Webs of complicity: Reading Moravia’s ‘The Conformist’ in India today

March 14, 2016

Italian literature and cinema have explored the issue of fascism in more subtle and fascinating ways than most comparable traditions elsewhere in Europe. In Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (1970), Elio Petri’s brilliant political thriller about a police commissioner who murders his lover in cold blood, then deliberately leaves clues at the scene of the crime to demonstrate his own untouchability by the law, Petri gave us a theory of the state in its most lucid and penetrating form, set against the background of the political turmoil in Italy in the late sixties.
Alberto Moravia’s earlier, even more brilliant novel The Conformist, published in 1951, was structured on comparable lines, exploring the deep structures of the fascist state in Italy under Mussolini. Moravia himself had been ostracised under fascism, having his books seized or banned, and had an acute sense of how ‘society’ adapted to regimes of the most authoritarian kind. The essay below summarises the story in the novel and shows why its underlying themes (the search for ‘normality’ and the wider complicities abetted by this) resonate or should resonate with us in India today

The great Italian writer Alberto Moravia(1907–1990) published The Conformist in 1951, less than a decade after the fall of fascism in Italy. The English translation of the novel by Tami Calliope runs to some 320 pages. The novel has an exceptionally strong plot line and the narrative is conveyed entirely through the eyes of its hero or anti-hero, a young Italian called Marcello Clerici.

The story revolves around a mission to assassinate his former professor, one Edmondo Quadri, who has left Italy to play an active role against fascism from his newly chosen base in Paris. Quadri leaves his academic job in Italy when Marcello is still a student, and one surmises from the briefest chronological hints in Moravia’s novel that this must have been some time at the end of the1920s.

The assassination of Quadri is in many ways the narrative backbone of the novel, which is partly told like a thriller. However, the chief interest or even contribution of the work lies in what it tells us about Marcello himself and in the retrospective act of reflexion which makes the reader ask, at the end perhaps, ‘so why did he call it “The Conformist”?’ She’s bound to ask this because the words ‘conformist’, ‘conformism’ don’t appear even once across the tense expanse of Moravia’s story.

The novel is divided into a Prologue of three chapters (approx. 60 pages), Part One (approx 80 pages), a long Part Two (of close to 140 pages) and a brief Epilogue (just over 30 pages). The structure alone shows that the narrative concentration is in Part Two, which deals with the mission itself, that is, Marcello and his wife leaving for Paris on their honeymoon and Marcello setting Quadri up for the assassination by passing crucial information on to an agent he works with called Orlando.

Both the Prologue and Part One set the scene for these chapters but they do so through a vivid intense portrait of the protagonist. The Prologue is about Marcello as a child driven by an obsessive sense of his own ‘abnormality’. The term appears repeatedly through the novel, as does its ostensible opposite ‘normality’, even more frequently. Marcello’s ‘abnormality’ is not a physical one, it is entirely of his own making and linked, in his mind, to acts of violence that stemmed or once stemmed from a childish cruelty.

Philosophically Moravia was probably closest to existentialism but to an existentialism of despair such as Kierkegaard’s more than one of choice and moral dilemma such as Sartre’s. Marcello’s character is repeatedly painted in terms of an underlying anguish or melancholy that he’s never quite able to pin down and which may well have a lot to do with his loveless childhood in a home dominated by a violent father.

What he was about to do, he reflected, was certainly much worse than killing a few lizards; just the same, so many people were with him…’ In short, here was a criminality no longer suffered in solitude and therefore perhaps not criminality at all. The crime of Quadri’s murder, Marcello reflects at one point, ‘would have been a crime if he had not known how to justify and make sense of it’

The Prologue, immersed in the memory of this drab childhood, contains two seminal events of the type that Sartre himself in Saint Genet came to call ‘original crises’. These are events that have the potential to define the rest of your life, so forceful or traumatic is one’s experience of them in childhood.

The first of these crises is the rapid escalation of Marcello’s acts of violence from a wanton destruction of a flower bed to a mass slaughter of lizards to the killing of the neighbour’s cat. When Marcello kills the cat, he does so unknowingly, firing shots from a sling at a mass of ivy in the garden that separates his own from the neighbour’s and with the vague thought that his childhood friend Roberto may well be there behind the fence. He is mortified to find that he has killed Roberto’s cat and could well have killed Roberto himself.

The feelings of shame and remorse that dog him then and for much of his childhood lie at the root of Marcello’s deep need for absolution either through the complicity of others, such as when he tells Roberto about the slaughtered lizards but fails to evince any approval, or by ‘being the same as everyone’, absolutely indiscriminately ‘normal’.

The second ‘original crisis’ as I called it is more devastating for Marcello. Once he starts going to school, he is often ragged for being effeminate. The same ambiguity that Moravia hinted at in the killing of the cat (Marcello could have killed Roberto if he’d been there) recurs here as a motif of sexual ambivalence. This culminates in a group of his classmates (his ‘fiercest tormentors’) following him from school one day and then pouncing on him to forcibly tie a girl’s skirt round him.

He is saved from this attack by a man in a dark gray uniform who turns out to be someone now working as a chauffeur who was, in his own description, a defrocked priest. This man, Lino, is a pederast and takes Marcello home. Nothing happens on this occasion but the following Monday when they meet again (Lino has promised to give him a pistol if he comes home with him again), he flings Marcello into the bedroom, throws him onto the bed, and starts to assault him sexually. Marcello grabs the gun which is lying on the bed and fires at Lino.

This act of homicide, as Marcello imagines it to be, concludes the Prologue, filling Marcello, once again, with a ‘stunned premonition of doom’, just as the killing of the cat had inspired him with the sense of a ‘solitary and threatening destiny’, the feeling that in ‘some fatal and mysterious way’ he was ‘predestined to commit acts of cruelty and death’. Like remorse, like the need for absolution and the ‘desperate aspiration’ for ‘normality’, this sense of being ‘predestined’, of having no control over the things you do or will do, is a major leitmotif in The Conformist.

Let me run through the major parts of the story as rapidly as I can. The four chapters of Part One largely revolve around Giulia, Marcello’s wife to be and the role this marriage and the fabric of domesticity connected with it play in constructing a sense of normality for him. But it starts with him going to the public library to look up old newspaper reports of the death of Lino; and then to ‘the ministry’, we are not told exactly which one, to learn of his assignment to assassinate his old professor.

As with his impending marriage, Marcello’s insertion into normality hinges even more decisively on this assignment or ‘mission’. Between these episodes, both in the same chapter, Moravia inserts a passage that I shall come back to, because it strikes me as one of the best insights I myself have read into the nature of contemporary politics.

This part of the novel also includes a chapter where Marcello who is not a religious person by any stretch goes to Santa Maria Maggiore for confession. In the confessional he tells the priest about his encounter with Lino and the subsequent killing, but holds back from saying anything about the murder he will be committing.

Part One ends with a searing description of the madness of Marcello’s father whom he and his mother have gone to visit in an asylum. Marcello was frightened by the thought that there might be a link between his father’s madness and his own distressing sense of abnormality.

Part Two is the narrative crux of the novel. The eleven chapters that make it up move rapidly across a series of encounters that Marcello and Giulia now have with Quadri and his wife Lina (Anna in Bertolucci’s film of the novel), all of this of course in Paris. Here Moravia introduces a new theme entirely, of the violent sexual attraction that Marcello now feels for Lina, which he himself thinks of as ‘love’.

Bound up with this new feeling (Marcello doesn’t love Giulia, he has married her because he needs the stability that his life with her will offer) is an ‘intoxicating sensation of freedom’, the sense that if his feelings are reciprocated he can start an entirely new life, even betraying his ‘political faith’. This ‘new and violent emotion’ as Moravia describes it, generates the dream of an ‘angelic kind of normality’ secured by ‘the strength of love alone’. But Lina, it turns out, detests him and makes no effort to conceal this. She hates him politically because her husband has told her that Marcello is almost certainly a fascist spy, and finds him no less repugnant physically, since she, on the contrary, is strongly attracted to Giulia.
In the interval between their first meeting at Quadri’s apartment and the dinner scheduled by them for that evening, Marcello walks through Paris delirious at the idea of a possible affair with Lina. But when he returns to the hotel, the concierge tells him that his wife has gone up to the room ‘with a lady’. Sure that Lina has come as well, he enters the room without knocking and finds the door to the bedroom slightly ajar. Giulia is sitting on the bed half naked and Lina is embracing her legs with both arms and pressing her breasts against Giulia’s shins.

It was clear to Marcello that while Giulia was flirting, Lina was simply mad with desire for her. He watches them for a while and then heads for the stairs, profoundly shaken. Again Moravia brings in the theme of ambiguity, this time an intensely sexual one, the ‘ambiguous figures of men-women and women-men who crossed paths at random, doubling and mingling their ambiguity’ (p. 237). Marcello promptly abandons his dream of a life with Lina and readjusts painfully to the mission he has come to Paris to pull off.

Moravia’s chapter describing their dinner that evening has the agent Orlando follow them into the restaurant (Marcello has to identify the target by shaking hands with him so Orlando can see what Quadri looks like), and from time to time Orlando’s head stares at Marcello in one of those massive mirrors that Parisian restaurants are so full of, looking as if it’s ‘suspended in midair’. Moravia alludes to this image at least three times in the chapter, for example, Marcello ‘lifted his eyes to the mirror again: Orlando’s head was still there, suspended in the void, his eyes fixed on them’. The dinner itself is laden with the most subtle emotional intrigues as Lina navigates between her passion for Giulia and her repugnance for Marcello. By the end of the evening, Marcello, repeatedly rebuffed, has developed a ‘bloody, murderous hatred’ for Lina, but a hatred ‘mixed in with and inseparable from his love’. In the end, Marcello lets the agent know exactly what Quadri’s movements will be the next day.

This, the longest part of the novel, ends with Marcello back in Rome, scanning the French papers to discover that both Quadri and his wife were murdered out in the countryside. Orlando tells him that an order from the ministry countermanding the assassination because it was more useful for the Italian government to have Quadri alive than dead since they now wanted a rapprochement with the French was never actually received by him, so the murders were, he says, pointless. ‘All that effort, two people dead, and it wasn’t necessary, in fact it was counterproductive’ (p. 283). The absurd contingency of all this is not lost on Marcello, who is also given a first-hand report which tells him that when they opened fire Lina threw herself on to her husband to protect him from the bullets. Quadri tried to escape but had his throat cut.

Moravia’s short epilogue begins with the day Mussolini’s government falls, 25 July 1943. There is a subdued panic in Marcello’s mind, even more in Giulia’s, that he had, ‘as they say, bet on the losing horse’. Marcello discovers that his wife has always known, ever since their trip to Paris, that he was ‘part of the political police’ (Lina had told her) and had always suspected his role in the murder of the Quadris.

That evening they drive around Rome to watch the crowds celebrating the dismissal of Mussolini by the king. Later that night they end up in the gardens at the Villa Borghese where Giulia wants Marcello to make love to her when he is suddenly accosted by Lino, the chauffeur he thought he had killed all those years ago. It strikes him that all these years he had been searching for redemption from an ‘imaginary crime’.

In the final chapter Marcello, Giulia and their small daughter head out for the town of Tagliacozzo in the hills east of Rome when some hours later their car is consumed in flames from an air strike. Marcello and his family are killed in a tranquil sunlit countryside the day after Mussolini is brought down.

There is clearly a strong moral-political subtext to the novel which the writer is careful never to articulate didactically, and I’d like to look at a few remarkable passages where this pushes through the controlled exuberance of Moravia’s prose. The idea of a former student agreeing to assassinate his professor for reasons of state seems at least mildly shocking at several levels but to the writer it is part of Marcello’s underlying quest to affirm his absolute and complete ‘normality’ by engaging in an active expression of loyalty to the state. That loyalty, Moravia tells us in a striking phrase, ‘had origins deeper than any moral standard’ (p. 73).

To Marcello the regime embodied an authority which was ‘mysterious’, ‘like all authorities’, but deeper and more powerful than the authority of the Church (p. 117).Moravia elicits a notion of loyalty to an authoritarian regime as somehow impervious to morality, as if it lies in a different galaxy governed by completely different laws of motion. Moreover, in the confessional at Santa Maria Maggiore where Marcello doesn’t confess the crime he is about to commit, he was held back from the confession by ‘something that would not let him go forward’.

‘It was neither moral disgust, nor shame, nor any other manifestation of guilt, but something very different that had nothing to do with guilt. It was an absolute inhibition, dictated by a profound complicity and loyalty. He was not to speak of the mission, that was all; the same conscience that had remained mute and passive when he had announced to the priest, “I have killed”, now imposed this silence on him with great authority’ (p. 117).

Here the notion of complicity ties into the wider solidarity of a sort of ideological community bound by its invisible codes and faith. Being part of this community of faith gave crime itself a different meaning. Waiting for his mother to get ready so they can visit his father at the asylum, Marcello is again confronted by a lizard (‘It was a big lizard of the most common kind, with a green back and a white belly that throbbed against the yellow enamel of the table’), and he ruminates, ‘He had been left alone to face the death of the lizards, and in this solitude he had recognized the clue to the crime.

But now, he thought, he was not and would never again be alone. Even if he committed a crime – as long as he committed it for certain ends – the state; the political, social, and military organizations that depended on the state; great masses of people that thought as he did; and, outside of Italy, other states and other millions of people would stand behind him.

What he was about to do, he reflected, was certainly much worse than killing a few lizards; just the same, so many people were with him…’ (p. 125). In short, here was a criminality no longer suffered in solitude and therefore perhaps not criminality at all. The crime of Quadri’s murder, Marcello reflects at one point, ‘would have been a crime if he had not known how to justify and make sense of it’ (p. 271).

It made sense because there were wider solidarities behind it, others who needed to do their ‘duty’ to make fascism a resounding success. “The others”, as he knew, were the government he had understood he was serving with that murder; the society embodied by that government; and the very nation that accepted guidance by that same society’ (p. 272).

Here finally is the passage I said I would come back to. On his way to the ministry to be told his assignment, a newspaper seller is shouting as a headline announces Franco’s latest victory in Spain. Marcello reads this news with true satisfaction. ‘From the beginning he had wanted Franco to win, not fervently but with a sentiment both deep and tenacious, almost as if that victory would bring confirmation of the goodness and rightness of his tastes and ideas, not only in the field of politics but also in all others.

Perhaps he had desired and still desired Franco’s victory for love of symmetry, like someone who is furnishing his house and takes care to collect furniture all of the same style and period. He seemed to read this symmetry in the events of the past few years, growing ever clearer and more important: first the advent of Fascism in Italy, then in Germany; then the war of Ethiopia, then the war in Spain.

This progression pleased him, he wasn’t sure why, maybe because it was easy to recognize a more-than-human logic in it, a recognition that gave him a sense of security and infallibility. On the other hand, he thought, folding the newspaper back up and putting it in his pocket, it couldn’t be said that he was convinced of the justice of Franco’s cause for reasons of politics or propaganda. This conviction had come to him out of nowhere, as it seems to come to ordinary, uneducated people: from the air, that is, as when someone says an idea is in the air.

He sided with Franco the way countless other people did, common folk who knew little or nothing about Spain, uneducated people who barely read the headlines in the papers. For simpatia, he thought, giving a completely unconsidered, alogical, irrational sense to the Italian word. A simpatia that could be said only metaphorically to come from the air; there is flower pollen in the air, smoke from the houses, dust, light, not ideas.

This simpatia, then, arose from deeper regions and demonstrated once more that his normality was neither superficial nor pieced together rationally and voluntarily with debatable motives and reasons, but linked to an instinctive and almost physiological condition, to a faith, that is, shared with millions of other people. He was one with the society he found himself living in, and with its people.’ (p. 72–3)

In this passage Moravia comes close to describing what Sartre would some years later, also in the fifties, describe as ‘seriality’ and the stronger forms of it which he calls ‘recurrence’. Those are Sartre’s drably mathematical expressions for the structures of alterity through which ‘ideas’, inert ideas, take root and circulate, becoming self-evident and unshakeable. They ‘come out of nowhere’ because they stem from a perpetual flight of otherness, since the other is always only other to the other, and Moravia’s ‘chain of normality’ or Sartre’s flight of recurrence are pure infinite regresses.

More importantly, however, the lived experience of these ensembles generates a notion of truth that Moravia himself goes on to spell out a few lines after the passage I just quoted. ‘What else could the truth be, in fact, if not that which was evident to everyone, believed by everyone, held irrefutable?’And for Marcello ‘possession of the truth not only permitted action but demanded it. It was like a confirmation he must offer to himself and others of his own normality…’.(p. 73)
The best commentary on this is what Moravia would tell his biographer Enzo Siciliano in an interview he must have given in the late seventies: ‘Integration into Fascism…always had to be paid with a crime: to begin with, a betrayal, the first thing Mussolini asked an intellectual was to write an article against one of his enemies’.

In India in recent times we’ve lived through all of this, through something frighteningly similar to the regime in Marcello’s Italy, the same unshakeable sense of a ‘nation’ under siege, a nation that demands loyalty, weaves its subtle webs of complicity in crimes committed at many different levels, a nation one is either for or against, and so on. We’ve seen the most dreadful pogroms being orchestrated in secret and publicly televised as well as openly defended on TV; fake encounters being exposed by judicial enquiry, then publicly defended as part of a drive to get the killers off; extra-judicial killings being condoned and the killers let off because they were acting under orders, viz. doing their ‘duty’, that is, fighting a fabricated ‘terrorism’; ministers being covertly assassinated because they told the truth about crucial events and implicated (‘betrayed’) their leader; and so on, forever. And all of this is camouflaged behind an equally constructed ‘nationalism’ that is pure manipulated hysteria…

Read the way Moravia wanted it to be read, not as a purely moral text but a political one, The Conformist speaks directly to us today, more directly indeed than the brilliant amazing film that Bertolucci made out of the novel in 1970.

Soni Sori in Dantewada today, alleged torture and intimidation by sections of the police continues

March 14, 2016

Photos showing Arvind Gupta, Lingaram Kodopi, Soni Sori and Rinki Thakur in front of the new and old circuit house in Dantewada today, awaiting the SIT that never showed up
Lingaram, Soni Sori's nephew has threatened to end his life:
Will India prevent another institutional murder on March 23, 2016, intervene and prevent alleged continued atrocities and torture by sections of the authorities?

UPDATED STORY AT 3.53 p.m. MONDAY, March 14, 2016

The family of Soni Sori, accompanied by her and her lawyer, Shalini Gera have been at Dantewada since the morning. They decided that they will present themselves before the SIT and give them a letter saying that they do not have any faith in the way the investigation is proceeding and request the DGP to either take their statements himself or to constitute an independent team to do the job.

A visibly tense Town Inspector (TI) Geedam has been present in the morning, trying to ensure that the family meets the SIT on time, that is at 11.00 am at the Circuit House. With these letters in hand, the family has now been in Dantewada waiting for the SIT for over three hours but there is no sign of the SIT.

Ms Shalini Gera has called the City Superintendant of Police (CSP) Deepmala Kashyap. The CSP informed Ms Gera that they should wait and that the family and lawyers of Ms Sori would be informed through the TI Geedam when and where the SIT would meet them. Meanwhile the TI, on being contacted says he does not have any information, Ms Gera told SabrangIndia.

The family meanwhile has addressed a press conference and stated that the SIT is scared to confront them. Letters by Ms Soni Sori and her family have been faxed to DGP Upadhay and the National Human Rights Commission.

All eyes should be on Chhatisgarh as Soni Sori the Adivasi leader attacked with chemical acid on February 20, 2016 returns to the battleground that is Dantewada, Bastar to carry forward the battle against alleged rights abuses.

Several persons, including neighbours and family members of Soni Sori have been served with notices to appear before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed soon after the attack on her. Soni and many others, including her family and other villagers are likely to appear but refuse to give statements to a team of officers they have no faith in. They are reportedly likely to say that they have recorded statements before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and are fully willing to cooperate and record statetemts before the Director General of Police Chhatisgarh, AN Upadhyay but not before a SIT they have no faith in. The past three weeks since Soni had to be taken to Delhi were torturous with threats from the authorities increasing, Shalini Gera, advocate for Soni told SabrangIndia today. Gera is with Soni Sori in Dantewada.Notices have been served on, at least, Soni Sori, Rinky, Lingaram and Arvind Gupta the original complainant about the attack on Soni.

Adivasi leader and rights activist who returned to Chhatisgarh the day before yesterday is in Dantewada today after her family and several Adivasi women and men were continually threatened allegedly by sections of the police. Linga (Lingaram Kodopi), her nephew announced on March 12 that he will hang himself due to the constant torture and harassment by the Chhatisgarh police.

Just a day earlier, on March 11, 2016 lawyers for Soni Sori had in a strongly worded letter to the DGP Chhatisgarh, AN Upadhyay outlined the allegedly illegal and coercive actions by IG Kalluri. In a letter to DGP Chhatisgarh, AN Upadhyay, her lawyers have outlined the threats to her father and detailed how her sister and brother-in-law have been taken to undisclosed locations.

The letter spoke about the harassment to including Mr. Ajay Markam and his wife, Ms. Dhani Markam, by police officials of Bastar Range (sister and brother In law of Soni Sori). Ms. Soni’s brother-in-law, Mr. Ajay Markam, has been held in police custody for a day and a half, with no intimation to his family about his whereabouts and the reasons for his detention and his wife and Ms. Sori’s sister, Ms. Dhani Markam, has also been picked up today by Bastar police and taken to an undisclosed location.

An SIT comprising of ASP Sukma Mr Santosh Singh, CSP Jagdalpur Ms Deepmala Kashyap and ASP Bijapur IK Elesela was set up to investigate this attack on Ms. Sori.

On March 12, Lingaram gave the following statements that was reported in The Times of India, “I am tired and sick of routine threats. I am being tagged as Maoist sympathizer, my phone is constantly on surveillance, and I am being tracked and followed everywhere I go. I have lost the freedom to live and earn. Now, I have decided to end my life on March 23," he says. In a whatsapp message circulated by Linga around midnight today, he alleged that he and his family were being hounded by police and that he was fed up with the continuous threats by the police who would anytime drag him out if "I don't appear before them for interrogation in Soni Sori's attack case".

March 23 is witnessed as Martyr's Day, when Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh was hanged, Linga says, adding, "Let me decide the date of my death myself. I won't allow Bastar IG to decide that. It's better to kill yourself instead of being shot at by police's gun who would consider me a Maoist or attacker of my own aunt."

References:
1. Police threatens Soni Sori family, takes them to undisclosed Location: Lawyers
https://sabrangindia.in/article/police-threatens-soni-sori-family-takes-them-undisclosed-location-lawyers

2. न नक्सल, न पुलिस, हम जनता के साथ हैं: सोनी सोरी https://sabrangindia.in/interview/%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B2-%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A5-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80

3. Where every human rights activist is labelled a Maoist: Chhatisgarhhttps://sabrangindia.in/article/where-every-human-rights-activist-labelled-maoist-chhatisgarh

4. Soni Sori's nephew Lingaram alleges police pressure, threatens to end his life on March 23 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/Soni-Soris-nephew-Lingaram-alleges-police-pressure-threatens-to-end-his-life-on-March-2/articleshow/51366981.cms?from=mdr5.

5. Chhattisgarh Police Form Special Team To Probe Attack On Soni Sori
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chhattisgarh-police-form-special-team-to-probe-attack-on-soni-sori-1281009

What a Wonderful Women’s day! At AMU

March 13, 2016

Aligarh Muslim University
The co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Zakia Soman, was overwhelmed by the response of students and teachers, women and men, to her call for radical change in the mind-set of Indian Muslims

When I received an invite from the Aligah Muslim University Teachers Association for a keynote address on 8^th March International Women’s Day I was truly overwhelmed. It invoked so many emotions in me; I was both excited and apprehensive at the same time. The significance of a historic academic institution such as AMU is tremendous. But the apprehension in my mind was about how a talk on gender justice in Islam would be received by the community there. I was tentative as to what must be the perception about Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan and the work we have been doing. On reaching Aligarh, being face-to-face with gutsy women faculty members was reassuring.

I am happy to say that the meeting turned out to be one of the most fulfilling and exhilarating interactions I have had. I addressed two meetings; the morning one at the Women’s’ College auditorium at the historic Abdullah Hall and another one at the Teachers’ Club. Following is a brief account of the two interactions.

The first meeting was scheduled for 10.30 a.m. The hall became jam-packed as we started with a welcome by the vice-principal professor Iffat Ara followed by introductory remarks by professor Shadab Bano from the history department. My salute to Shadab, the moving force behind the programme.

I began by saying how Indian Muslims who are the country’s largest minority live in poverty, socio-economic backwardness and religious conservatism. I shared some key findings of the Sachar Committee about low educational status and lack of jobs. I emphasised the need to make elected governments accountable towards its Constitutional obligation towards enabling the inclusion of minorities in the socio-economic processes.

I also elaborated as to how this exclusion gets exacerbated by the threat from right-wing Hindutva forces who dream of a Hindu Rashtra as opposed to our Constitution whereby we are a secular democratic republic where all citizens are equal. But we at the BMMA hold broadly two categories responsible for the all-round exclusion of Muslims. While we seek accountability from the state we must also seek accountability from the so-called community leadership for this failure. And this brings us to the question of the double exclusion of women; as citizens and as women followers of Islam.

The conduct of a Muslim should correspond to the values of kindness, compassion, justice and wisdom which are the core values of Islam. Any conduct contrary to this is not Islamic. Please, let not anyone tell you anything other than this: any behavior, any act, any practice, any idea that does not measure up to your personal sense of justice, kindness and compassion should be resisted as un-Islamic.

I am no scholar but in my simple understanding the message of social justice and human rights is the core message of Islam which I believe was revolutionary 1400 years ago. Again in my understanding as an ordinary person, this message is taken forward through the values of kindness, compassion, justice and wisdom which are the core values of the religion of Islam.

The conduct of a Muslim should correspond to these values and any conduct contrary to this is not Islamic. Please, let not anyone tell you anything other than this: any behavior, any act, any practice, any idea that does not measure up to your personal sense of justice, kindness and compassion should be resisted and as un-Islamic.

You are all students and some of us here are faculty members. We are all taken up by our pursuits and may or may not have the time and the means to go very deep into all religious issues. But we must read ourselves, we can read good tarjumas (translations) and we must equally read good tafsirs (commentaries) as there is lot of diversity of opinion in the way the Quran has been interpreted.

And we as empowered Muslims have the choice to choose the commentaries that we want to follow. And there is no obligation to follow the exegesis – of which there are very many – written by patriarchal and conservative scholars who have imposed their own orthodox notions over the Quranic teachings. Remember, it must conform to your sense of justice, kindness and compassion and Allah wants you to exercise your wisdom while reading any translation or interpretation.

A brief look at the characterization of women in the Quran as well as a reading of women characters in the life of the Prophet will tell you that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah. Allah is just and fair and let no man or woman tell you anything otherwise.

Let me recall here aspects from the life of Bibi Khadija, the first wife of Prophet Mohammed. If we look at her in modern terms, I must say she was equivalent to what we call the chairperson of a multi-national company. She employed large number of staff and her business empire covered far off lands up to Syria in the north and Yemen in the South.

She must have been an able governance expert to be presiding over such as an empire. She must be extremely courageous and resolute in her personal life to get married to a much younger person after being widowed. And yet, why is the fact not being highlighted that Bibi Khadija, a woman was the first human being to embrace Muslim after the Prophet. Why is this fact not dominating the narratives about our religion? Is it because the patriarchal minds do not think this aspect important?

Let us also briefly look at the persona of Hazrat Aisha. Again, if we think in today’s terms she combines the qualities of a compassionate social leader, a military strategist, an astute diplomat and a fearless human being. Today the AAP government is being credited for being pro-people because they carried out a referendum to know the minds of citizens of Delhi. Hazrat Aisha held an elaborate referendum, held consultations and negotiations involving all key players spread across a vast geography when there was a threat from the enemy army. She saw to it that views and opinions of every section of society were sought and nobody was excluded. Then how are we women being excluded from society today? Is this exclusion Islamic? Certainly not. We all need to stand up and demand our rightful place as equal human beings and equal Muslims as Allah wants us to.

Throughout my talk the girls clapped vigorously whenever they agreed with something and wanted others to know it. There were many comments and questions by girls that followed the talk. They asked key questions such as, “Why can’t we have women read and interpret the Quran?” They were agitated about triple talaq. If it is not sanctioned by the Quran why was it permitted in our society? Some girls suggested banning of the barbaric practice of halala.

The question then arises as to how come our religion gave us equal rights 1400 years ago and yet we have not become equal? Subsequent to the departure of the Prophet what kind of vested interests took over and began a systematic distortion of the message needs to be understood. How did inhuman treatment of women become the norm is a question we must ask.

The incidence of un-Quranic practices such as triple talaq and halala continue in our society uncontrolled and unchecked. This is a mockery of all values and principles that we cherish. These violations can stop only if we stand up and empower ourselves as Muslim women. We need to read the Quran and understand the message of Allah directly for ourselves. We need to demand a comprehensive reform in Muslim personal law to curb ill practices of triple talaq and polygamy.

There was a huge applause when I concluded. Throughout my talk the girls clapped vigorously whenever they agreed with something and wanted others to know it. There were many comments and questions by girls that followed the talk. They asked key questions such as, “Why can’t we have women read and interpret the Quran?” They were agitated about triple talaq. If it is not sanctioned by the Quran why was it permitted in our society? Some girls suggested banning of the barbaric practice of halala.

A young faculty member was agitated over why a woman owning a home or a piece of land is a rare occurrence in our society despite Quranic injunctions about women’s share in property. One student opined that more and more of us should train and equip ourselves to fight injustice in society. They wanted to know more about Islamic feminism and how they can join the movement.

The second meeting at the Teachers’ Club was attended by men and women faculty members, research scholars, Aligarh citizens. The media was also present. The meeting was chaired by the president of AMUTA, professor Mujahid Baig who called for equal rights for women in his opening remarks.

I began by saying that since everybody present was well informed I will speak broadly about what ails the Indian Muslims today. I went on to list the issues faced by the community and how the government as well as the leadership had not done much to resolve anything. I asked a direct question to the community leadership about whether they take responsibility for this continuous marginalisation since they are the ones who have been claiming to represent all the 15 crore of us.

I compared the effective handling of the post-Kandhamal communal violence scenario by the leaders of the Christian community as against our own mishandling in Gujarat, Muzaffarnagar and so many other places. I asked whether our leaders truly believed in justice and equality or was it just something to be conveniently invoked while talking to the government as Muslims.

I then went on to the subject of wilful exclusion of women from all spheres of life in our community. I asked what Muslim leaders have done for women’s equality in society. And since they have not done anything, is it not high time we allowed newer people – women and men – to take up the leadership. And I called for a rejection of these so-called leaders.

I dwelt at some length on the Shah Bano case and asked: How can our religion be in danger if a 65-year-old divorced woman is given maintenance which is her Quranic right? I went on to say that nothing has changed since 1986 and talked about how in open violation of the Quranic injunctions ills such as triple talaq, polygamy and halala are still taking place in our society.

I emphasised the need for codification of the Muslim personal law based on the Quranic framework just like so many Muslim countries have already done. I asked: Why do we have to always follow the lowest common denominator of existing Muslim societies? I called for rejecting the Wahhabi brand of religion and instead portrayed a gender-just and humanist face of Islam.

Rather than Saudi Arabia we should follow progressive models such as Tunisia, Indonesia, Morocco etc., I said. I also said that leaving it to so-called scholars would mean continued injustice as the scholars have not spoken out against the violations of Quranic injunctions pertaining to women’s rights in marriage, family and society.

No scholar can claim that only his fraternity is tasked with understanding and interpreting Islam because our religion has no place for middlemen. Plus that would be Brahmanic and unacceptable. I emphasised the need for voices from academic communities to support the reform movement and overall movement for gender justice in today’s lived Islam. I said I was sorry if my words hurt someone’s feelings but this is the truth as prevalent in our Muslim society today.

Yet again, to my very pleasant surprise there was an overwhelming support to what I said judging by the comments and questions that followed. One young academic called for more numbers of women scholars to address the issues of gender justice. Another called for a kind of listing down of needs of women in our society and a plan to address those.

One scholar called for special attention to the plight of women during and post communal riots. One participant said that it was high time the hegemony of patriarchal bodies such as personal law board is ended. There was reiteration of the need to read and interpret the Quran in a gender-just framework.

There was a discussion on how women qazis and women scholars could be the way forward.

The meeting ended with Dr Ashraf Malik, joint secretary, AMUTA proposing a vote of thanks. While doing this he emphasised the need for extension of equal rights to women in marriage and family.

All in all, for me it was a truly fulfilling Women’s Day at Aligarh.

Confounding Mythology with History is the Sangh’s Agenda: Amartya Sen

March 12, 2016

First published on: January 1, 2001

The saffron agenda of confounding mythology with history also undermines India’s magnificently multi-religious and heterodox history

Image: Tehelka.com

In an often–quoted remark, Henry Ford, the great captain of indus try, said, “History is more or less bunk.” As a general statement about history, this is perhaps not an assessment of compelling delicacy. And yet Henry Ford would have been right to think, if that is what he meant, that history could easily become “bunk” through motivated manipulation.

This is especially so if the writing of history is manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda in contemporary politics. There are organised attempts in our country, at this time, to do just that, with arbitrary augmentation of a narrowly sectarian view of India’s past, along with undermining its magnificently multi-religious and heterodox history. Among other distortions, there is also a systematic confounding here of mythology with history.

An extraordinary example of this has been the interpretation of the Ramayana, not as a great epic, but as documentary history, which can be invoked to establish property rights over places and sites possessed and owned by others. (1) The Ramayana, which Rabindranath Tagore had seen as a wonderful legend (“the story of the Ramayana” is to be interpreted, as Tagore put it, not as “a matter of historical fact” but “in the plane of ideas”) and in fact as a marvellous parable of “reconciliation,” (2) is now made into a legally authentic account that gives some members of one community an alleged entitlement to particular sites and land, amounting to a license to tear down the religious places of other communities.

Thomas de Quincey has an interesting essay called “Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts.” Rewriting of history for bellicose use can also, presumably, be a very fine art. I note the contemporary confounding of historical studies in India as the starting point of this lecture, even though I shall not be directly concerned with addressing these distortions: there are many superb historians in India to give these misconstructions their definitive due.

Instead, I shall be concerned with outlining some methodological issues that relate to the subject of truth and falsehood in general history. I will also try to develop and defend a view of history as “an enterprise of knowledge.” There will be occasional references to contemporary debates (because I shall illustrate the general points with examples from Indian history), but the overall focus will be on more general themes.

There will be occasions, in this context, to take a fresh look at India’s persistent heterodoxy, which includes not only its tendency towards multi–religious and multi–cultural coexistence (a point emphasised in Rabindranath Tagore’s “vision of India’s history”), but also its relevance for the development of science and mathematics in India. For history is not only an enterprise of knowledge in itself, it cannot but have a special involvement with the history of other enterprises of knowledge. The view of history as an enterprise of knowledge is, of course, very old–fashioned: I am not trying to innovate anything what-soever. However, this and related epistemic approaches to history have taken some hard knocks over the last few decades. These have come not so much from sectarian bigots (who have barely addressed issues of method), but in the hands of sophisticated methodologists who are not only sceptical of the alleged virtues of modernity and objectivity (often for understandable reasons), but have ended up being deeply suspicious also of the idea of “truth” or “falsehood” in history.

They have been keen, in particular, to emphasise the relativity of perspectives and the ubiquity of different points of view. Perspectives and points of view, I would argue, are indeed important, not just in history, but in every enterprise of knowledge. This is partly because our observations are inescapably “positional.” Distant objects, for example, cannot but look smaller, and yet it is the job of analysis and scrutiny to place the different positional views in their appropriate perspectives to arrive at an integrated and coherent picture. The elementary recognition of the “positionality” of observations and perceptions does not do away with ideas of truth and falsehood, nor with the need to exercise reasoned judgement faced with conflicting evidence and clashing perspectives. I shall not here reiterate the methodological arguments I have presented elsewhere, but will discuss their relevance to the interpretation of Indian history. (3).

Indeed, describing the past is like all other reflective judgements, which have to take note of the demands of veracity and the discipline of knowledge. (4). The discipline includes the study of knowledge formation, including the history of science (and the constructive influences that are important in the cultivation of science) and also the history of histories (where differences in perspective call for disciplined scrutiny and are of importance themselves as objects of study).

I shall be concerned with each. I should make one more motivational remark. I address this talk primarily to non-historians, like myself, who take an interest in history. I am aware that no self–respecting historian will peacefully listen to an economist trying to tell them what their discipline is like. But history is not just for historians. It affects the lives of the public at large.

We non–historians do not have to establish our entitlement to talk about history. Rather, a good point of departure is to ask: why is history so often invoked in popular discussions? Also, what can the general public get from history? Why, we must also ask, is history such a battleground?

Knowledge and Its Use

Let me begin by discussing some distinct motivations that influence the public’s interest in history.

(1) Epistemic interest: The fact that we tend to have, for one reason or another, some interest in knowing more about what happened in the past is such a simple thought that it is somewhat embarrassing to mention this at a learned gathering. But, surely, catering to our curiosity about the past must count among the reasons for trying to learn something about historical events. An ulterior motive is not essential for taking an interest in history (even though ulterior reasons may also exist often enough). The simplicity of the idea of historical curiosity is, however, to some extent deceptive, because the reasons for our curiosity about the past can be very diverse and sometimes quite complex. The reason can be something very practical (such as learning from a past mistake), or engagingly illuminating (such as knowing about the lives of common people in a certain period in history), or largely recreational (such as investigating the chronology and history of India’s multiplicity of calendars). (5).

Also, the historical questions asked need not be straightforward, and may even be highly speculative. (6). Whether or not it is easy to satisfy our curiosity (it may not always be possible to settle a debate regarding what actually happened), truth has an obvious enough role in exercises of this kind. In fact, curiosity is a demand for truth on a particular subject.

Thomas de Quincey has an interesting essay called “Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts.” Rewriting of history for bellicose use can also, presumably, be a very fine art.

(2) Practical reason: Historical connections are often invoked in the context of contemporary politics and policies. Indeed, present-day attitudes in politics and society are often strongly influenced by the reading — or misreading — of the history of past events. For example, sectarian tensions build frequently on grievances (spontaneous or cultivated) linked to past deeds (real or imagined) of one group against another.
This is well illustrated, for example, by the recent massacres in Rwanda or former Yugoslavia, where history — or imagined history — were often invoked, concerning alleged past records of hostilities between Hutus and Tutsies, or between Serbs and Albanians, respectively. Since these uses of history are aimed primarily at contemporary acts and strategies, the counteracting arguments which too invoke history,
though in the opposite direction, also end up being inescapably linked to current affairs.

Given the dialectical context, we may be forced to take an interest in historical disputations on battlegrounds that have been chosen by others — not ourselves. For example, in defending the role of secularism in contemporary India, it is not in any way essential to make any claim whatsoever about how India’s Mughal rulers behaved whether they were sectarian or assimilative, whether they were oppressive or tolerant.

Yet in the political discussions that have accompanied the activist incursions of communal politics in contemporary India (well illustrated, for example, by the rhetoric that accompanied the demolition of the Babri Masjid), a heavily carpentered characterisation of the Mughal rule as anti–Hindu was repeatedly invoked.

Since this characterisation was to a great extent spurious and based on arbitrary selection, to leave that point unaddressed would have, in the context of the on going debate, amounted to a negligence in practical reason, and not just an epistemic abstinence. Even the plausibility or otherwise of the historical argument that some of the juridical roots of Indian secularism can be traced to Mughal jurisprudence (a thesis I have tried to present in my paper, “Reach of Reason: East and West”), even though a matter of pure history, ends up inescapably as having some relevance for contemporary politics (even though that was not a claim I made). (7).

The enterprise of knowledge links in this case with the use of that knowledge. However, this does not, in any way, reduce the relevance of truth in seeking knowledge. The fact that knowledge has its use does not, obviously, make the enterprise of acquiring knowledge in any way redundant. In fact, quite the contrary.

(3). Identity scrutiny: Underlying the political debates, there is often enough a deeper issue related to the way we construct and characterise our own identities, in which too historical knowledge — or alleged knowledge — can play an important part. Our sense of identity is strongly influenced by our under standing of our past. We do not, of course, have a personal past prior to our birth, but our self–perceptions are associated with the shared history of the members of a particular group to which we think we “belong” and with which we “identify.” Our allegiances draw on the evocation of histories of our identity groups.

A scrutiny of this use of history cannot be independent of the philosophical question as to whether our identities are primarily matters of “discovery” (as many “commu-nitarian” thinkers claim), (8) or whether they are to a significant extent matters of selection and choice (of course, within given constraints — as indeed all choices inescapably are). (9).

Arguments that rely on the assumption of the unique centrality of one’s community–based identity survive by privileging — typically implicitly — that identity over other identities (which may be connected with, say, class, or gender, or language, or political commitments, or cultural influences). In consequence, they restrict the domain of one’s alleged “historical roots” in a truly dramatic way. Thus, the increasing search for a Hindu view of Indian history not only has problems with epistemic veracity (an issue I discussed earlier), but also involves the philosophical problem of categorical oversimplification.

A good point of departure is to ask: why is history so often invoked in popular discussions? Also, what can the general public get from history? Why, we must also ask, is history such a battleground?

It would, for example, have problems in coming to terms with, say, Rabindranath Tagore’s description of his own background as “a confluence of three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British.”(10). No less importantly, it cannot but be in some tension with the sense of pride that an Indian may choose to have, irrespective of his or her own religious background, at the historical achievements of, say, Ashoka or Akbar, or Kalidasa or Kabir, or Aryabhata or Bhaskara.

To deny the role of reasoned choice, which can draw on the knowledge of the past, can be a very serious loss indeed. Even those who want to identify with India’s historical achievements and perhaps take some pride in them (a legitimate enough concern) must also examine critically what to take pride in, since it is easy to be misled into a narrow alley through incitements to ignore India’s capacious heterodoxy in favour of a constricted sectarian identity.

While discovery and choice compete as the basis of identity, knowledge and choice are essentially complementary to each other. Engagement with issues of identity enriches the enterprise of knowledge and extends its reach.

Science and Intellectual Heterodoxy

Let me now move to a more active view of the enterprise of knowledge, and turn to the history of science, which is among the historical subjects of study. As has already been argued, history is not only an enterprise of knowledge, its subject matter includes other enterprises of knowledge. The issue of heterodoxy, to which reference was made earlier, is particularly important here. Indeed, I would argue that there is a general connection between intellectual heterodoxy and the pursuit of science, and that this connection deserves more attention than it tends to get.

Heterodoxy is important for scientific advance because new ideas and discoveries have to emerge initially as heterodox views, at variance with established understanding. One need reflect only on the history of the scientific contributions of, say, Galileo or Newton or Darwin, to see the role of heterodoxy in the process. The history of science is integrally linked with heterodoxy.

If this interpretation is correct, then the roots of the flowering of Indian science and mathematics that occurred in and around the Gupta period (beginning particularly with Aryabhata and Varahamihira) can be intellectually associated with persistent expressions of heterodoxies which pre–existed these contributions. In fact, Sanskrit and Pali have a larger literature in defence of atheism, agnosticism and theological scepticism than exists in any other classical language.

The origins of mathematical and scientific developments in the Gupta period are often traced to earlier works in mathematics and science in India, and this is indeed worth investigating, despite the historical mess that has been created recently by the ill–founded championing of the so–called “Vedic mathematics” and “Vedic sciences,” based on very little evidence. What has, I would argue, more claim to attention as a precursor of scientific advances in the Gupta period is the tradition of scepticism that can be found in pre-Gupta India — going back to at least the sixth century B.C. — particularly in matters of religion and epistemic orthodoxy.

Indeed, the openness of approach that allowed Indian mathematicians and scientists to learn about the state of these professions in Babylon, Greece and Rome, which are plentifully cited in early Indian astronomy (particularly in the Siddhantas), can also be seen as a part of this inclination towards heterodoxy.

Observation, Experience and Scientific Methods

Indeed, the development of Indian sciences has clear methodological connections with the general epistemological doubts expressed by sceptical schools of thought that developed at an earlier period. This included the insistence on relying only on observational evidence (with scepticism of unobserved variables), for example in the Lokayata and Charvaka writings, not to mention Gautama Buddha’s powerfully articulated agnosticism and his persistent questioning of received beliefs.

The untimely death of professor Bimal Matilal has robbed us of the chance of benefiting from his extensive programme of systematic investigation of the history of Indian epistemology, but his already published works bring out the reach of unorthodox early writings on epistemology (by both Buddhist and Hindu writers) in the period that can be linked to the flowering of Indian science and mathematics in the Gupta era. (11).

Similarly, the expression of hereticism and heterodoxy patiently – if somewhat grudgingly — recorded even in the Ramayana (for example, in the form of Javali’s advice to Rama to defy his father’s odd promise) presents methodological reasons to be sceptical of the orthodox position in this field. (12).

Indeed, in A Vision of India’s History, Rabindranath Tagore also notes the oddity of the central story of Rama’s pious acceptance of banishment based on “the absurd reason… about the weak old king [Rama’s father] yielding to a favourite wife, who took advantage of a vague promise which could fit itself to any demand of hers, however preposterous.” Tagore takes it as evidence of “the later degeneracy of mind,” when “some casual words uttered in a moment of infatuation could be deemed more sacred than the truth which is based upon justice and perfect knowledge.”(13).

In fact, Javali’s disputation goes deeply into scientific methodology and the process of acquiring of knowledge: There is no after–world, nor any religious practice for attaining that. Follow what is within your experience and do not trouble yourself with what lies beyond the province of human experience. (14).

The increasing search for a Hindu view of Indian history would, for example, have problems in coming to terms with, say, Rabindranath Tagore’s description of his own background as “a confluence of three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British.

As it happens, the insistence that we rely only on observation and experience is indeed a central issue in the departures in astronomy — initiated by Aryabhata and others — from established theological cosmology.

The departures presented in his book Aryabhatiya, completed in 421 Saka or 499 A.D., which came to be discussed extensively by mathematicians and astronomers who followed Aryabhata (particularly Varahamihira, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara, and were also discussed in their Arabic translations), included, among others: (1) Aryabhata’s advocacy of the diurnal motion of the earth (rather than the apparent rotation of the sun around it), (2) a corresponding theory of gravity to explain why objects are not thrown out as the earth churns, (3) recognition of the parametric variability of the concept of “up” and “down” depending on where one is located on the globe, and (4) explanation of lunar and solar eclipses in terms respectively of the earth’s shadow on the moon and the moon’s obscuring of the sun.

Observational arguments, based on what Javali calls “the province of human experience,” are central to the departures initiated by Aryabhata in these and related fields (more on this presently). In the enterprise of knowledge involving the natural sciences, the intellectual connections between scepticism, heterodoxy and observational insistence, on the one hand, and manifest scientific advances, on the other, require much further exploration and scrutiny than they seem to have received so far.

History of Histories and Observational Perspectives

The observational issue is important also for the particular subject of history of histories, or metahistories (as we may call them). Given the importance of perspectives in historical writings, history of histories can tell us a great deal not only about the subject of those writings, but also about their authors and the traditions and perspectives they reflect.

For example, James Mill’s The History of British India, published in 1817, tells us probably as much about imperial Britain as about India. This three–volume history, written by Mill without visiting India (Mill seemed to think that this non–visit made his history more objective), played a major role in introducing the British governors of India (such as the influential Macaulay) to a particular characterisation of the country.

There is indeed much to learn from Mill’s history — not just about India, but more, in fact, about the perspective from which this history was written. This is an illustration of the general point that the presence of positionality and observational perspective need not weaken the enterprise of knowledge, and may in fact help to extend its reach. (15).

James Mill disputed and rejected practically every claim ever made on behalf of Indian culture and intellectual traditions, but paid particular attention to dismissing Indian scientific works. Mill rebuked early British administrators (particularly, Sir William Jones) for having taken the natives “to be a people of high civilisation, while they have in reality made but a few of the earliest steps in the progress to civilisation.”(16).

Indeed, since colonialism need not be especially biased against any particular colony compared with any other subjugated community, Mill had no great difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Indian civilisation was at par with other inferior ones known to Mill: “very nearly the same with that of the Chinese, the Persians, and the Arabians,” and also the other “subordinate nations, the Japanese, Cochin–Chinese, Siamese, Burmans, and even Malays and Tibetans” (p. 248).

Mill was particularly dismissive of the alleged scientific and mathematical works in India. He denied the generally accepted belief that the decimal system (with place values and the placed use of zero) had emerged in India, and refused to accept that Aryabhata and his followers could have had anything interesting to say on the diurnal motion of the earth and the principles of gravitation.

Writing his own history of histories, Mill chastised Sir William Jones for believing in these “stories,” and concluded that it was “extremely natural that Sir William Jones, whose pundits had become acquainted with the ideas of European philosophers respecting the system of the universe, should hear from them that those ideas were contained in their own books.”(17).

A Contrast of Perspectives

It is, in fact, interesting to compare Mill’s History with another history of India, called Ta’rikh al–hind (written in Arabic eight hundred years earlier, in the 11th century) by the Iranian mathematician Alberuni.(18).
Alberuni, who was born in Central Asia in 973 AD, and mastered Sanskrit after coming to India, studied Indian texts on mathematics, natural sciences, literature, philosophy, and religion. Alberuni writes clearly on the invention of the decimal system in India (as do other Arab authors) and also about Aryabhata’s theories on earth’s rotation, gravitation, and related subjects.

These writings contrast sharply with Mill’s history from a dominant colonial perspective, well established by the beginning of the nineteenth century. The interest in Mill’s dismissive history in imperial Britain (Macaulay described Mill’s History of British India to be “on the whole the greatest historical work which has appeared in our language since that of Gibbon” (19) contrasts with extensive constructive interest in these Indian works among Islamic mathematicians and scientists in Iran and in the Arab world.

In fact, Brahmagupta’s pioneering Sanskrit treatise on astronomy had been first translated into Arabic in the 8th century by Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al–Fazari, and again by Alberuni three hundred years later in the eleventh century (since Alberuni had certain criticisms of the previous translation). Several Indian works on medicine, science and philosophy had Arabic rendering by the 9th century, and so on. It was through the Arabs that the Indian decimal system and numerals reached Europe, as did Indian writings in mathematics, science and literature, in general. Indeed, history of histories, particularly about science, can tell us a great deal about the nature of political and social relations between the different countries (such as Iran and Gupta India, on the one hand, Britain and colonial India, on the other).

As it happens, Alberuni’s history also provides interesting illumination on scientific discussions within India, and particularly on the constructive role of heterodoxy in this context. Even though Alberuni himself tended to reject Aryabhata’s theory regarding the diurnal motion of the earth, he describes patiently the Indian arguments in defence of the plausibility of Aryabhata’s theory, including the related theory of gravity.

Conservatism, Courage and Science

It is, in this context, particularly interesting to examine Alberuni’s discussion of Brahmagupta’s conservative rejection of the exciting departures proposed by Aryabhata and his followers on the subject of lunar and solar eclipses. Alberuni quotes Brahmagupta’s criticism of Aryabhata and his followers, in defence of the orthodox religious theory, involving Rahu and the so-called “head” that is supposed to devour the sun and the moon, and finds it clearly unpersuasive and reactionary. He quotes Brahma-gupta’s supplication to religious orthodoxy, in Brahmasiddhanta: Some people think that the eclipse is not caused by the Head. This, however, is a foolish idea, for it is he in fact who eclipses, and the generality of the inhabitants of the world say that it is the Head that eclipses. The Veda, which is the word of God from the mouth of Brahman, says that the Head eclipses… On the contrary. Varahamihira, Shrishena, Aryabhata and Vishnuchandra maintain that the eclipse is not caused by the Head, but by the moon and the shadow of the earth, in direct opposition to all (to the generality of men), and from the enmity against the just–mentioned dogma. (20).

Alberuni, who is quite excited about Aryabhata’s scientific theories of eclipses, then accuses Brahmagupta (a great mathematician himself) for lacking the moral courage of Aryabhata in dissenting from the established orthodoxy. He points out that, in practice, Brahmagupta too follows Aryabhata’s methods in predicting the eclipses, but this does not prevent Brahmagupta from sharply criticising — from an essentially theological perspective — Aryabhata and his followers for being heretical and heterodox. Alberuni puts it thus: … we shall not argue with him [Brahmagupta], but only whisper into his ear: …Why do you, after having spoken such [harsh] words [against Aryabhata and his followers], then begin to calculate the diameter of the moon in order to explain the eclipsing of the sun, and the diameter of the shadow of the earth in order to explain its eclipsing the moon? Why do you compute both eclipses in agreement with the theory of those heretics, and not according to the views of those with whom you think it is proper to agree? (21).

The interest in Mill’s dismissive history in imperial Britain contrasts with extensive constructive interest in these Indian works among Islamic mathematicians and scientists in Iran and in the Arab world.

The connection between heterodoxy and scientific advance is indeed close, and big departures in science require methodological independence as well as analytical and constructive skill. Even though Aryabhata, Varahamihira and Brahmagupta were all dead for many hundred years before Alberuni was writing on their controversies and their implications, nevertheless Alberuni’s carefully critical scientific history helps to bring out the main issues involved, and in particular the need for heterodoxy as well as moral courage in pursuit of science.

A Concluding Remark

To conclude, I have tried to illustrate the different ways in which history has relevance for non-historians — indeed the general public. First, there are diverse grounds for the public’s involvement with history, which include (1) the apparently simple attractions of epistemic interest, (2) the contentious correlates of practical reason, and (3) the scrutiny of identity–based thinking. All of them — directly or indirectly — involve and draw on the enterprise of knowledge.

Second, history is not only itself an enterprise of knowledge, its domain of study incorporates all other enterprises of knowledge, including the history of science. In this context, it is easy to see the role of heterodoxy and methodological independence in scientific advance. The intellectual connections between heterodoxy (especially theological scepticism) and scientific pursuits (especially big scientific departures) deserve more attention in the history of sciences in India.

Third, metahistories — or histories of histories — also bring out the relevance of an appropriate climate for the enterprise of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge not only requires an open mind (the contrast between Alberuni’s scientific interest and Mill’s colonial predispositions radically differentiate their treatments of the same subject matter), it also requires an inclination to accept heterodoxy and the courage to stand up against orthodoxy (Alberuni’s critique of Brahmagupta’s criticism of Aryabhata relates to this issue). The plurality of perspectives extends the domain of the enterprise of knowledge rather than undermining the possibility of that enterprise. (22).

Since the rewriting of Indian history from the slanted perspective of sectarian orthodoxy not only undermines historical objectivity, but also militates against the spirit of scientific scepticism and intellectual heterodoxy, it is important to emphasise the centrality of scepticism and heterodoxy in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The incursion of sectarian orthodoxy in Indian history involves two distinct problems, to wit, (1) narrow sectarianism, and (2) unreasoned orthodoxy. The enterprise of knowledge is threatened by both.

(The writer, a Nobel prize winner is Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Lamont University Professor Emeritus, Harvard University. The above paper was presented by the writer at the Indian History Congress in Calcutta)

ENDNOTES

1. The confusing story of a recent statement by a Director of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) announcing exact knowledge where Rama, the avatar, was born (not surprisingly precisely where the Babri Masjid stood — from which the property rights for building a temple exactly there is meant to follow!), combined with the assertion that the Masjid itself had no religious significance (followed by an embarrassed dissociation of the ICHR itself from these remarkable pronouncements), illustrates the confounding of myth and history.
2. Rabindranath Tagore, A Vision of India’s History (Calcutta: Visva–Bharati, 1951), p. 10; this essay was first published in Visva-Bharati Quarterly, 1923.
3. See “Positional Objectivity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1993. I have also illustrated the methodological issues involved in the context of Indian history in On Interpreting India’s Past (Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1996), also included in Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, eds., Nationalism, Democracy and Development: Reappraising South Asian State and Politics (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996).
4. I have discussed the demands of descriptive discipline in “Accounts, Actions and Values: Objectivity of Social Science,” in C. Lloyd, ed., Social Theory and Political Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).
5. I have tried to argue elsewhere that the history of Indian calendars also provides some insights on the lives of the people and particularly on the state of science and mathematics at different times, and can even illuminate the political ideals that may be indirectly reflected in devising new calendars. The last is well illustrated, for example, by Emperor Akbar’s initiation of a synthetic solar calendar in the form of Tarikh–ilahi, in 1584, and its continuing influence on the Bengali san (on these issues, see my “India through Its Calendars,” The Little Magazine, 1, 1, May 2000).
6. A good example of an interesting but rather bold speculation is Rabindranath Tagore’s conjecture about a story in the epics that “the mythical version of King Janamejaya’s ruthless serpent sacrifice” may quite possibly stand for an actual historical event involving an “attempted extermination of the entire Naga race” by the dominant powers in ancient India (Tagore, A Vision of India’s History, p. 9).
7. Amartya Sen, “Reach of Reason: East and West,” The New York Review of Books, July 20, 2000.
8. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 1998), for a fine presentation of the “discovery” view of identity, and in particular of the thesis (among others) that “community describes not just what they have as fellow citizens but also what they are, not a relationship they choose (as in a voluntary association) but an attachment they discover, not merely an attribute but a constituent of their identity” (pp. 150–2).
9. I have discussed the role of choice in the selection of identities and in the determination of priorities in my Romanes Lecture at Oxford, Reason before Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), and in my Annual British Academy Lecture (to be published by the British Academy): for a shorter version, see “Other People,” The New Republic, September 25, 2000.
10. See Rabindranath Tagore, The Religion of Man (London: Unwin, 1931, 2nd edition, 1961), p. 105.
11. See particularly Bimal Matilal, Perceptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
12. Even though I shall not discuss in this paper the role and reach of Arjuna’s disagreements with Krishna’s high deontology in the Mahabharata, and in particular in the Bhagavad–Geeta, that too is philosophically an important departure; on this see my “Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason,” The Journal of Philosophy, 97 (September 2000).
13. Tagore, A Vision of India’s History, p. 22.
14. The translation is taken from Makhanlal Sen, Valmiki Ramayana (Calcutta: Rupa, 1989), pp. 174–5.
15. On this general subject, see my “Positional Objectivity” (1993), and also “Accounts, Actions and Values: Objectivity of Social Science” (1983).
16. James Mill, The History of British India (London, 1817; republished, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), pp. 225–6.
17. Mill, The History of British India, pp. 223–4.
18. For an English translation, see Alberuni’s India, translated by EC Sachau, edited by AT Embree (New York: Norton, 1971).
19. Quoted in John Clive’s introduction to Mill, The History of British India (republished, 1975), p. viii.
20. Alberuni’s India, pp. 110-1.
21. Alberuni’s India, p. 111.
22. On this see also my “Accounts, Actions and Values: Objectivity of Social Science” (1983) and “Positional Objectivity” (1993).

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2001. Year 8, No. 65, Forum, Published under the title History and the enterprise of knowledge

राष्ट्रीयता

March 12, 2016

1934 को ‘हंस’ में प्रकाशित प्रेमचंद का यह लेख बेहद प्रासंगिक हो गया है.

यह तो हम पहले भी जानते थे और अब भी जानते हैं कि साधारण भारतवासी राष्ट्रीयता का अर्थ नहीं समझता, और यह भावना जिस जागृति और मानसिक उदारता से उत्पन्न होती है, वह अभी हम में बहुत थोड़े आदमियों में आई है. लेकिन इतना जरूर समझते थे कि जो पत्रों के संपादक हैं, राष्ट्रीयता पर लंबेे-लंबे लेख लिखते हैं और राष्ट्रीयता की वेदी पर बलिदान होने वालों की तारीफों के पुल बांधते हैं, उनमें जरूर यह जागृति आ गई है और वह जात-पांत की बेडि़यों से मुक्त हो चुके हैं, लेकिन अभी हाल में ‘भारत’ में एक लेख देखकर हमारी आंखें खुल गईं और यह अप्रिय अनुभव हुआ कि हम अभी तक केवल मुंह से राष्ट्र-राष्ट्र का गुल मचाते हैं, हमारे दिलों में अभी वही जाति-भेद का अंधकार छाया हुआ है.

और यह कौन नहीं जानता कि जाति भेद और राष्ट्रीयता दोनों में अमृत और विष का अंतर है. यह लेख किन्हीं ‘निर्मल’ महाशय का है और यदि यह वही ‘निर्मल’ हैं, जिन्हें श्रीयुत ज्योतिप्रसाद जी ‘निर्मल’ के नाम से हम जानते हैं, तो शायद वह ब्राह्मण हैं. हम अब तक उन्हें राष्ट्रवादी समझते थे, पर ‘भारत’ में उनका यह लेख देखकर हमारा विचार बदल गया, जिसका हमें दुख है. हमें ज्ञात हुआ कि वह अब भी उन पुजारियों का, पुरोहितों का और जनेऊधारी लुटेरों का हिंदू समाज पर प्रभुत्व बनाए रखना चाहते हैं जिन्हें वह ब्राह्मण कहते हैं पर हम उन्हें ब्राह्मण क्या, ब्राह्मण के पांव का धूल भी नहीं समझते.

‘निर्मल’ की शिकायत है कि हमने अपनी तीन-चौथाई कहानियों में ब्राह्मणों को काले रंगों में चित्रित करके अपनी संकीर्णता का परिचय दिया है जो हमारी रचनाओं पर अमिट कलंक है. हम कहते हैं कि अगर हममें इतनी शक्ति होती, तो हम अपना सारा जीवन हिंदू-जाति को पुरोहितों, पुजारियों, पंडों और धर्मोपजीवी कीटाणुओं से मुक्त कराने में अर्पण कर देते.

हिंदू-जाति का सबसे घृणित कोढ़, सबसे लज्जाजनक कलंक यही टकेपंथी दल हैं, जो एक विशाल जोंक की भांति उसका खून चूस रहा है, और हमारी राष्ट्रीयता के मार्ग में यही सबसे बड़ी बाधा है. राष्ट्रीयता की पहली शर्त है, समाज में साम्य-भाव का दृढ़ होना. इसके बिना राष्ट्रीयता की कल्पना ही नहीं की जा सकती. जब तक यहां एक दल, समाज की भक्ति, श्रद्धा, अज्ञान और अंधविश्वास से अपना उल्लू सीधा करने के लिए बना रहेगा, तब तक हिंदू समाज कभी सचेत न होगा. और यह दल दस-पांच लाख व्यक्तियों का नहीं है, असंख्य है. उसका उद्यम यही है कि वह हिंदू जाति को अज्ञान की बेडि़यों में जकड़ रखे, जिससे वह जरा भी चूं न कर सके. मानो आसुरी शक्तियों ने अंधकार और अज्ञान का प्रचार करने के लिए स्वयंसेवकों की यह अनगिनत सेना नियत कर रखी है.

अगर हिंदू समाज को पृथ्वी से मिट नहीं जाना है, तो उसे इस अंधकार-शासन को मिटाना होगा. हम नहीं समझते, आज कोई भी विचारवान हिंदू ऐसा है, जो इस टकेपंथी दल को चिरायु देखना चाहता हो, सिवाय उन लोगों के जो स्वयं उस दल में हैं और चखौतियां कर रहे हैं. निर्मल, खुद शायद उसी टकेपंथी समाज के चौधरी हैं, वरना उन्हें टकेपंथियों के प्रति वकालत करने की जरूरत क्यों होती? वह और उनके समान विचारवाले उनके अन्य भाई शायद आज भी हिंदू समाज को अंधविश्वास से निकलने नहीं देना चाहते, वह राष्ट्रीयता की हांक लगाकर भी भावी हिंदू समाज को पुरोहितों और पुजारियों ही का शिकार बनाए रखना चाहते हैं.

मगर हम उन्हें विश्वास दिलाते हैं कि हिंदू-समाज उनके प्रयत्नों और सिरतोड़ कोशिशों के बावजूद अब आंखें खोलने लगा है और इसका प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण यह है कि जिन कहानियों को ‘निर्मल’ जी ब्राह्मण-द्रोही बताते हैं, वह सब उन्हीं पत्रिकाओं में छपी थीं, जिनके संपादक स्वयं ब्राह्मण थे. मालूम नहीं ‘निर्मल’ जी ‘वर्तमान’ के संपादक श्री रमाशंकर अवस्थी, ‘सरस्वती’ के संपादक श्री देवीदत्त शुक्ल, ‘माधुरी’ के संपादक पं. रूपनारायण पांडे, ‘विशाल भारत’ के संपादक श्री बनारसीदास चतुर्वेदी आदि सज्जनों को ब्राह्मण समझते हैं या नहीं, पर इन सज्जनों ने उन कहानियों को छापते समय जरा भी आपत्ति न की थी. वे उन कहानियों को आपत्तिजनक समझते, तो कदापि न छापते. हम उनका गला तो दबा न सकते थे. मुरव्वत में पड़कर भी आदमी अपने धार्मिक विश्वास को तो नहीं त्याग सकता.

ये कहानियां उन महानुभावों ने इसीलिए छापीं, कि वे भी हिंदू समाज को टकेपंथियों के जाल से निकालना चाहते हैं, वे ब्राह्मण होते हुए भी इस ब्राह्मण जाति को बदनाम करने वाले जीवों का समाज पर प्रभुत्व नहीं देखना चाहते. हमारा खयाल है कि टकेपंथियों से जितनी लज्जा उन्हें आती होगी, उतनी दूसरे समुदायों को नहीं आ सकती, क्योंकि यह धर्मोपजीवी दल अपने को ब्राह्मण कहता है. हम कायस्थ कुल में उत्पन्न हुए हैं और अभी तक उस संस्कार को न मिटा सकने के कारण किसी कायस्थ को चोरी करते या रिश्वत लेते देखकर लज्जित होते हैं. ब्राह्मण क्या इसे पसंद कर सकता है, कि उसी समुदाय के असंख्य प्राणी भीख मांगकर, भोले-भाले हिंदुओं को ठगकर, बात-बात में पैसे वसूल करके, निर्लज्जता के साथ अपने धर्मात्मापन का ढोंग करते फिरें. यह जीवन व्यवसाय उन्हीं को पसंद आ सकता है, जो खुद उसमें लिप्त हैं और वह भी उसी वक्त तक, जब तक कि उनकी अंधस्वार्थ भावना प्रचंड है और भीतर की आंखें बंद हैं.

आंखें खुलते ही वह उस व्यवसाय और उस जीवन से घृणा करने लगेंगे. हम ऐसे सज्जनों को जानते हैं, जो पुरोहित कुल में पैदा हुए, पर शिक्षा प्राप्त कर लेने के बाद उन्हें वह टकापंथपन इतना जघन्य जान पड़ा कि उन्होंने लाखों रुपए साल की आमदनी पर लात मार स्कूल में अध्यापक होना स्वीकार कर लिया. आज भी कुलीन ब्राह्मण पुरोहितपन और पुजारीपन को त्याज्य समझता है और किसी दशा में भी यह निकृष्ट जीवन अंगीकार न करेगा. ब्राह्मण वह है, जो निस्पृह हो, त्यागी हो और सत्यवादी हो. सच्चे ब्राह्मण महात्मा गांधी, मदनमोहन मालवीय जी हैं, नेहरू हैं, सरदार पटेल हैं, स्वामी श्रद्धानंद हैं. वह नहीं जो प्रातःकाल आपके द्वार पर करताल बजाते हुए- ‘निर्मलपुत्र देहि भगवान’ की हांक लगाने लगते हैं, या गणेश-पूजा और गौरी पूजा और अल्लम-गल्लम पूजा पर यजमानों से पैसे रखवाते हैं, या गंगा में स्नान करने वालों से दक्षिणा वसूल करते हैं, या विद्वान होकर ठाकुर जी और ठकुराइन जी के श्रृंगार में अपना कौशल दिखाते हैं, या मंदिरों में मखमली गावतकिये लगाये वेश्याओं का नृत्य देखकर भगवान से लौ लगाते हैं.

हिंदू बालक जब से धरती पर आता है और जब तक वह धरती से प्रस्थान नहीं कर जाता, इसी अंधविश्वास और अज्ञान के चक्कर में सम्मोहित पड़ा रहता है और नाना प्रकार के दृष्टांतों से मनगढ़ंत किस्से कहानियों से, पुण्य और धर्म के गोरखधंधों से, स्वर्ग और नरक की मिथ्या कल्पनाओं से, वह उपजीवी दल उनकी सम्मोहनावस्था को बनाए रखता है. और उनकी वकालत करते हैं हमारे कुशल पत्रकार ‘निर्मल’ जी, जो राष्ट्रवादी हैं. राष्ट्रवाद ऐसे उपजीवी समाज को घातक समझता है और समाजवाद में तो उसके लिए स्थान ही नहीं. और हम जिस राष्ट्रीयता का स्वप्न देख रहे हैं उसमें तो जन्मगत वर्णों की गंध तक न होगी, वह हमारे श्रमिकों और किसानों का साम्राज्य होगा, जिसमें न कोई ब्राह्मण होगा, न हरिजन, न कायस्थ, न क्षत्रिय.

उसमें सभी भारतवासी होंगे, सभी ब्राह्मण होंगे, या सभी हरिजन होंगे. कुछ मित्रों की यह राय हो सकती है कि माना टकेपंथी समाज निकृष्ट है, त्याज्य है, पाखंडी है, लेकिन तुम उसकी निंदा क्यों करते हो, उसके प्रति घृणा क्यों फैलाते हो, उसके प्रति प्रेम और सहानुभूति क्यों नहीं दिखलाते, घृणा तो उसे और भी दुराग्रही बना देती है और फिर उसके सुधार की संभावना भी नहीं रहती. इसके उत्तर में हमारा यही नम्र निवेदन है कि हमें किसी व्यक्ति या समाज से कोई द्वेष नहीं, हम अगर टकेपंथीपन का उपहास करते हैं, तो जहां हमारा एक उद्देश्य यह होता है कि समाज में से ऊंच-नीच, पवित्र-अपवित्र का ढोंग मिटावें, वहां दूसरा उद्देश्य यह भी होता है कि टकेपंथियों के सामने उनका वास्तविक और कुछ अतिरंजित चित्र रखें, जिसमें उन्हें अपने व्यवसाय, अपनी धूर्तता, अपने पाखंड से घृणा और लज्जा उत्पन्न हो, और वे उसका परित्याग कर ईमानदारी और सफाई की जिंदगी बसर करें और अंधकार की जगह प्रकाश के स्वयंसेवक बन जाएं.

‘ब्रह्मभोज’ और ‘सत्याग्रह’ नामक कहानियों ही को देखिए, जिन पर ‘निर्मल’ जी को आपत्ति है. उन्हें पढ़ कर क्या यह इच्छा होती है कि चौबे जी या पंडित जी का अहित किया जाए? हमने चेष्टा की है कि पाठक के मन में उनके प्रति द्वेष न उत्पन्न हो, हां परिहास द्वारा उनकी मनोवृत्ति दिखाई है. ऐसे चौबों को देखना हो, तो काशी या वृंदावन में देखिए और ऐसे पंडितों को देखना हो तो, वर्णाश्रम स्वराज्य संघ में चले जाइए, और निर्मल जी पहले ही उस धर्मात्मा दल में नहीं जा मिले हैं, तो अब उन्हें चटपट उस दल में जा मिलना चाहिए, क्योंकि वहां उन्हीं की मनोवृत्ति के महानुभाव मिलेंगे. और वहां उन्हें मोटेराम जी के बहुत से भाई-बंधु मिल जाएंगे, जो उनसे कहीं बड़े सत्याग्रही होंगे. हमने कभी इस समुदाय की पोल खोलने की चेष्टा नहीं की, केवल मीठी चुटकियों से और फुसफुसे परिहास से काम लिया, हालांकि जरूरत थी बर्नाड शाॅ जैसे प्रतिभाशाली व्यक्ति की, जो घन से चोट लगाता है.

निर्मल जी को इस बात की बड़ी फिक्र है कि आज के पचास साल बाद के लोग जो हमारी रचनाएं पढ़ेंगे, उनके सामने ब्राह्मण समाज का कैसा चित्र होगा और वे हिंदू समाज से कितने विरक्त हो जाएंगे. हम पूछते हैं कि महात्मा गांधी के हरिजन आंदोलन को लोग आज के एक हजार साल के बाद क्या समझेंगे? यह कि हरिजनों को ऊंची जाति के हिंदुओं ने कुचल रखा था. हमारे लेखों से भी आज के पचास साल बाद लोग यही समझेंगे कि उस समय हिंदू समाज में इसी तरह के पुजारियों, पुरोहितों, पंडों, पाखंडियों और टकेपंथियों का राज था और कुछ लोग उनके इस राज को उखाड़ फेंकने का प्रयत्न कर रहे थे. निर्मल जी इस समुदाय को ब्राह्मण कहें, हम नहीं कह सकते.

हम तो उसे पाखंडी समाज कहते हैं, जो अब निर्लज्जता की पराकाष्ठा तक पहुंच चुका है. ऐतिहासिक सत्य चुप-चुप करने से नहीं दब सकता. साहित्य अपने समय का इतिहास होता है, इतिहास से कहीं अधिक सत्य. इसमें शर्माने की बात अवश्य है कि हमारा हिंदू समाज क्यों ऐसा गिरा हुआ है और क्यों आंखें बंद करके धूर्तों को अपना पेशवा मान रहा है और क्यों हमारी जाति का एक अंग पाखंड को अपनी जीविका का साधन बनाए हुए है, लेकिन केवल शर्माने से तो काम नहीं चलता. इस अधोगति की दशा सुधार करना है. इसके प्रति घृणा फैलाइए, प्रेम फैलाइए, उपहास कीजिए या निंदा कीजिए सब जायज है और केवल हिंदू-समाज के दृष्टिकोण से ही नहीं जायज है, उस समुदाय के दृष्टिकोण से भी जायज है, जो मुफ्तखोरी, पाखंड और अंधविश्वास में अपनी आत्मा का पतन कर रहा है और अपने साथ हिंदू-जाति को डुबोए डालता है.

हमने अपने गल्पों में इस पाखंडी समुदाय का यथार्थ रूप नहीं दिखाया है, वह उससे कहीं पतित है, उसकी सच्ची दशा हम लिखें, तो शायद निर्मल जी को तो न आश्चर्य होगा, क्योंकि वह उसी समुदाय के एक व्यक्ति हैं, लेकिन हिंदू समाज की जरूर आंखें खुल जाएंगी, मगर यह हमारी कमजोरी है कि बहुत सी बातें जानते हुए भी उनके लिखने का साहस नहीं रखते और अपने प्राणों का भय भी है, क्योंकि यह समुदाय कुछ भी कर सकता है. शायद इस सांप्रदायिक प्रसंग को इसीलिए उठाया भी जा रहा है कि पंडों और पुरोहितों को हमारे विरुद्ध उत्तेजित किया जाए.

निर्मल जी ने हमें ‘आदर्शवाद’ और कला के विषय में भी कुछ उपदेश देने की कृपा की है, पर हम यह उपदेश ऐसों से ले चुके हैं, जो उनसे कहीं ऊंचे हैं. आदर्शवाद इसे नहीं कहते कि अपने समाज में जो बुराइयां हों, उनके सुधार के बदले उनपर परदा डालने की चेष्टा की जाए, या समाज को एक लुटेरे समुदाय के हाथों लुटते देखकर जबान बंद कर ली जाए. आदर्शवाद का जीता-जागता उदाहरण हरिजन-आंदोलन हमारी आंखों के सामने है. निर्मल जी जबान में तो इस आंदोलन के विरुद्ध कुछ कहने का साहस नहीं रखते, लेकिन उनके दिल में घुसकर देखा जाए तो मंदिरों का खुलना और मंदिरों के ठेकेदारों के प्रभुत्व का मिटना, उन्हें जहर ही लग रहा होगा, मगर बेचारे मजबूर हैं, क्या करें?

निर्मल जी हमें ब्राह्मण द्वेषी बता कर संतुष्ट नहीं हुए. उन्होंने हमें हिंदू द्रोही भी सिद्ध किया है, क्योंकि हमने अपनी रचनाओं में मुसलमानों को अच्छे रूप में दिखाया है. तो क्या आप चाहते हैं, हम मुसलमानों को भी उसी तरह चित्रित करें, जिस तरह पुरोहितांे और पाखंडियों को करते हैं? हमारी समझ में मुसलमानों से हिंदू जाति को उसकी शतांश हानि नहीं पहुंची है, जितनी इन पाखंडियों के हाथों पहुंची और पहुंच रही है. मुसलमान हिंदू को अपना शिकार नहीं समझता, उसकी जेब से धोखा देकर और अश्रद्धा का जादू फैलाकर कुछ ऐंठने की फिक्र नहीं करता.

फिर भी मुसलमानों को मुझसे शिकायत है कि मैंने उनका विकृत रूप खींचा है. हम ऐसे मुसलमान मित्रों के खत दिखा सकते हैं, जिन्होंने हमारी कहानियों में मुसलमानों के प्रति अन्याय दिखाया है. हमारा आदर्श सदैव से यह रहा है कि जहां धूर्तता और पाखंड और सबलों द्वारा निर्बलों पर अत्याचार देखो, उसको समाज के सामने रखो, चाहे हिंदू हो, पंडित हो, बाबू हो, मुसलमान हो, या कोई हो.

इसलिए हमारी कहानियों में आपको पदाधिकारी, महाजन, वकील और पुजारी गरीबों का खून चूसते हुए मिलेंगे, और गरीब किसान, मजदूर, अछूत और दरिद्र उनके आघात सहकर भी अपने धर्म और मनुष्यता को हाथ से न जाने देंगे, क्योंकि हमने उन्हीं में सबसे ज्यादा सच्चाई और सेवा भाव पाया है. और यह हमारा दृढ़ विश्वास है कि जब तक यह सामुदायिकता और सांप्रदायिकता और यह अंधविश्वास हम में से दूर न होगा, जब तक समाज को पाखंड से मुक्त न कर लेंगे तब तक हमारा उद्धार न होगा.

हमारा स्वराज्य केवल विदेशी जुए से अपने को मुक्त करना नहीं है, बल्कि सामाजिक जुए से भी, इस पाखंडी जुए से भी, जो विदेशी शासन से कहीं अधिक घातक है, और हमें आश्चर्य होता है कि निर्मल जी और उनकी मनोवृत्ति के अन्य सज्जन कैसे इस पुरोहिती शासन का समर्थन कर सकते हैं. उन्हें खुद इस पुरोहितपन को मिटाना चाहिए, क्योंकि वह राष्ट्रवादी हैं. अगर कोई ब्राह्मण, कायस्थों के करारदाद की, उनके मदिरा सेवन की, या उनकी अन्य बुराइयों की निंदा करे, तो मुझे जरा भी बुरा न लगेगा. कोई हमारी बुराई दिखाए और हमदर्दी से दिखाए, तो हमें बुरा लगने या दांत किटकिटाने का कोई कारण नहीं हो सकता.

मिस मेयो ने जो बुराइयां दिखाई थीं उनमें उसका दूषित मनोभाव था. वह भारतीयों को स्वराज्य के अयोग्य सिद्ध करने के लिए प्रमाण खोज रही थीं. क्या निर्मल जी मुझे भी ब्राह्मण-द्रोही, हिंदू-द्रोही की तरह स्वराज्य-द्रोही भी समझते हैं?

अंत में मैं अपने मित्र निर्मल जी से बड़ी नम्रता के साथ निवेदन करूंंगा कि पुरोहितों के प्रभुत्व के दिन अब बहुत थोड़े रह गए हैं और समाज और राष्ट्र की भलाई इसी में है कि जाति से यह भेद-भाव, यह एकांगी प्रभुत्व, यह खून चूसने की प्रवृत्ति मिटाई जाए, क्योंकि जैसा हम पहले कह चुके हैं, राष्ट्रीयता की पहली शर्त वर्णव्यवस्था, ऊंच-नीच के भेद और धार्मिक पाखंड की जड़ खोदना है. इस तरह के लेखों से आपको आपके पुरोहित भाई चाहे अपना हीरो समझें और मंदिर के महंतों और पुजारियों की आप पर कृपा हो जाए, लेकिन राष्ट्रीयता को हानि पहुंचती है और आप राष्ट्र-प्रेमियों की दृष्टि में गिर जाते हैं. आप यह ब्राह्मण समुदाय की सेवा नहीं, उसका अपमान कर रहे हैं.

WAILS OF YAMUNA

March 12, 2016

On the cruel destruction of the Yamuna flood plain.
What the Yamuna felt and wanted to say to Ravishankerji

Remove the shrubs
cut the trees
level the ground
fill-up all the low lying areas
we will make it aesthetic and beautiful
we will erect huge structures representing our culture
we will dance
sing songs
we will call millions of people
to celebrate and make them part of a family
‘vasudhevkutumbakam’ is our tradition!

She cried:
please don’t do it
this is my space
I flow here
These trees and shrubs
are my part
I exist in them
this place is my home
I have built it by toiling for hundreds of years
don’t ruin it please!

But He was full of his own self
which had left no space
for listening to the cries of yamuna
who was standing before Him with
folded hands
tears rolling down her eyes.

With stoic silence
and dreamy eyes
He imagined the ocean of crowd
bending before him in obeisance
praises and praises everywhere
and his words like a melody
putting the crowd in a hypnotic trance.

He demolished Her home mercilessly
bruised and injured
she wept and wept
cried for help
but mindlessly to fulfil his dream
He went on a rampage
to see her complete ruin.

He only saw the magnificent palace
a mammoth structure colourful and decorated
He smiled and His eyes showed a streak of victory.

"It is so aesthetic
so beautiful
so serene
does it not show:
unity in diversity!!”
He said.

"I am the world
world is my home!”
He proudly announced.

Crowd of millions trampled her body
Writhing in pain she cried
butmesmerised in a frenzy
they clapped and cheered
on whatever he said.

Hurt, injured, unable to speak
she complained to the sky
to the wind and clouds
to the day and night
to Her Creator:
save me from this cruelty
from the hands of brutal forces
who are wearing masks of innocence.

Where have they gone
who searched the mysteries of Nature
and found the presence of God in it.
who were those
who saw krishna playing on yamuna’s bank
and wrote hymns of love and worship.
Where do we find
those who saw the eternity flowing in rivers
found it in trees, birds, butterflies
ponds, lakes, water-falls
and filled with joy
ran to the mountain top
to celebrate the colours of spring
spread on the river bank!

I gave whatever I had
to youwith both hands
your children grew in my lap
I nurtured your emotions,
caressed when you were in pain
and kept your tender thoughts
in the crevices of the sand.
Before my eyes you learnt slowly to crawl and walk
I know how desires, jealousies and ego
over-powered knowledge, love and compassion.
Please don’t tell me what is our
culture and tradition
It is woven on my plains and floats in my waves.

I am today deeply hurt:
more than your acts
your hollow words pierce me.
How an ambitious mind
can ever understand the mystery of relationship
andrealise how selfish hands
have robbed the dreams of our own children
who wanted to play on the sand
i still don’t curse you
you are also my child
butmiles and miles away from me.

Alas, had you known that the god-head
which flows
in this eternal consciousness
manifests in nature
and that truly
is our spiritual heritage!

(The author of the poem is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India and also Vice President, People's Union for Civil Liberties, PUCL)

Gujarat No 1 in Development? Conflicting Indices in GOI Report

March 12, 2016

Two Separate Indices reveal that in Labour, Infrastructure, Economic conditions, and Governance, Gujarat is not Number One

A report by a top Delhi-based think tank, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), prepared under the direct leadership of Amitabh Kant, ex-secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Government of India, has claims that Gujarat ranks No 1 in the NCAER State Investment Potential Index (N-SIPI), though there is a dig.

N-SIPI has been divided into two separate indices. The first one includes five “pillars” based on which the index has been arrived it. These pillars are: labour, infrastructure, economic conditions, political stability and governance, and perceptions of a good business climate. It is called N-SIPI 21, as it includes a survey of 21 states out of 29.

The second index, called N-SIPI 30 (29 states and one union territory), is based on an index arrived at on the basis of four of the five pillars, labour, infrastructure, economic conditions, political stability and governance – but excludes the “perceptions of a good business climate”, as seen by top Indian business executives.

Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British High Commission, India, the report finds that in N-SIPI-21, Gujarat ranks No 1 in two of the five pillars, which are — political stability and governance, and perceptions of a good business climate. As for N-SIPI-30, Gujarat is nowhere near No 1 in any of the four pillars analysed to arrive at the ranking.

To quote from the report, “In N-SIPI 21, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka top the list under the labour pillar. In the infrastructure Pillar, Delhi tops followed by Punjab and Gujarat. In the economic climate pillar, while Delhi comes out top again, it is closely followed by Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.”

As for N-SIPI 30, where only secondary data has been analysed, and perceptions of businessmen have been excluded for analysing any of the four pillar, Gujarat ranks No 4 in the first pillar, labour, with first three rankings going to Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. In the second pillar, infrastructure, Gujarat again ranks No 4, with Delhi, Goa and West Bengal occupying the first three positions.

In the third pillar, economic conditions, Gujarat ranks No 5, and the states which rank above Gujarat are Delhi, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. And in the fourth pillar, governance and political stability, Gujarat again ranks No 5, with four states ahead of the state – Tripura, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tamil Nadu.

The report states, it provides “a single composite investment rating of how the 29 Indian states and the Union Territory of Delhi are positioned to encourage and attract investment”, adding, it also provides “an entry point in thinking about new investment for domestic and overseas firms and encouraging a more competitive ethos among India’s states.”

Revealing Government of India hand in preparing the report, it states, “We are grateful to DIPP Secretary Amitabh Kant for his leadership in our consultations with his department officers during the course of this work. We also greatly welcome the enthusiasm shown by Kant’s successor, Ramesh Abhishek, in the work at NCAER for N-SIPI, and for Kant’s continuing interest in N-SIPI as the new CEO of the NITI Aayog.”

Analysing performance of two industrial sectors, pharmaceuticals and automobiles, the report does not find Gujarat No 1 in either of them. It says, “In terms of profitability in the pharmaceutical industry, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), and Gujarat appear to be the top players followed by Karnataka and Uttarakhand.” It adds, “In terms of the market demand for pharmaceutical products, Kerala, Punjab and Karnataka top the list followed by Jammu and Kashmir and Tamil Nadu.”
As for automobiles, it says, “The dominant states in the automobile sector, on the other hand, are Delhi, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, followed by Haryana and Goa. In the retail sector, Delhi, Goa, and Kerala come out as the top three states with the highest potential for growth, followed closely by Maharashtra and Karnataka.”

http://www.counterview.net/2016/03/gujarat-no-1-in-govt-of-india-pushed.html

Facebook Violating Article 19, “Filtering” Content Critical of Sri Sri’s AOL: Activist

March 12, 2016

Roshan Shah, an Ahmedabad-based activist has, in a communication with the Director General of Police, Gujarat and the ACP, Cyber Crime Cell asked for registration of a first information report against Facebook for “intercepting messages” and “filtering content.”

The complaint relates to the current controversy afoot over the past three days relating to the World Culture Festival where Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who runs the Art of Living Foundation receiving a Rs. 2.5 cr as a government grant, using Indian army for the construction of a bridge, and chopping off trees.

These arbitrary actions favouring a man close to the powers that be has upset many on social media and users on Facebook who are sharply critical of these actions on the part of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and his team. These criticisms included criticisms of the Modi government for this abuse and misuse of taxpayers money. One of the critiques is Roshan Shah.

Roshan Shah says in his letter, “My timeline for last two days was flooded with environmentalist and nationalists' posts who were very critical on Facebook of this World Culture Festival and how Sri Sri was ….. rather than a saint. And, all of a sudden this morning I saw no posts. Even my posts on same subject with Sri Sri and Ravi Shankar keywords did not show up.”

Shah continues, “It seems that Facebook has now another revenue model of 'Content Filtering'; deciding filters on what not to allow to publish or what to promote.” Facebook, while indiscriminately pushing their sponsored content, “has no right to filter my content or my friends or user generated content on timelines,” says Shah. This is a dangerous model and requires immediate investigation and a written response from Facebook, he added.

“Why, (and how) did, all of a sudden, the Art of Living Foundation and negative posts on Sri Sri who gets things free (including a Rs. 2.5 cr grant) get filtered? Even the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has slapped a Rs. 5 crore fine on the Art of Living Foundation. Is Facebook trying to help such criminals by filtering negative content which amounts to abetting a crime?"

The letter/communication and complaint has also been addressed to 1) Facebook India Online Services Private Limited; 2) Vikram Ravindra Mamadipudi, Director; 3) David William Kling and 4) Jaspal Singh Athwal

Text of the Letter

Dear Sir(s),

Facebook India Online Services Private Limited has as CIN U72900TG2010FTC068332 with the registered address at Unit Nos. 1203 and 1204, Level 12, Building No.20, Raheja Mindspace, Cyberabad, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad – 500081, Telangana, INDIA.

It is submitted that 2), 3) and 4) are directors of Facebook India Online Services Private Limited and are responsible for day to day operations of operations of Facebook.com in India.

It is submitted that Facebook is operating as an Online Social Networking site with primarily user generated content. It is further submitted that Facebook users make online friends on Facebook and share content on their own or their friends
Timeline freely which ideally comes up and should come up in one or more ways:

a) other friends timeline;
b) friends of friends timeline and
c) general public timeline and d) followers and general public for public posts.

People who follow their friends on Facebook ought to see the content of the Timeline of their friends whom they follow first on priority over other general content which is not from friends excluding certain sponsored content.

It is submitted that Facebook tried to control social media content via unsuccessful attempt promoting Free Basics where TRAI ruled in favour of Net Neutrality and Facebook thereby got a jolt on its Free Basics agenda, Now, to circumvent that agenda, Facebook has found a new illegal way of content filtering and making money by blocking content on timeline.

See the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAXps-aJmic that I took an hour ago.

For the past three days we have been witness to the World Culture Festival where Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who runs Art of Living Foundation(ALF) getting a Rs. 2.5 cr Central Government grant; the ALF has used Indian army for bridge construction and has chopped off trees and this has ticked off social media users on Facebook who were slamming this consistently for the last two days, critical of this act of Ravi Shankar and his team with every alternate post on Facebook slamming these acts of Sri Sri and also alleging collusion with the government to abuse taxpayers money.

My timeline for the last two days was flooded with environmentalist and nationalists posts who were very critical on Facebook of this World Culture festival and how Sri Sri was more of …. rather than a saint and all of a sudden this morning I saw no posts. Even my posts on same subject with Sri Sri and Ravi Shankar keywords did not show up.

It seems that FACEBOOK has now another revenue model of "CONTENT FILTERING"; deciding filters on what not to allow to publish or what to promote. FACEBOOK while can push their sponsored content, they have no right to filter my content or my friends or user generated content on timelines.

This is a dangerous model and requires immediate investigation and a written response from Facebook. Why, do all of a sudden, the Art of Living Foundation and negative posts on Sri Sri who gets things FREE FREE (including Rs. 2.5 cr grant) get filtered? Even NGT has slapped Rs. 5 cr fine on Art of Living Foundation and Facebook trying to help such criminals by filtering negative content is abetting crime.

Bill Gates last week wrote that it will take time for zero-carbon future so we should start now https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/706143986860347392, while here Art of Living Foundation is doing this World Culture show using Government grants, the Army, chopping off trees and polluting river and unfortunately FACEBOOK is filtering activism against it. This is clear content filtering is violation of Freedom of Speech and FACEBOOK Directors and team should be prosecuted and penalised for this.

This is dangerous as I expect my content to be shown to my friends and content followers and at the same time it should show me the content of people I follow and Facebook has no business whatsoever to filter and control such content. Facebook is for user generated and user owned and controlled content, it cannot direct or tinker with it. The whole concept of Social Media goes for a toss here

Kindly look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAXps-aJmic and respond to me in 7 days on how content filtering if any works in Facebook failing with legal action may be initiated against your company.

My FB URL is : https://www.facebook.com/roshiley
Roshan Shah
Ahmedabad

1...2,5822,5832,584...2,697 Page 2,583 of 2,697

Webs of complicity: Reading Moravia’s ‘The Conformist’ in India today

Soni Sori in Dantewada today, alleged torture and intimidation by sections of the police continues

All eyes should be on Chhatisgarh as Soni Sori the Adivasi leader attacked with chemical acid on February 20, 2016 returns to the battleground that is Dantewada, Bastar to carry forward the battle against alleged rights abuses.

What a Wonderful Women’s day! At AMU

Aligarh Muslim University
The co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Zakia Soman, was overwhelmed by the response of students and teachers, women and men, to her call for radical change in the mind-set of Indian Muslims

Confounding Mythology with History is the Sangh’s Agenda: Amartya Sen

राष्ट्रीयता

WAILS OF YAMUNA

Gujarat No 1 in Development? Conflicting Indices in GOI Report

Two Separate Indices reveal that in Labour, Infrastructure, Economic conditions, and Governance, Gujarat is not Number One

Facebook Violating Article 19, “Filtering” Content Critical of Sri Sri’s AOL: Activist

Roshan Shah, an Ahmedabad-based activist has, in a communication with the Director General of Police, Gujarat and the ACP, Cyber Crime Cell asked for registration of a first information report against Facebook for “intercepting messages” and “filtering content.”

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

All eyes should be on Chhatisgarh as Soni Sori the Adivasi leader attacked with chemical acid on February 20, 2016 returns to the battleground that is Dantewada, Bastar to carry forward the battle against alleged rights abuses.

Aligarh Muslim UniversityThe co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Zakia Soman, was overwhelmed by the response of students and teachers, women and men, to her call for radical change in the mind-set of Indian Muslims

Two Separate Indices reveal that in Labour, Infrastructure, Economic conditions, and Governance, Gujarat is not Number One

Roshan Shah, an Ahmedabad-based activist has, in a communication with the Director General of Police, Gujarat and the ACP, Cyber Crime Cell asked for registration of a first information report against Facebook for “intercepting messages” and “filtering content.”

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Aligarh Muslim University
The co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Zakia Soman, was overwhelmed by the response of students and teachers, women and men, to her call for radical change in the mind-set of Indian Muslims