while he appreciates the goal of Marxism but is repelled by its Indian practitioners.

In this speech also he declares that “Buddha is not away from Marx” if “for misery one reads exploitation”.

For him non-violence is not an issue of principle. “The Buddha was against violence. But he was also in favour of justice and where justice required he permitted the use of force”. Ambedkar further writes that:

Violence cannot be altogether dispensed with. Even in non-communist countries a murderer is hanged. Does not hanging amount to violence? Non-communist countries go to war with non-communist countries. Millions of people are killed. Is this not violence? If a murderer can be killed, because he has killed a citizen, if a soldier can be killed in war because he belongs to a hostile nation, why cannot a property owner be killed if his ownership leads to misery for the rest of humanity? There is no reason to make an exception in favour of the property owner, why one should regard private property as sacrosanct?

He also underlines that even “Buddha established communism so far as the Sangh was concerned”:

The Russians are proud of their communism. But they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism without dictatorship, a miracle which Lenin failed to do.

Of course he underlines that:

The Buddha's method was different. His method was to change the mind of man: to alter his disposition: so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion.

Perhaps in the last para of his speech he makes concluding remarks in this debate and seems to validate what friend Anand Teltumbde calls, “His decision as confirming to Marxism, minus violence and dictatorship in the latter”: (http://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde160812.htm)

…It has been claimed that the communist dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent dictatorship. …

We welcome the Russian Revolution because it aims to produce equality. But it cannot be too much emphasised that in producing equality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all.

10.

As I said in the beginning these are no ordinary times to discuss Dalit vision. We have before us an India where, to quote Achin Vanaik:

..[t]he centre of gravity has shifted perhaps decisively to the right, in three crucial spheres: economy, secularism and democracy.

It is an India where the political dispensation at the centre is busy furthering the exclusivist/majoritarian worldview of Hindutva supremacism coupled with the neo-liberal economic agenda under the glib talk of development and concerted attack has been unleashed on what Ambedkar defined as minorities of various kinds and other deprived sections.

What can be said to be the contours of Dalit Vision for our times then?

It will have to be necessarily for ensuring that: “State shall not recognise any religion as state religion”; “guarantee to every citizen liberty of conscience”; against “majoritarianism of every kind”; and specifically, prevent majority from forming a government without giving any opportunity to the minorities to have a say in the matter; for women's emancipation; for State ownership in agriculture with a collectivised method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry; against inequalities of wealth which private capitalism produces; necessarily for annihilation of caste as “the existence of the caste system is a standing denial of the existence of ideals of society and therefore of democracy” (speech on the ‘Voice of America’ radio, May 20, 1956); for reason, rationality and scientific temper; and against dumbing down of minds.

It does not need reminding that it will not be based on sanitisation or vulgarisation of Dr Ambedkar in any form as it is being experimented these days. While his appropriation by the Hindutva Right has been widely commented upon and exposed as their attempts to carve out a 'suitable' Ambedkar for their project based on exclusion and hatred, much needs to be done to expose his projection as a free market economist. (http://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde110911.htm)

Scholarly sounding pieces have appeared based on selective quotes from his vast corpus of writings to project him as a 'Free Market Economist” [http://blog.mises.org/16519/ambedkar-the-forgotten-free-market-economist/]. Capitalism is being valorised supposedly for annihilation of caste (Chandrabhan Prasad and Milind Kamble, Manifesto to End Caste: Push Capitalism and Industrialisation to Eradicate this Pernicious System, Times of India, January 23, 2013).

It is being argued by noted columnists and upcoming industrialists from the oppressed communities:

Capital is the surest means to fight caste. In dalit's hands, capital becomes an anti-caste weapon; little wonder that the traditional caste code prohibits dalits from accumulating wealth. Dalit capitalism is the answer to that regime of discrimination. The manifesto demands promotion of dalit capitalism through a variety of means – procurement, credit options and partnerships.

An important point to note is that Dalit Vision will have to be wary of 'hero worship' or placing 'liberties at the feet of a great man' as it can culminate in “subverting of institutions” in a democracy as

Ambedkar has warned us. In fact he had this to say while dedicating the Constitution to the nation:

“This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

Everybody can see that this caution has contemporary import. It was only last month that a responsible minister of the ruling dispensation told us that the honourable PM was "God's gift to India”.
While bhakts may rejoice about this unique gift to India, every sensible person would agree that if this trend is allowed to continue then it is a “sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship”.

(*Draft of presentation made at a discussion on ‘Dalit Vision: Beyond Rhetoric, Decorative politicos, Brahminical hegemony and Maharashtra’; May 1, 2016, in Delhi, organised by India International Centre, Maharashtra Sanskritik ani Rannaniti Adhyayn Samiti and Working Group on Alternative Strategies).

(Subhash Gatade is the author of Pahad Se Uncha Aadmi (2010), Godse's Children: Hindutva Terror in India (2011) and The Saffron Condition: The Politics of Repression and Exclusion in Neoliberal India (2011). He is also the Convener of New Socialist Initiative (NSI) Email: subhash.gatade@gmail.com

The Sanatan Dharma Recipe for Historical Writing and Research

May 17, 2016

Image Credit: Times of India/Sandeep Adhwaryu

In this interview, renowned historian, Gopinath Ravindran, former Member Secretary of the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) details the agenda of the present regime, driven by an aggressive Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a majority government to serious affect quality historical enquiry and research. Ravindran resigned as Member Secretary of the ICHR mid-way through his term in 2015 when he evidenced, at close hand, the unprofessional functioning of this top level research body. This interview was conducted by the Indian Cultural Forum. Ravindran teaches at the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Would you recall the sequence of events that led you to quit the ICHR?
In October 2013, I went on secondment to the ICHR as the Member Secretary or the chief executive of the research body with a three-year tenure. I entered ICHR at a time when the Council had begun to focus – after a long gap – on promoting historical research, putting in place transparent rules and procedures. The Chairperson and most members of that Council were well-regarded professional historians. They were nominated by the government of the day after the Chairperson and Member Secretary sent a list of names. The government made very few changes. But though the then Chairperson’s tenure was coming to an end, the Congress government did nothing – either in terms of giving him a second term to which he was entitled, or by appointing a fresh Chairperson. UPA-2 appeared to have thrown in the towel much before their electoral debacle.

The Council worked without a Chairperson till the end of May when the modest and soft-spoken Professor Y. Sudershan Rao was appointed. Professor Rao, though not well known to the community of historians, had been a member of the Council of the ICHR during the earlier period of NDA rule. Immediately after his appointment, he gave a series of interviews to the press in which he appears to have honestly spoken his mind and outlined his agenda for Indian history. This is important, as it suggests the view of history that the BJP wants to popularise.

During NDA I, Professor Rao claims, he was awarded a UGC National Fellowship to work on the “Proposed Application of Pendulum Theory of Oscillation between Spirituality and Materialism based on the Cosmic Phenomenon and Indian Yuga (Epoch) Systemic Approach, of the deterioration of Dharma to the Historical process”. He also mentioned that his academic work included research on the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata project aimed to establish an exact date for the epic. In an interview published in Outlook, he said:

Western schools of thought look at material evidence of history. We can’t produce material evidence for everything. India is a continuing civilisation. To look for evidence would mean digging right though the hearts of villages and displacing people. We only have to look at the people to figure out the similarities in their lives and the depiction in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. For instance, the Ramayana mentions that Rama travelled to Bhadrachalam (in Andhra Pradesh). A look at the people and the fact that his having lived there for a while is in the collective memory of the people cannot be discounted in the search for material evidence. In continuing civilisations such as ours, the writing of history cannot depend only on archaeological evidence. We have to depend on folklore too.

Similarly, Rao supported the theory of a greater India: “The ICHR should encourage research about India and Greater India – from South-East Asia all the way to Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. There is enough archaeological evidence to show the connect of our civilisation there.”

Despite the fact that topics such as religion and caste have been subjects of philosophical discussions and debates for many years, and the fact that innumerable academic works of repute have been published on these subjects, Sudershan Rao’s views on such topics bear an unpolished, uninformed colour. For example, to a question on the accusation that he may try to foreground a simplistic religious interpretation of history, he said: “Religions are recent manifestations. I feel there’s only Sanatana Dharma. There was no conflict between communities or on religious lines as there was only one Sanatana Dharma. Now there are several reasons for conflict to take place. Besides, Muslims are the only ones who have retained their distinct culture. Can Christians or Muslims say all religions are one? A Hindu can say that. There was no conflict when there was Sanatana Dharma. Conflict or contests came about when temples were destroyed and mosques built on the sites in medieval times.”

His view is very simple: Indian history, with Sanatana Dharma as its prime mover and guiding force, was harmonious till the coming of the Muslims. They introduced conflict and distorted the caste system. It logically follows that to rediscover the past of India, we should go back to the Vedas and sources from a period uncontaminated by contacts between Muslims and Hindus.

When Rao took over, he still had to work with the old Council members. The new Chairperson expressed his views on history in public lectures and newspaper interviews; but, wisely, he did not initiate any major changes, fully aware of possible resistance from the Council. It took the new government another three months to make nominations to the new Council. Past practice has been that the Chairperson and the Member Secretary send a list of names to the Ministry, and these are approved with minor or no changes. After many reminders, the Chairperson asked me to draw up a list of possible names. There was no discussion between us on the list that I had given him. Finally, he said that he had sent the names to the Ministry. None of my names was on the list, and I am not sure how many of the Chairman’s names were finally considered for membership to the Council. For weeks the Delhi press speculated on the names of the new Council members on the basis of unofficial information from the Ministry. Finally, when the new Council was officially announced, none of the eight earlier members who could have been given a second term, found a place. The eighteen historians on the Council, except for three or four, were affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Itihaasa Yojana, the RSS’ Kerala based Bharatiya Vichara Kendra, the BJP, or think-tanks supportive of the BJP.

Indian historians criticised the government for selecting a Chairperson and members who were largely unknown to their peers. The press emphasised the political motives of the Ministry.

Months after the notification, when the new Council met for the first time at the end of March 2014, a routine meeting turned out to be a prolonged outpouring of anger and venom against the Council – notwithstanding the fact that many on this Council had received funds or had contributed to the output of the ICHR. The venomous anger was also directed against history writing and the historians of India. With one or two exceptions, the members loudly demanded the rewriting of history. They debunked earlier research, which they condemned as based on Leftist and Western views of history that consistently denied Indian approaches to historical research.

The newly constituted ICHR emphatically reiterated that the task at hand is to remove distortions from Indian historiography by resorting to an Indian approach that emphasises ancient Indian history. Inspired by this academic goal, they also want to change the constitution of the ICHR that states, inter alia, that the ICHR should promote the writing of scientific history shorn of superstition, and promote secularism and the plural identity of India.

To accomplish the tasks the newly constituted ICHR set for itself, the first step was to invite scholars and gurus who by no stretch of imagination could be considered professional historians. One of these, a Belgian professor, rubbishes Indian historians; another, an American yoga guru, strongly feels we should return to the Vedas and “take the red out of Indian history”.

The second step was to dismiss a renowned historian who had, as Editor, taken the Council’s journal to unprecedented levels of international acceptance. The third step was to disband the entire Advisory Council of the journal that had some of the best historians from around the world – and by no means were they all Marxists. This is when I decided to register my disagreement. But this was not permitted, and I resigned as the Member Secretary of the ICHR less than half-way into my term.

ICHR_logo.svg Wikimedia Commons

Has anything changed since then? What do you think is in store for ICHR?
Within less than a year of my quitting the Council, I heard that Professor Rao had tendered his resignation and had stopped attending office. It is indeed very strange that the Ministry of HRD has neither accepted nor rejected Rao’s resignation. One can only speculate about the reasons why the Ministry has not yet accepted his resignation and appointed another RSS historian. Is it administrative inefficiency, or intra-RSS disagreements, or a still continuing search for an RSS historian of repute?

Unfortunately, I am not hopeful of any positive developments in the Council’s functioning as long as this government is in office. The chronic bureaucratic lethargy of the Ministry, combined with this government’s insistence on RSS-ratified research agendas for Indian history, is a foolproof recipe for undermining the fundamental objectives and functioning of the ICHR.

Why is the discipline of history so important for the current establishment?
Politically, the Council is in the news every time the BJP is in the government. This is understandable. The BJP and the erstwhile Jana Sangh, the parliamentary fronts of the RSS, have continuously sought popular acceptance on the plea that they are the exclusive custodians of nationalism, based on a national identity that is unambiguously Hindu. Since they had no role in the anti-imperialist struggle (remember the repeated written apologies of Savarkar) they go back to a golden Hindu past of the Vedas. They claim the caste system worked well at that time. They claim we had the most advanced technology — our Prime Minister’s speech at the International Science Congress in Mumbai referred to airplanes, automated surface transport and plastic surgery in ancient India. Then what went wrong according to them? Foreigners in the form of Muslims conquered us. That is when, they say, these great institutions of caste, gender equality and improbably rapid technological advance came to a halt.

Historical discourse in India has, by and large, emphasised the plural character of Indian society from the time of the in-migrations of Aryan-speaking peoples, varied cultural patterns and in modern history, and the limited role of the Hindu right in country’s anti-imperialist struggle.

Not surprisingly then, this history does not serve the BJP agenda of creating a Hindu Nation. Hence, the need for a new history. This also explains the unending attempts to provide historical legitimacy to myths and legends. The historical record does not support the nationalism of the Sangh or their claim of Aryan-speaking peoples being indigenous. The Sangh’s simple solution to this hurdle is to rewrite history with scant regard for fact and logic.

The way things stand today, can anything be done about rewritten textbooks?
The earlier NDA government thought that by controlling the ICHR through appointments to its Council, the country’s history could be re-written and offending research could be muzzled. That attempt failed miserably. They did succeed in recalling two volumes by Professors Sumit Sarkar and K.N. Panikkar that were part of the Towards Freedom series from the press. Moneys were granted to once again start research on the Saraswati. But with the change in government, the recalled volumes were published; and the Saraswati research was censured for financial irregularities and academic deficiencies.

The ICHR under NDA-I failed to change the writing of Indian history.

The vastly more powerful present BJP government has overhauled the Council, populating it with history teachers not known to their peers for their research (with one exception). However, about 15 of these 18 historian members have clear links to the RSS’ Akhil Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalan Yojana, or research organizations close to the BJP. The evidence is available in the public domain. This group of historians has not yet produced any research that has intellectually challenged the dominant academic discourse of the country. Academically, it is unlikely that the BJP has the intellectual resources to offer an alternate view of Indian history that will meet even minimum disciplinary standards of historical research. I think the current government realises this, and so there is an attempt to legislate what is national and who is anti-national. In other words, the attempt is to produce a new past for the country by administrative fiat.

Though historians will not accept the Sangh’s administratively prescribed history, the government can easily incorporate this into textbooks. It was tried earlier, and similar attempts have begun once again. Since history is a potent polarising weapon in the hands of a government bent on destroying the plural character of India, the only possible way of countering this rewriting of text books is by exposing misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies in every available popular forum. Selected myths and popular legends cannot be substituted for history. Such a sustained campaign against an agenda-driven writing of history is necessary to prevent what has become, by now, a predictable policy of BJP governments in India. Hopefully, once another political dispensation comes to power in the country that is serious about the autonomy of critical inquiry, safeguards will be put in place to insulate academic institutions from government interference in terms of appointments and the setting of research agendas.

Romare Bearden, untitled drawing from the Iliad series / Pinterest

Is black really “The Islamic Colour for Women”?

May 16, 2016

History of clothing in Arabian Peninsula :
During the early Islamic period, (7th century AD) there were very limited options of hand-woven traditional patterns or plain off-white natural fabric. Only very rich people could afford imported colourful glossy textiles from China, India, Africa or Europe. Aam janata, or the common people, always wore the cheapest and the most easily available clothes.

At around that time women wore dresses that revealed their necks, chests, even breasts as well as other parts of their bodies. They also drew their veils backwards while leaving the front parts wide open (understandable in the crushing desert heat). Consequently, when Islam arrived, they were ordered to draw their veils forward to cover their chest and to protect women from acts of disrespect.

Old Arab Fashion

Some think that the idea of 'the covering' was more about class than it was about religion. In pre-Islam urban centers of the Arabian Peninsula veiling was seen as a sign of privilege and a luxury afforded to women who didn't have to work. They were distinguished from slave girls and sex-workers, who were not allowed to veil or cover, and nomadic and rural women too busy working to be bothered with something so impractical as a face veil and the extra layer of clothing.

The Arrival of Black Abaya (the full body covering for women)
1932: British forces attacked Ottoman Empire and formed KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia it was the first Kingdom of a Bedouin tribe/family called Al-Saud).

1939 to 1945: During World War II, in Europe the issue of mourning in accordance with etiquette and custom required wearing Black. (especially for the war widows).Same black fabric was also exported by the UK to the newly-acquired business destination called KSA.

The Saudi-British trade was not limited to oil and gas; it included everything, food, clothing, vehicles, arms and ammunition, civil construction, industries, media, refineries etc. All of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) needed a new identity and a family's personal code was imposed on the entire kingdom.

The world textile industry was a monopoly of the British Raj, mass producing jet black Sulfur dyed textile was a very profitable business (for the Brits!). This jet black fabric appealed to the Bedouin Royal Priests in KSA, it was more opaque than the mass produced white fabric, therefore the less opaque and more suitable to the KSA climate white fabric became official colour for the males.

And, the Kingdom immediately made this jet black fabric into the official dress code for women. During the same time, there was a need all over the world to impose constraints of all kinds, the governments during and after the World War II, needed rationing of food, and clothing. The textile industry had imposed many constraints on users to stop the wastage of cloth. (This, in turn, by default, brought in fashion design revolution within Europe)

Now, in last 100 years or so, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has managed to export their own Bedouin family culture and tradition as "Islamic" culture and tradition. To justify the Black Abaya, people have come up with strange textual references, that say, for instance, that wearing any other colour is aping non-muslims, and by default, is then, against Islam. (While the black textile that the women are wearing is itself a British industrial mass produced cloth!)

Interestingly the recommended ‘ISLAMIC’ clothes for the Hajj Ritual is WHITE for both men and women, and it is mandatory for women to keep their face visible (not covered).

Saudi Abaya

New Businesses around the Abaya:
Germany's (Henkel) & UK's (Unilever) found a great business scope, they came up with a product called "Persil Abaya", it is specialised detergents for cleaning the black abaya. It is one of the most popular detergents and widely favoured in every Saudi, Qatari, Omani, Kuwaiti household.

Also the suppliers of both the Black and White fabrics (mostly European-reseller companies who source their fabric from Asia) and don't want KSA to change the dress code.

Re-inventing the Saudi abaya:
A Riyadh based designer Eman Al-Mandeel has updated the traditional black Saudi abaya with luxurious fabrics and colour – and her creations have been an unexpected success. While tolerance of Al-Mandeel’s designs in Saudi Arabia may mark a step towards greater acceptance of women in Saudi life, it is worth reminding ourselves that the many rights that women lack in Saudi Arabia cannot be bought on a shopping trip.

(The author is a communication designer)

Refrences:
1. The Abaya: Fashion, Religion, and Identity in a Globalized World by Elizabeth D. Shimek, Lawrence University
2. Sulphur Dye
3. French Fashion during the First World War
4. DISCOVER THE ARAB WORLD : British Museum
5. The History of the Abaya, By James Brack
7. Islamic women with hijab, niqab, mysterious eyes, purdah, chador, modesty, covered, hidden, secret, Islamic women covered from the world
8. Persil Abaya : Gives Abaya a pleasant fragrance, has a special fragrance that was chosen after research with Saudi consumers.
9. The impact of World War II on women's fashion in the United States and Britain, Meghann Mason, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
10. World War II and Fashion: The Birth of the New Look, Lauren Olds, Illinois, Wesleyan University
11. Reinventing the Saudi abaya
12. Saudi abaya comes into fashion
13.The color black may seem like an odd addition to fabric celebrating a wedding, but there was a reason for the color choice. German firms were the most important manufacturers of synthetic textile dyes and colorants in the early 20th century. In March 1915, several months after the beginning of World War I, the British navy began to blockade German ports, preventing any exports of goods overseas. As a result, the textile and paper industries in the still-neutral United States suffered a serious shortage of good quality synthetic (chemically based) dyes. "Sulfur black" was the one dye that firms outside Germany produced in quantity and of consistent quality. Some firms reverted to old technology, and tried to adapt old formulas for natural dyes to modern industrial needs, but the quantities were small and the color range limited, and not always fast to light or washing.

Fashion magazines from the period illustrate the efforts by many leading American textile and fashion manufacturers to create a fad for black and white clothing and accessories. French and English fashion firms, suffering under the same dye shortage, were also promoting black and white. In those countries, however, already at war, black and white clothing carried overtones of loss and mourning that were not yet relevant to most Americans.

Constitutional Cautions: Vice President and President Speak

May 16, 2016

Two Years of the Modi Regime: Admonitions from Top Constitutional Posts

Image: PTI

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. And, in that sense, the past 24 months of the Modi regime have been special, in that they have seen, possibly for the first time in independent India’s history, public and premonitory observations from the country’s two top constitutional posts, the President and the Vice President (VP). Several times.

Eminent jurist, Fali Nariman, not so far back, on April 5 and 8 this year publicly endorsed what VP Hamid Ansari had stated days before at his convocation address in Jammu (‘VP calls on Supreme Court to help clarify and strengthen secularism’, Indian Express, April 3 ) and in fact three days later, went several steps further. Nariman endorsed Hamid Ansari’s views stating that “A head of state (a vice head as well) must speak, extra-constitutionally, and more often, about basic constitutional values, especially since neither of these distinguished personages has any role to play in adjudicating upon them.”

Nariman, a widely respected jurist, did not stop at that. Three days later, speaking at a book release function at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in the presence of both President Pranab Mukherjee and Chief Justice TS Thakur, Nariman addressed himself directly to the Constitutional head of the Indian republic as he sought to underscore the importance of dissent and the republican form of democracy in India. “Mr President, I have been deeply worried and concerned over the past several months with an impression fast-gaining ground amongst large number of thinking persons in this country that it is only with executive powers concentrated in one person that this country can be more effectively governed. I beg to differ,” he said

Days before, on April 3 delivering his Convocation address at the university of Jammu, Vice-President Hamid Ansari had urged the court to clarify contours within which secularism and composite culture should operate so as to remove ambiguities. Addressing the 16th convocation of Jammu University here, Ansari also wondered whether a more complete separation of religion and politics might not better serve Indian democracy. He said that a few years ago, in a volume published on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of the Supreme Court, lawyers Rajeev Dhavan and Fali S Nariman had observed that “as we transit into the next millennium, the Supreme Court has a lot to reflect upon, and not least on how to protect the minorities and their ilk from the onslaught of majoritarianism…..

"Unless the court strives to assure that the Constitution applies fairly to all citizens, Ansari said, the court cannot be said to have fulfilled its responsibility. “Is it therefore bold to expect that the Supreme Court may consider, in its wisdom, to clarify the contours within which the principles of secularism and composite culture should operate with a view to strengthen their functional modality and remove ambiguities?”

That was in April. Before that in February 2016, when Hamid Ansari delivered the address on Scientific Temper and the Media while address after launching of new look Rajya Sabha TV and inaugurating a panel discussion on “Scientific Temper: A pre-requisite for Knowledge based Society,” on January 10, 2016 he had observed that the media, given its privileged position, has a responsibility to challenge the rampant obscurantism and superstition that afflict our society..” Further, he said, “ It is here that education has to play a critical role. Unfortunately, our education system is insufficiently equipped to inculcate Scientific Temper in young minds. Over the years, the quantum of scientific information in the country has increased but has not brought about science-mindedness in sufficient measure…. The use of mass media as a means of transmitting science related information is perhaps the most important bulwark in our fight against ignorance and irrationality. The media, given its privileged position, has a responsibility to challenge the rampant obscurantism and superstition that afflict our society.

In November 21, 2014, delivering the 8^th Tarkunde Memorial Lecture at New Delhi, Hamid Ansari had stressed on the responsibility of the state in the protection of human rights In thus lecture he had stressed, “Despite the constitutional and legal guarantees, religious minorities continue to be target of violence and discrimination from time to time. Patterns of systematic mobilisation of hate and divisive politics are discernable; in many cases these have been pursued with impunity. The same holds for other weaker sections of society including SCs and STs, women, children and persons with disabilities. Credible data on these is available in government, academic and civil society reports. These cut at the root of the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity and equal access to justice and highlight the failure of the State to act appropriately. As we embark on the path of rapid economic growth and development, the issue of finding a balance between traditional rights of citizens, with environmental imperatives and economic objectives will have to be addressed by State; else, social tensions will undermine the development agenda.”

Then there was the First Ram Manohar Lohia Memorial National Lecture organized by a university in Gwalior on September 23, 2015. The moment was critical. There has been a series of sharp and aggressive efforts by the central agencies against dissenting voices, rights activists and organisations fighting for rights.“Dissent as a right has been recognised by the Supreme Court of India as one aspect of the Right of Freedom of Speech guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution," VP Hamid Ansari had said. “Despite the unambiguously stated position in law, civil society concerns about constraints on the right of dissent in actual practice have been articulated powerfully." Referring to the new reporting requirements for NGOs, he said, "Nothing is more fatal for disagreements and dissent than the idea that all of it can be reduced to hidden sub-texts or external agendas. The idea that anyone who disagrees with my views must be the carrier of someone else's subversive agenda is, in some ways, deeply anti-democratic. "It does away with the possibility of genuinely good faith disagreement. It denies equal respect to citizens because it absolves you of taking their ideas seriously. Once we have impugned the source, we don't have to pay attention to the contents of the claim.. This has serious consequences for dissent," he said."Every citizen of the Republic has the right and the duty to judge. Herein lies the indispensability of dissent," he said.

The Vice President has always made studied speeches. He hands out a written text as is protocol. He one delivered on August 31, 2015 at the 50^th jubilee celebrations of the All India Majlis-e-Mushawarat and I this he posed both the problems of affirmative action –and absence of serious implementation of measures by the state as also the attitude of sections of the community themselves. Yet the rabble rousers among the Sangh Parivar launched an all out attack.

In this speech, Affirmative action for Muslims is key, says Vice President Hamid Ansari Vice President Hamid Ansari had said, “the official objective of sab ka sath sab ke vikas is commendable; a pre-requisite for this is affirmative action (where necessary) to ensure a common starting point and an ability in all to walk at the required pace. This ability has to be developed through individual, social and governmental initiatives that fructify on the ground. Programmes have been made in abundance; the need of the hour is their implementation.” The Vice President also called upon the Muslim community to respond to the times.

Apart from sections of the VHP and RSS asking him to ‘apologise’ senior scribes were also unapologetically peeved by the Vice President’s words of caution, especially those uttered in April 2016. The same voices were not heard admonishing the sectarian and rabid trolls who attacked the Vice President on Republic Day of 2015 on the issue of saluting the national flag, however. Or commenting on the deafening silence from the Executive.

[VHP Joint General Secretary Surendra Jain described this as a “political” and “communal”statement. He insisted that the demand was designed to “push Muslims into the dark alleys of dissatisfaction whose consequences will be dangerous.” He said that the statement did not befit the office of the Vice President. Worse still, Ram Madhav of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who is now a senior BJP functionary lashed out at the Vice President for ‘not attending the Yoga Day Celebrations’, much publicized and held by Narendra Modi. ]

At the time of the unseemly controversy around the saluting of the national flag, this author had written, “Or the vitriol unleashed on the anti-social media against our vice President Hamid Ansari because he observed protocol and did not salute the national flag? It seems that no matter how many times a Muslim swears his allegiance to India, doubts will always be cast. The disgusting levels of discourse on twitter and facebook, using labels like ‘Jehadi sympathiser’, ‘anti-India’ and ‘traitor’ for Mr Ansari will most certainly not be acted upon. The otherwise over-zealous IB and police machinery will cynically allow this abuse of our Vice President to simply happen, and pass…

What is the actual protocol? According to section VI of the Flag Code of India, , "During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag, or when the flag is passing in a parade or in a review, all persons present should face the Flag and stand at attention. Those present in uniform should render the appropriate salute". Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Pranab Mukherjee, vice president Ansari, US President Barack Obama, defence minister Manohar Parrikar were not in uniform and were therefore not required to salute the flag. Yet Ansari, by observing protocol has become the target of bitter and violent hate-letting.’ There was a studied and indecorous silence from the PMO.

The Vice President of India is the second highest constitutional office in the country. If the President Pranab Mukherjee has spoken out somewhat less, VP Hamid Ansari has been sharp and succinct in raising issues of serious concern in the past 24 months. This is the second term of this Vice President and Mr Ansari occupies the post until 2017.

Along with the post of President, the position of Vice President is crucial for upholding the dignity and core constitutional values of the state. It is under Articles 63-73 of the Constitution that the VP of India holds office for a term of five years. The Vice President is also the Chairman of the Council of States that is the Rajya Sabha and in this position he is part of Parliament. He thus has two distinct and dual roles; in the constitutional set up, the holder of the office of VP he is part of the executive and in the second he is part of Parliament. He steps in for President in the former’s absence and is also consulted on policies though not in the day-to-day affairs of the State.

During the Indepedence Day speech last year, August 2015, President Pranab Mukherjee had said, "Our democracy is creative because it is plural, but diversity must be nourished with tolerance and patience. Vested interests chip away at social harmony, in an attempt to erode many centuries of secularism." In th wake of the ghastly and shameful lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq at Dadri last September, the President had again spoken saying that ‘Tolerance core to India’s survival’. Again on the occasion of the Holi festival in March 2016 he urged Indians to recall their basic composite culture.

History will recall and remember the studied words of both the Vice President Hamid Ansari as also the words of the President Pranab Mukherjee, well.

जल-संकट (लातूर-ग्रामीण क्षेत्र)-3: जय जवान, मर किसान!

May 16, 2016

कुछ लोग किसान आत्महत्याओं को फैशन बताते हैं, तो कुछ प्रेम-प्रसंगों को आत्महत्या का कारण बताते हैं.लातूर के जल-संकट की बात करने पर दिल्ली का पढ़ा-लिखा युवा कहता है कि लातूर-वासी जल का अपव्यय करते रहे होंगे. ऐसी संवेदनहीनता हमारे वक़्त में पहले कब देखी गई होगी? हम सब इतने संवेदनहीन हो चुके हैं कि किसान आत्महत्या हमारे लिए एक ख़बर है, पानी की कमी और सूखे से हो रही मौत हमारे लिए एक ख़बर है, लूह से हो रही मौत हमारे लिए एक ख़बर है, कई बार तो ख़बर भी नहीं.

हम तो हम जैसे हैं ही, हमारी सरकारें भी हमारे जैसी ही हैं; जो नवउदारवादी नीतियाँ लागू करती हैं और कृषि के नए तरीकों से किसानों को जानबूझकर नहीं जोड़ती. बीज संचित नहीं करने देती जिससे की बीज व्यापारियों का धंधा फले-फूले और हर वर्ष किसानों को हाथ फैलाना पड़े. जब साल-दर-साल सूखे की स्थिति गहराती जा रही थी तो मराठवाड़ा के किसान गन्ने की खेती के लिए ही क्यों मजबूर थे? क्या यह न माना जाए कि सरकारों का सरोकार चीनी मिलों के मालिकों के लिए है, किसानों के लिए नहीं? आज 750-800 फीट नीचे भी पानी का कोई पता नहीं है. जलस्तर एक दिन में तो इतना नीचे नहीं आया होगा.जिस इलाके में जल का इतना भारी संकट है, वहाँ धड़ल्ले से बोतल-बंद पानी बिकता रहता है. पानी के दलालों का कब्ज़ा पूरे शहर में दिखता है. सरकारी स्रोतों पर जल नहीं मिलेगा पर एक फोन कॉल करने पर महंगी दरों पर पानी के दलाल टैंकर लेकर आपके दरवाज़े पर पहुँच जायेंगे. यह सब तो शहरों के लिए है. भेजी जा रही ट्रेनें, नगर-निगम के टैंकर, पानी के दलाल सब लातूर-शहर के लिए हैं. तो ग्रामीण-क्षेत्रों का क्या? इन्हीं ख़यालों को मथते बीड़ से लौटकर हम वापस लातूर पहुँचे. गायत्री नगर वाले रामभाऊ हमें लातूर के गांवों में ले जाने वाले थे. लातूर बसस्थानक से हमने लातूर रोड के लिए बस पकड़ी. 18 किमी दूर जहाँ हम उतरे, मालूम चला कि गांव का नाम ही लातूररोड है. रामभाऊ के साथ लातूररोड गांव के ही दुर्गेश आ गये और गांव के कुंए पर ले गए. यह कुआं पहला जलस्रोत था जिसमें पानी के दर्शन हुए थे. कुंए की तली में बैठा,चमकता,गंदला.एक महिला घड़े को रस्सी के सहारे कुंए में उतार पानी खुरच-खुरच कर अपने घड़े में भरने की कोशिश कर रही थी. दुर्गेश भाऊ ने बताया कि गांव की आबादी 5000 है. फ़रवरी के बाद से जलस्तर 2 मीटर नीचे चला गया है.हर घर में बोर मिलेगा पर फ़रवरी के बाद से उसमें भी पानी नहीं आता है, उसके पहले थोड़ा-थोड़ा आ जाता था. इस इलाके में भी जलस्तर 700 फीट से भी नीचे चला गया है. 15 किमी दूर चाकुर तहसील के पास एक तालाब से पानी टैंकरों में भरकर गांव में पहुंचाया जाता है. पहले आओ, पहले पाओ वाला मामला चलता है. कई बार बहुत-से परिवारों को पानी नहीं मिल पाता है.आस-पास वन सावर गांव, सांगवी, मोहनाल, घरनी,बडमाल, चाकोर आदि गांव हैं.चाकोर के पास एक तालाब है, जो अब सूख चुका है. लातूर रोड गांव और इसके आस-पास के सभी गांवों ने उस सूखे तालाब में बोरिंग की है, जिससे हर रोज़ एक टैंकर एक गांव में जाता है.तालाब से औसतन 3 टैंकर पानी एक दिन में निकाला जाता है. दुर्गेश भाऊ ने बताया कि सरकार ने जनवरी में छोटे गांवों के लिए पानी के 2 टैंकर और लातूर रोड जैसे बड़े गांवों के लिए 3 टैंकर तय किये पर आज तक ऐसा हो नहीं पाया. पूरा गांव किसानी करता है पर 5 साल से खेती नहीं होती तो अब बहुत-से किसान मजदूरी करने लगे हैं, वहीं बहुत-से किसान मजदूर नहीं हो पा रहे हैं और आत्महत्या के मुहाने पर खड़े हैं. मैं देख रहा था कि कुंए से पानी भर रही महिला अब जा चुकी थी और दूसरी महिला घड़े और रस्सी लिए पानी भरने के लिए आ गई थी. मैंने रामभाऊ से पूछा, क्या गांव में कुंए से पानी भरने के लिए साझा रस्सी नहीं होती? अब अपनी-अपनी रस्सी ले आते हैं? रामभाऊ बोले,‘सब किसान हैं, अगर आत्महत्या करनी होगी तो क्या करेंगे? किसी और से तो रस्सी मांगने नहीं न जायेंगे.इसलिए सबके पास अपनी रस्सी होती है.’ इतना कहकर रामभाऊ जोर-से हँस पड़े और मैं मुस्कुरा भी नहीं पाया.

वहाँ से निकल बगल के गांव मोहनाल में गए हम. गांव के सरपंच ज्ञानेश्वर पांचाल (34 वर्ष) और उनकी माताजी लक्षमबाई पांचाल मिली. उनके घर के भीतर एक बावड़ी(कुआं) है, जिससे पूरा गांव पीने के लिए पानी ले जाता है. ज्ञानेश्वर बताते हैं कि 11 महीने से टैंकरों पर निर्भर है पूरा गांव. इसके पहले गांव में दो बोर हुआ करते थे जिससे पानी मिल जाता था. पर स्थितियां अब बदल चुकी हैं और ऐसा ही रहा तो गांव के लोग गांव छोड़कर कहीं और चले जायेंगे.नहीं गए तो क्या होगा के सवाल पर ज्ञानेश्वर की ऑंखें शून्य में कुछ कुरेदने लगती हैं, कुछ कहती नहीं. मोहनाल में एक परिवार मिला जिसमें मार्च महीने में आत्महत्या हुई थी. महिला किसान महादेवी राम मिरकले(35वर्ष) ने आत्महत्या कर ली थी. ज्ञानेश्वर बताते हैं कि घर में कुछ खाने को रह नहीं गया था, मजदूरी मिल नहीं रही थी, सहकारी बैंक क़र्ज़ 2 साल से क़र्ज़ देना बंद कर चुके हैं, साहूकार क़र्ज़ देते हैं पर इतने ज्यादा ब्याज पर कि ब्याज एक साल में मूलधन से ज्यादा हो चुका होता है.महादेवी के पति पैर से अपाहिज हैं.महादेवी के दो छोटे बच्चे हैं.

पिछले साल पूरे गांव ने पानी के टैंकर मंगवाकर टमाटर की खेती की थी पर उसमें भी नुकसान हो गया. जिसके कारण पूरे गांव की स्थिति अब कमजोर हो चुकी है. आप लोग जाकर प्रशासन को घेर क्यों नहीं लेते के सवाल पर ज्ञानेश्वर कहते हैं कि ऐसा ही कुछ करना पड़ेगा वरना इलाका छोड़ के जाना पड़ेगा. यहाँ रहेंगे और कुछ करेंगे नहीं तो सब मारे जायेंगे.

लातूर रोड, मोहनाल सहित आस-पास के ग्रामीणों ने मिलकर जनवरी में एक खेत में 6 बोर करवाए थे. आशा थी कि पानी मिलने लगेगा. पर ऐसा नहीं हुआ. एक बोर का खर्चा आया था 1.5 लाख रूपये. मतलब की पूरे 9 लाख रूपये डूब गए.

लौटते हुए हम सब चाय पी रहे थे.दुर्गेशभाऊ बता रहे थे कि पिछले 5 साल में चाकुर तहसील में 35 किसानों ने आत्महत्या की थी और इस साल के 5 महीनों में 32 किसान आत्महत्या कर चुके हैं. सामने बैठा एक लड़का सिगरेट पी रहा था और मैं डिब्बी को देखकर बुदबुदा रहा था, ‘एग्रीकल्चर इज एन्जूरियस टू हेल्थ’.

कितनी तेज़ी से बदल गया है पूरा इलाका; स्थितियों के साथ-साथ, स्थितियों से कटा-कटा. 1993 से पहले तक इन इलाकों में 200 से अधिक संस्थाएँ काम करती थीं और आज गिनी चुनी एक-आध संस्थाएँ ही मिलती हैं, जिनका स्पष्ट तौर पर या तो कोई एजेंडा होता है या मिडिलक्लास रोमांटिसिस्म में पैसा बहाने चली आती हैं. जय जवान, जय किसान का नारा देने वाला हमारा देश किसान आत्महत्याओं पर चुप रहता है. हमारी देशभक्ति क्रिकेट मैच के परिणामों पर फड़कती रहती है पर हम किसान आत्महत्याओं पर टीवी नहीं फोड़ते. उबासी लेते आगे बढ़ जाते हैं. हमारा बौद्धिक वर्ग किसानों को अभिशप्त मानता है,किसान आत्महत्याओं पर कविता, कहानी, लेख, उपन्यास बहुत कुछ लिखा जाता है पर किसान कविताओं में आकर भी दम तोड़ देता है, कहानी में भी उसकी मौत होती है, लेखों में वह महज़ एक आकड़ा होता है, उपन्यासों में कुंए में कूदकर अपनी जान दे देता है. आप सोच रहे होंगे कि मैं जल-संकट की बात से किसान आत्महत्याओं पर कैसे पहुँच गया. इसका जवाब यही है कि पानी और खेत का रिश्ता बना रहे, बहुत जरूरी है. किसानों के जीवन का आधार है यह रिश्ता. आप अगर मेरी भावना से अब भी नहीं जुड़ पा रहे तो इसमें किसानों की गलती मत खोजिएगा, मेरी कमी मानियेगा.

Images: Devesh Tripathi and Anupam Sinha

Related Stories

जल-संकट (लातूर-शहर) -1 : यह हमारी सभ्यता के अंत की शुरुआत है

जल-संकट-2 (साबलखेड़-योगिता के गांव): बारिश किस चिड़िया का नाम?

1...2,5432,5442,545...2,697 Page 2,544 of 2,697

The Most Honest Politician in Latin America was removed by the Most Corrupt

Historical Speech of Brazilian President Dilma Roussef (with English Subtitles)
Video and Transcript

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday, MAy 15 as a hostile and corruption-tainted congress voted to impeach her.

Appropriating Icons, Now Its Tina Dabi’s Turn

Why are Modi Bhakts and Votaries of the Hindu Rashtra so Keen to Appropriate Dalit Woman UPSC Topper Tina Dabi?
Bhakts tried to say Tina Dabi was Anti-Reservation, Tina Dabi Clarifies her Views on Facebook

Is our Democracy Cracking, asks India’s 26th Chief Justice, A.M. Ahmadi

Two Years of the Modi Regime: India's 26th Chief Justice makes some sharp observations through this leading question

How Sangh Parivar and ‘Dalit Capitalists’ are Sanitising Dr Ambedkar’s Radical Vision

The Sanatan Dharma Recipe for Historical Writing and Research

Is black really “The Islamic Colour for Women”?

Constitutional Cautions: Vice President and President Speak

Two Years of the Modi Regime: Admonitions from Top Constitutional Posts

जल-संकट (लातूर-ग्रामीण क्षेत्र)-3: जय जवान, मर किसान!

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Historical Speech of Brazilian President Dilma Roussef (with English Subtitles)Video and Transcript

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday, MAy 15 as a hostile and corruption-tainted congress voted to impeach her.

Why are Modi Bhakts and Votaries of the Hindu Rashtra so Keen to Appropriate Dalit Woman UPSC Topper Tina Dabi?Bhakts tried to say Tina Dabi was Anti-Reservation, Tina Dabi Clarifies her Views on Facebook

Two Years of the Modi Regime: India's 26th Chief Justice makes some sharp observations through this leading question

Two Years of the Modi Regime: Admonitions from Top Constitutional Posts

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Historical Speech of Brazilian President Dilma Roussef (with English Subtitles)
Video and Transcript

Why are Modi Bhakts and Votaries of the Hindu Rashtra so Keen to Appropriate Dalit Woman UPSC Topper Tina Dabi?
Bhakts tried to say Tina Dabi was Anti-Reservation, Tina Dabi Clarifies her Views on Facebook