Hindutva’s Fascist Heritage

April 28, 2016

In the 1930s Hindu nationalism borrowed from European fascism to transform ‘different’ people into ‘enemies’. Leaders of militant Hinduism repeatedly expressed their admiration for authoritarian leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler and for the fascist model of society.

The existence of direct contacts between the representatives of the (Italian) fascist regime, including Mussolini, and Hindu nationalists demonstrates that Hindu nationalism had much more than an abstract interest in the ideology and practice of fascism. The interest of Indian Hindu nationalists in fascism and Mussolini must not be considered as dictated by an occasional curiosity, confined to a few individuals; rather, it should be considered as the culminating result of the attention that Hindu nationalists, especially in Maharashtra, focussed on Italian dictatorship and its leader. To them, fascism appeared to be an example of conservative revolution. This concept was discussed at length by the Marathi press right from the early phase of the Italian regime.

From 1924 to 1935 Kesari regularly published editorials and articles about Italy, fascism and Mussolini. What impressed the Marathi journalists was the socialist origin of fascism and the fact that the new regime seemed to have transformed Italy from a backward country to a first class power. Indians could not know, then, that, behind the demagogic rhetoric of the regime, there was very little substance.
Moreover, the Indian observers were convinced that fascism had restored order in a country previously upset by political tensions. In a series of editorials, Kesari described the passage from liberal government to dictatorship
as a shift from anarchy to an orderly situation, where social struggles had no more reason to exist.

The Marathi newspaper gave considerable space to the political reforms carried out by Mussolini, in particular the substitution of the election of the members of Parliament with their nomination and the replacement of parliament itself with the Great Council of Fascism. Mussolini’s idea was the opposite of that of democracy and it was expressed by the dictator’s principle, according to which ‘one man’s government is more useful and more binding’ for the nation than the democratic institutions.

Is all this not reminiscent of the principle of ‘obedience to one leader’ (‘ek chalak anuvartitva’) followed by the RSS?

Finally, a long article of August 13, 1929, ‘Italy and the Young Generations’, stated that the Italian young generations had succeeded the old one to lead the country. That had resulted in the ‘fast ascent of Italy in every field’. The article went on to describe at length the organisation of the Italian society according to fascist models. The principal reasons of the discipline of the Italian youths were strong religious feelings, widespread among the population, attachment to the family, and the respect of traditional values: no divorce, no singles, no right to vote for women, whose only duty was to sit at home, by the fireplace. The article focussed then on the fascist youth organisations, the Balilla and the Avanguardisti.

One can easily come to the conclusion that, by the late 1920s, the fascist regime and Mussolini had considerable popularity in Maharashtra. The aspect of fascism which appealed most to Hindu nationalists were, of course, both the militarisations of society and what was seen as real transformation of society, exemplified by the shift from chaos to order. The anti–democratic system was considered as a positive alternative to democracy which was seen as a typically British value.

The first Hindu nationalist who came in contact with the fascist regime and its dictator was BS Moonje, a politician strictly related to the RSS. In fact, Moonje had been Hedgewar’s mentor, the two men were related by an intimate friendship. Moonje’s declared intention to strengthen the RSS and to extend it as a nation–wide organisation is well known.

Between February and March 1931, on his return from the Round Table Conference, Moonje made a tour to Europe, which included a long stop–over in Italy. There he visited some important military schools and educational institutions. The highlight of the visit was the meeting with Mussolini. An interesting account of the trip and the meeting is given in Moonje’s diary and takes 13 pages.

The Indian leader was in Rome during March 15 to 24, 1931. On March 19, in Rome, he visited, among others, the Military College, the Central Military School of Physical Education, the Fascist Academy of Physical Education, and, most important, the Balilla and Avanguardisti organisations. These two organisations, which he describes in more that two pages of his diary, were the keystone of the fascist system of indoctrination — rather than education — of the youths. Their structure is strikingly similar to that of the RSS. They recruited boys from the age of six, up to 18: the youth had to attend weekly meetings, where they practised physical exercise, received paramilitary training and performed drills and parades.

According to the literature promoted by the RSS and other Hindu fundamentalist organisations and parties, the structure of the RSS was the result of Hedgewar’s vision and work. However, Moonje played a crucial role in moulding the RSS along Italian (fascist) lines. The deep impression left on Moonje by the vision of the fascist organisations is confirmed by his diary.

“The Balilla institutions and the conception of the whole organisation have appealed to me most, though there is still not discipline and organisation of high order. The whole idea is conceived by Mussolini for the military regeneration of Italy. Italians, by nature, appear ease–loving and non–martial, like the Indians generally. They have cultivated, like Indians, the work of peace and neglected the cultivation of the art of war. Mussolini saw the essential weakness of his country and conceived the idea of the Balilla organisation…Nothing better could have been conceived for the military organisation of Italy…

“The idea of fascism vividly brings out the conception of unity amongst people… India and particularly Hindu Indias need some such institution for the military regeneration of the Hindus: so that the artificial distinction so much emphasised by the British of martial and non–martial classes amongst the Hindus may disappear. “Our institution of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh of Nagpur under Dr. Hedgewar is of this kind, though quite independently conceived. I will spend the rest of my life in developing and extending this Institution of Dr. Hedgewar all throughout Maharashtra and other provinces”.

Definitely more meaningful is the report of the meeting with Mussolini. On the same day, March 19, 1931 at 3 pm, in Palazzo Venzia, the headquarters of the fascist government, he met the Italian dictator. The meeting is recorded in the diary on March 20… “I shook hands with him saying that I am Dr Moonje. He knew everything about me and appeared to be closely, following the events of the Indian struggle for freedom…
“Signor Mussolini asked me if I have visited the University. I said I am interested in the military training of boys and have been visiting the Military Schools of England, France and Germany. I have now come to Italy for the same purpose and I am very grateful to say that the Foreign Office and the War Office have made good arrangements for my visiting these schools. I just saw this morning and afternoon the Balilla and the Fascist Organisations and I was much impressed. Italy needs them for her development and prosperity. I do not see anything objectionable though I have been frequently reading in the newspapers not very friendly criticisms about them and about your Excellency also.

“Signor Mussolini: What is your opinion about them?
“Dr Moonje: Your Excellency, I am much impressed. Every aspiring and growing Nation needs such organisations.
“Signor Mussolini – who appeared very pleased – said – Thanks but yours is an uphill task. However I wish you every success in return.
“Saying this he got up and I also got up to take his leave”.

The description of the Italian journey includes information regarding fascism, its history, the fascist ‘revolution’, etc, and continues for two more pages.

One can wonder at the association between BS Moonje and the RSS, but if we think that Moonje had been Hedgewar’s mentor, the association will be much clearer. The intimate friendship between Moonje and Hedgewar and the former’s declared intention to strengthen the RSS and to extend it as a nation–wide organisation prove a strict connection between Moonje and the RSS. Moreover, it makes sense to think that the entire circle of militant Hinduism must have been influenced by Moonje’s Italian experience.

Moonje’s Plans for Militarising Hindus:
Once Moonje was back in India, he kept the promise made in his diary and started immediately to work for the foundation of his military school and for the militant reorganisation of Hindu society in Maharashtra. He really did not waste time, for, as soon as he reached Pune, he gave an interview to The Mahratta. Regarding the military reorganisation of the Hindu community, he stressed the necessity to ‘Indianise’ the army and expressed the hope that conscription would become compulsory and an Indian would be put in–charge of the defence ministry.

He finally made a clear reference to the Italian and German examples: “In fact, leaders should imitate the youth movements of Germany and the Balilla and Fascist organisations of Italy. I think they are eminently suited for introduction in India, adapting them to suit the special conditions. I have been very much impressed by these movements and I have seen their activities with my own eyes in all details”.

Soon fascism became a subject of public debate and Hedgewar himself was among the promoters of a campaign in favour of the militarism of society, according to fascist patterns. On January 31, 1934, Hedgewar presided over a conference about fascism and Mussolini, organised by Kavde Shastri. Moonje made the concluding speech.

A few months later, on March 31, 1934 Moonje, Hedgewar and Laloo Gokhale had a meeting, the subject of which was again the military organisation of the Hindus, along Italian and German lines:
“Laloo — Well you are the president of the Hindu Sabha and you are preaching Sanghathan of Hindus. It is ever possible for Hindus to be organised?
“I said — You have asked me a question of which exactly I was thinking of late. I have thought out a scheme based on Hindu Dharm Shashtra which provides for standardisation of Hinduism throughout India… But the point is that this ideal cannot be brought to effect unless we have our own swaraj with a Hindu as a dictator like Shivaji of old or Mussolini or Hitler of the present day in Italy or Germany… But this does not mean that we have to sit with folded hands until (sic) some such dictator arises in India. We should formulate a scientific scheme and carry on propaganda for it.

The intimate connection between Moonje and the RSS and the fascist character of the latter is confirmed by British sources. An intelligence report published in 1933 and entitled, ‘Note on the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh’, ascribed to Moonje the responsibility of the reorganisation of the Sangh in the Marathi speaking districts and in the Central Provinces in 1927. The report, describing the activity and the character of the RSS, warned that, “It is perhaps no exaggeration to assert that the Sangh hopes to be in future India what the ‘Fascists’ are to Italy and the ‘Nazis’ to Germany”.

Summing up, it is clear that the Hindu nationalists were very much attracted by the figure of a strong leader. Moreover, they were keen to give their organisation a strongly centralised structure.

Moonje’s trip to Italy, contrary to what happened in the case of Subhash Chandra Bose and other nationalists, did not give place to any further co–operation between Hindu nationalism and the fascist regime. However, these contacts were important at the ideological and organisational levels. In fact, Moonje kept his promise to improve military education in India and, as soon as he came back from his European trip, he started to contact all those who could support his idea of militarising Hindu society.

In 1934, Moonje started to work for the foundation of his own institution, the Bhonsla Military School. For this purpose, in the same year he began to work at the foundation of the Central Hindu Military Education Society, whose aim was to educate them in ‘Sanatan Dharma’, and to train them “in the science and art of personal and national defence”. Moonje’s programme was therefore entirely devoted to Hindu society, and not to Indian society as a whole.

It is possible that the other function of the society was that of facilitating the diffusion of military education and supporting the foundation of new schools. During the preliminary work for the foundation of both school and society, Moonje publicly admitted that his idea of militarily reorganising Hindu society was inspired by the “military training schools of England, France, Germany and Italy”.
Moonje’s ‘Preface to the Scheme of the Central Hindu Military Society and its Military School’ says at the outset: “This training is meant for qualifying and fitting our boys for the game of killing masses of men with the ambition of winning victory with the best possible causalities (sic) of dead and wounded while causing the utmost possible to the adversary”.

Moonje does not give any clear–cut indication regarding this ‘adversary’, whether is was the external enemy, the British, or the ‘historical’ internal enemy, the Muslims. The document continues with a long dissertation on the relation between violence and non–violence. In it are drawn many examples from Indian history and Hindu holy books, all in favour of organised violence, in the form of Militarism. On the contrary, non–violence is considered a form of renunciation and cowardice.

Moonje’s views corresponded almost perfectly with Mussolini’s opinions: “…The same thought is repeated though in a more forceful and direct language by Signor Mussolini, the maker of modern Italy, when he says: ‘Our desire for peace and collaboration with Europe is based on millions of steel bayonets’.” And again from Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism: “I absolutely disbelieve in perpetual peace which is detrimental and negative to the fundamental virtues of man, which only by struggle reveal themselves in the light of the sun”.

“War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it”.

“Fascism believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of pacifism, which is born of renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice”.

As far as Germany was concerned, Moonje quoted a booklet entitled Wehrwisssenschaft (Military Science), written by Ewald Banse, a professor at the Brunswick Technical High School: “The starting point of the book is that war is inevitable and certain and that it is imperative to know as much about it and to be as efficient as possible…the mind of the nation, from childhood on, must be impregnated and familiarised with the idea of war”, because, the Professor says: ‘The dying warrior dies more easily when he knows that his blood is ebbing for his national god’.”

The spirit of the last sentence is surprisingly coincident with the essence of the Hindu nationalism.

When Moonje had to indicate practical ways of militarising Hindu society, he returned again to the example of Italy and its military and paramilitary organisations, and reported what he had seen. He described in detail the structure of the ‘She Wolf’s Children’, the Balilla and the Avanguardisti. He asserted that these organisations could provide paramilitary training to the male population from the age of 8 upto18, when the youth became young fascists. Italy was therefore in a position of having “command of 6,000,000 trained and disciplined men ready to face any emergency”.

The result was that, “The Balillas are taught to build up moral character and take the first steps towards becoming soldiers”. As a consequence, “There will thus be no longer any distinction between the citizen and the soldier, between the civilian and the man in uniform”.

Of course, nowadays we know that, inspite of this remarkable number of militarily trained citizens, Italy lost the war. Moonje did not know that the level of the training was low, and the fascist faith of the people skin–deep.
Fascist ideas were widespread among Hindu nationalists, at least in Maharashtra. The above mentioned script had been printed in the form of a pamphlet and distributed not only among the people Moonje tried to involve in his project, but most probably, to an even wider public, which unfortunately, is at present difficult to measure.

Eve of Second World War:
After Moonje’s trip to Italy there was no further direct contact between exponents of the main Hindu organisations and the Italian government. However, by the end of the 1930s Italian representatives in India established some connections with the extremist fringes of Hindu nationalism. The Italian consulate in Bombay was very active in seeking contacts with the local political milieu. The Italian diplomatic mission in Bombay was part of a network linking consulates in Bombay and Calcutta with the radical movements of Maha-rashtra and Bengal.

The influence of fascist ideology and practice must have gone far beyond the limits of the main organisations of Hindu militant nationalism and must have tended to the wide and intricate net of secondary militant groups and centres of physical education or paramilitary training. This is shown by the example of the Swastik League, founded on March 10, 1929 by M R Jayakar — who became president — and by other local personalities. In organising the Swastik League, Jayakar, who had a prominent position within the Hindu Mahasabha, drew some inspiration from the fascist paramilitary organisations.
Savarkar and Nazism:

At this point we have to dwell on the crucial problem of Savarkar’s position vis–à–vis the European radical right. With Savarkar’s coming on the political scene, from the late 1930s to the Second World War, there was an intensification of cries in favour or in defence of Italian and German policy, even if the preference for Germany increased progressively.

Savarkar was declared president of the Hindu Mahasabha as soon as he was released in 1937, and he held that office until 1942. His presidentship covered the most sensitive period of both Indian and international history
in this century. According to the commonly accepted opinion — supported by the organisations of militant Hinduism — the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha have never been particularly close, and during Savarkar’s presidentship, they severed their links. Reality, however, seems to be different. In fact, the available documentation shows not only that such a split never happened, but that the two organisations always had close connections.

We should not forget that Hedgewar had been secretary to the Hindu Mahasabha from 1926 to 1931. The RSS seems to have provided support to the Hindu Mahasabha, as shown by the fact that groups of RSS militants used to gather at the public meetings organised to celebrate Savarkar’s release.

Two of the main topics of the speeches Savarkar gave at the gatherings organised in his honour and at any other public function of his party were the international situation and Hindu–Muslim relations. Regarding the first aspect, Savarkar had a rather cynical view of the relations India should entertain at the international level. He returned to freedom and entered into politics at the time of the formation of the Rome–Berlin Axis and Japan’s adhesion to the pact. Such an outcome was favourably assessed by Hindu radical nationalism, including the Hindu Mahasabha. ‘India’s foreign policy’ was the subject of a speech Savarkar gave to about 20,000 people in Pune on August 1, 1938. The following are the most meaningful parts of the speech, according to a press note issued by the Bombay office of the Hindu Mahasabha.

“He observed India’s foreign policy must not depend on “isms”. Germany has every right to resort to Nazism and Italy to Fascism and events have justified that those isms and forms of governments were imperative and beneficial to them under the conditions that obtained there. Bolshevism might have suited Russia and Democracy as it is obtained in Briton (sic) to the British people”.
Political systems correspond then to the nature of the respective population. This theory was clearly inspired by a deterministic conception of race, similar to the conception of race then dominant in Europe.

Starting a controversy with Nehru, Savarkar openly defended the authoritarian powers of the day, particularly Italy and, even more so, Germany: “Who are we to dictate to Germany, Japan or Russia or Italy to choose a particular form of policy of government simply because we woo it out of academical attraction? Surely Hitler knows better than Pandit Nehru does what suits Germany best. The very fact that Germany or Italy has so wonderfully recovered and grown so powerful as never before at the touch of Nazi or Fascist magical wand is enough to prove that those political “isms” were the most congenial tonics their health demanded”.

Savarkar asserted in a speech in the presence of some 4,000 people at Pune on October 11, 1938, (that) if a plebiscite had taken place in India, Muslims would have chosen to unite with Muslims and Hindus with Hindus.

This was a consequence of the principle according to which it was not enough living together for a few countries to form a nation, as “the common desire to form a nation was essential for the formation of a nation”.
During Savarkar’s presidentship the anti–Muslim rhetoric became more and more radical, and distinctly unpleasant. It was a rhetoric that made continuous reference to the way Germany was managing the Jewish question. Indeed, in speech after speech, Savarkar supported Hitler’s anti–Jewish policy, and on October 14, 1938, he suggested the following solution for the Muslim problem in India: “A Nation is formed by a majority living therein. What did the Jews do in Germany? They being in minority were driven out from Germany”.

Then, towards the end of the year in Thane, in front of RSS militants and local sympathisers, right at the time when Congress expressed its resolution against Germany, Savarkar stated that, “in Germany the movement of the Germans is the national movement but that of the Jews is a communal one”. And again the next year, on July 29, in Pune, he said: “Nationality did not depend so much on a common geographical area as on unity of thought, religion, language and culture. For this reason the Germans and the Jews could no be regarded as a nation”.

Without this unity, not even Muslims and Hindus could be regarded as belonging to the same nation. Indian Muslims should rather resign themselves to be considered as a minority, the recognition of whose rights should depend on the magnanimity of the majority. Finally, at the end of 1939, on the occasion of the 21st session of the Hind Mahasabha, Savarkar made one of the most explicit comparisons between the Muslim question in India and the Jewish problem in Germany: “…the Indian Muslims are on the whole more inclined to identify themselves and their interests with Muslims outside India than Hindus who live next door, like Jews in Germany”.
One can find a certain continuity between the ideas of nations and nationhood expressed in Savarkar’s Hindutva and the content of these declarations. Indeed in his book, Savarkar, referring to the Muslims, asserted that “their holyland is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and godmen, ideas and heroes are not children of this soil. Consequently their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin (Hindutva: Who is Hindu?).

A feeling of admiration for the Jewish policy of Germany seems to have been shared by the entire circle of Hindu nationalism at the end of the 1930s. In We, or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar, who would become general secretary of the RSS a year later declared that: “German national pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races — the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well–nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the mot (?), to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”.

This had its root in the idea that being a Hindu was a matter of race and blood, not only a matter of culture. In turn that was an idea which was strikingly similar to the racial myths celebrated in Germany, more than in Italy.
Golwarkar’s position regarding Muslims was even more extreme than Savarkar’s: “in one word, they (Muslims) must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights”.

Waiting for the Right Enemy
The literature promoted by militant Hinduism is trying nowadays to compare the attitude adopted by the Hindu Mahasabha towards the totalitarian regimes with Subhash Chandra Bose’s position towards the axis powers. According to this literature, the evidence in favour of such interpretation is a meeting which took place between Bose and Savarkar in Bombay in June 1940.

My impression of the episode is that it is a sort of historiagraphic invention, directed to legitimise the otherwise ambiguous position of the Hindu Mahasabha during the war. Asserting that Netaji’s project had Savarkar’s sanction means not only that Savarkar had a sort of patronage on Bose’s activities in Europe, but more important, that Savarkar played an important role in the freedom fight.

Certainly the meeting did take place, and very possibly the two leaders discussed Bose’s intention to go to Europe and seek support of the axis powers. However, all this is far from meaning that Savarkar inspired Bose, who, right from 1933, had his own connections with the dictators’ governments. The president of the Hindu Mahasabha put forward his claim on the content of his meeting with Netaji four years after Gandhi’s assassination, when the image of the Hindu Mahasabha and its affiliation were badly damaged by the suspicion of their involvement in the murder. Accordingly it makes sense to think that the organisations of militant Hinduism must have perceived the necessity to rehabilitate their political past and re–invent a more clear–cut anti–British stand. What stronger argument, therefore, could be available than the assertion that the Hindu Mahasabha was secretly ready to support Bose’s plan?

The involvement in Gandhi’s assassination was not the only reason of crisis; the image of Hindu nationalism was indeed already damaged by the ambiguous attitude adopted in the war period. The policy actually followed by Hindu nationalism during the war, namely, responsive co–operation, was far from being unambiguous on both transfer of powers and relations with the British.
The committee wished for the realisation of the militarisation of Indian society and the Indianisation of the army. It requested a reform of the Arms Act, along the lines prevailing in the UK. It demanded also that territorial forces and paramilitary groups be strengthened, that new military organisations be created in those provinces where they did not exist before, and finally that more Indian students be accepted in the military academies. The Hindu Mahasabha requested the government to increase the local production of modern armaments so that India could equip its army, without depending on imports from other nations.

Soon after this resolution, the Hindu Mahasabha started to work for the creation of a national militia. Naturally enough, Moonje became the person in charge. Inviting party members to attend a preliminary meeting for the foundation of the militia, in Pune on October 8, Moonje described the future organisation in the following terms:

“I have the pleasure in bringing to your notice a resolution of the Hindu Mahasabha for the organisation of the Hindu Militia in the country for the purpose of taking part in the defence of India both from external and internal aggression whenever an occasion of emergency may arise during the course of the Anglo-German War.

“…I believe that it will be quite in the fitness of things, in view of the historic All–India Military leadership of the Maharashtra, that a beginning should be made in the Maharashtra; so that the lead may be taken up by the whole of India afterwards”.

Who could be the internal aggressors if not the Muslims?
The answer seems to be contained in a letter from Moonje to Khaparde of October 18: “… the Moslems are making themselves a nuisance. The Congress government will not stand up but will yield to them. We cannot expect any consideration at the hands of the Congress government. We shall have to fight both the government and the Moslems just as the Khaskars are doing in UP. The Hindu Mahasabha will give its support to such fights as the Muslim League is supporting the Khaskars: you must prepare the volunteers in your towns. The Rashtriya Swaymasevak Sangh may be useful and handy.

The theme of the ‘internal enemy’ is a further element of affinity between the ideology of fascism and of Hind nationalism, expressed by a similar rhetoric. It seems nevertheless that the Sanghatanists were inclined to fight the Muslims and the Congress, rather than the British.

According to Moonje’s plans, the RSS should be involved in the creation of the national militia. Indeed, in a letter of October 18 to General Nanasahib Shinde of Baroda, Moonje affirmed: “I am glad to note that you have approved of my idea of a Hindu National Militia for Maharashtra as is being organised by the Hindu Mahasabha. “I have been myself thinking of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and I am corresponding with their leader.

They may have their peculiar (sic) difficulties and the point is that the militia should be organised under these circumstances whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh can undertake the task or not.

During this preliminary phase, Moonje consulted Hedgewar, with whom he exchanged several letters and whom Moonje hoped to meet, in order to discuss the participation of the RSS in the militia.
On October 27 a militant from Lahore informed Moonje that: “We have at present in Punjab several Dals and Sanghs, the total number of members of which is approximately about 50,000, but they are not working under a single organisation. There are Rashtriya Sevak Sangh, Atma Sangh, Mahabir Dal, Seva Sangh and Akali Dal working under different leaders. They have a sort of military organisation. The Akali Dal is armed with swords, but the others have other weapons. The Rashtriya Sevak Sangh has only lathis. The first thing to do is to bring all these sanghs on a uniform basis working under a single leadership though not of one man but of a council.

In spite of such mobilisation, the Hindu militia had not been formed. The government did not withdraw the existing restrictions imposed on military and paramilitary organisations and schools.

It is difficult to establish if the organisations of militant Hinduism were arming themselves against possible foreign invaders, the internal enemy, or the British. Most probably they were carefully hedging their bet, ready to take advantage of any future development. However, it is a fact that at a meeting with Linlithgow in Bombay on October 8, 1939, Savarkar adopted a decidedly conciliatory position vis–à–vis the British.

When, in the 1940s, the totalitarian regimes had already revealed their true colours, the attitude of the organisations of militant Hinduism towards fascism and Nazism was still benevolent. In spite of the already, even if only partially, known atrocities committed by Hitler and Mussolini, the main organisations of Hindu nationalism still praised the dictators and their regimes. This position could be justified, had it been part of a coherent and strong anti–British policy. However, as I have tried to demonstrate, the forces of Hindu nationalism seem to have concentrated their efforts more against the so–called internal enemies — Muslims and Congress — rather than the foreign invaders. While Bose’s alliance with the axis powers had mainly an anti–British function, the Hindu Mahasabha used its support to the dictators as an instrument in blackmail the British.

Conclusions:
The preceding discussion has shown that: (a) the main historical organisations and leaders of Hindu nationalism had a distinctive and sustained interest in fascism and nazism; (b) fascist ideological influences on Hindu nationalism were present and relevant; and (c) to a certain extent, these influences were channelled through direct contacts between Hindu nationalists and members of the Italian fascist state. No doubt, beginning with the early 1920s and up to the second world war, Hindu nationalists looked at the political reality of fascist Italy, and subsequently of nazi Germany, as a source of inspiration.

One of the results of the contacts between the fascism and Hindu nationalism was the attempt to militarise Hindu society and to create a militant mentality among the Hindus. If it is true that the Hindu society elaborated its own patterns of militarisation — refer to the shakhas as a typically Indian phenomenon — it is equally true that a most relevant result of fascist influence was the transmission of a more functional organisation and a stronger political character to the already existing organisation of political Hinduism.

At the ideological level, the most meaningful effect of the fascist influence is represented by the way in which Hindu nationalism developed its own concept of diversity, transforming ‘diverse’ people into enemies. Of course, the concept of internal enemy is already implicitly contained in Savarkar’s Hindutva. Nevertheless, the continuous reference to German racial policy and the comparison of the Jewish problem in Germany with the Muslim question in India reveals the evolution of the concept of ‘internal enemy’ along explicitly fascist lines.

In my opinion, if one is to understand the evolution of Hindu radicalism in the post–independence period, one has to take into account both the domestic roots of this phenomenon and the external influence on its development.

In the 1920s and 1930s fascism was an international phenomenon. As such it was bound to influence the ideology and practice of similar movements all over the world. Since many of Bal Thackeray’s most outrageously anti–Muslim and racist statements are literal quotations of Savarkar’s speeches and theories, it is legitimate to conclude that such influence is still alive in today’s militant Hinduism.

(The above article has been excerpted from a much larger piece, with detailed references under the title, ‘Hindutva’s Foregin Tie-up in the in the 1930s — Archival Evidence’, published in the January 22, 2000 issue of the Economic and Political Weekly. Marzia Casolari is an Italian researcher. It was published in Communalism Combat in excerpted form in 2000 and has been archived from CC).

When Highhandedness Defies the Cardinal Principles of Natural Justice: JNU

April 28, 2016

The action(s) of the JNU administration at the behest of the Modi-driven regime at the Centre and its newly appointed Vice Chancellor, Jagadesh Kumar have been the subject of much discussion and controversy. On February 12 this year this newly appointed Vice Chancellor, seen by many as a stooge of the Modi regime, in an act that has invoked sharp criticism allowed the police into the campus and the arrest of his students while he mis-informed the Deans on this action. The fact that Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers Association (JNUTA) has stood steadfast in its stand to protect the autonomy of the university and the high standards of debate and scholarship within has been a source of strength to the students.

Image: PTI
Over the past few days, the unilateral decision of this new administration led by Vice Chancellor Jagadesh Kumar to initiate and announce extraordinarily harsh punishments on students –at a time when examinations are on –marks a new low for administration-student relations and the conduct of the VC.

Late last night on April 27, the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) has rejected the report of the enquiry committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to look into the incident of February 9. JNUSU also rejects its reports and any punishment handed out by it. Twenty students from among the union leadership have gone on an indefinite hunger strike as of last night.

Incidentally, repeated written interventions by both the JNUSU and JNUTA had asked the administration to democratise the enquiry committee, but this was not done.

Over one and a half months after the submission of Report of the HLEC (High Level Enquiry Committee) report these ‘actions’ have been taken.

Students have called these actions as nothing but a proxy war waged against the students by the Modi govt through its puppets installed in the JNU administration.

12 reasons why these Decisions meting our Punitive Action are Undemocratic:

Three members picked to be part of the HLEC were hand-picked by the then Registrar, Bhupinder Zutshi, known to have close links to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were Prof. Suman Dhar, Prof. H.B. Bohidar and Prof. Rakesh Bhatnagar, who is also the Head of the Committee, to conduct the enquiry Both the JNUSU & JNUTA had demanded the removal of Zutshi after he allowed the police to raid the hostels, and banned the entry of media into the campus. Bhatnagar was ‘awarded’ a President’s Medal soon after he was appointed to the HLEC. Professor Bhatnagar is closely associated with the anti-reservation student group, “Youth for Equality”.
The then Chief Proctor, Professor Krishna Kumar, had resigned over the way in which a Proctorial Committee was first formed, and then dismissed within four hours of its formation. As a matter of routine, all matters involving students are looked at by the Proctor’s office. However, in this case, the Proctorial committee was dissolved arbitrarily and replaced by a “high level” committee.
The HLEC has no woman, no SC/ST/OBC/minority teachers, and no one from the Social Sciences as members. This when defendant students all hail from poor and marginalised backgrounds, include women and are mostly from the Social Sciences!
The CVO, Chief Vigilance Officer, who under the law governing JNU, is the final appellate authority of the University, but he himself is part of the HLEC. Prof Suman Dhar, who happens to be the CVO, is a member of the Committee. The University Administration has in a defiance of the principles of natural justice denied the students a step of appeal.
When these serious procedural lapses were raised with the VC, he simply added two more members to it. These are simply token additions, as they were added after the entire enquiry process was over. Students through the JNUSU had demanded that, since the composition of the enquiry committee had changed, a fresh probe must be started, as the newly inducted members did not get a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and evidence. This is a legitimate demand, but it was not accepted. Even in the enquiry committee that handed out punishments to Rohith Vemula and his friends, a token Dalit member was added in the end. This is a shamefully cosmetic move and does not make any difference to the enquiry process.
It was due to these lapses that students refused to participate in the enquiry process. Based on one-sided depositions of ABVP members, the enquiry committee has come up with massive fines, rustication, draconian out-of-bounds orders and what not?
The HLEC conclusions have been random and ad hoc. Anirban, has been punished with rustication and out-of-bounds orders for five years! Around 14 students have been fined for Rs. 20,000 each and ordered to pay this fine by May 13, 2016 or face hostel eviction. Former JNUSU President, Ashutosh Kumar has been evicted from hostel for one year and fined with Rs. 20,000. Such punishments are unheard of, and reek of extreme vendetta against student activists. This is clearly a last ditch and pathetic effort by the Modi government to break the back of students who have stood firm in their protest.
The HLEC Report does not co-relate the punishment orders mention to the exact crime committed by the students. All the orders cite a statute that reads, “Any other action deemed inappropriate by the Vice-Chancellor.” This cannot be the yardstick to measure the legality of any event. The administration, in these orders, repeatedly says that “taking part in a march”, “raising slogans” is unbecoming of a JNU student. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. In order to punish anyone, a three-step link has to be established by any enquiry committee:
a) Establish the exact action for which punishment is being handed out.
b) Justify how that particular action violates a certain University statute.
c) Justify how a certain violation attracts a certain amount of punishment.
The committee has not bothered with any of these steps, that in law ocnstitute 'due process' and has 'produced a report handing out punishments that are irrational and vindictive.
The scope of the enquiry committee was never clarified. If it was constituted to look into slogans, why have the provocative slogans being raised by the right-wing student groups not been accounted for? If the enquiry report itself says that outsiders raised the slogans, why are JNU students being punished? Why is there no enquiry into the reason why Zee News was called by JNUSU Joint Secretary, Saurabh Sharma, of the ABVP, an hour before the programme? Why is there no enquiry into the reason Zee News and Times Now circulated doctored videos, even though the Delhi govt has also filed cases against these channels on these very issues? If mere speech and slogans are to be criminalised, why is there no action against Professor Amita Singh, who has called Dalit and Muslim teachers as anti-nationals? Why is there no enquiry committee looking at the violence unleashed by ABVP members on February 13, 2016 against Rajya Sabha MP, Anand Sharma on the JNU campus? Why has the complaint of misbehavior filed by the teachers residing at Paschimabad against ABVP members, not been taken up? Why is JNU administration, despite repeated communications from the JNUSU Vice-President and the JNUTA President, not acted against Amit Jani, who threatened to kill Kanhaiya and Umar, and whose brother has been arrested for planting arms in a JNU-bound bus?
Why has GSCASH representative, Aishwarya Adhikari, been fined with Rs. 20,000 even though her name is not even there in the enquiry committee report?
The HLEC had submitted its report one and a half months back to the VC. However, the VC has waited till the onset of holidays to make the punishments public
Why has the VC not held an Academic Council meeting which is supposed to happen every semester? Every year, there are two AC meetings- one in October and one in April. This is a huge failure on part of the VC, who is so afraid to face the students and the teachers that he cancelled the AC meeting scheduled on the April 19, 2016 and hasn’t reconvened it. The reality is, that without consulting the students and teachers, sweeping changes in admission policy have been brought about by the new administration. It is shocking that, without discussing the issues of reduction of deprivation points for women and BA applicants, and introduction cluster system in BA entrance exam, these changes were brought into the prospectus. Also, bypassing the High Court order to provide relaxation to OBC applicants at two stages, the administration has decided to grant the relaxation at only one level.

Fast on the heels of the high-handed police action, under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Delhi Government had ordered a Magisterial Inquiry into the incidents.

Sabrangindia.in had been among the few publications to analyse and publish the report . Sections of our story, relevant even now, are republished here: Television as Lynch Mob: DM Report on JNU Incident raises Questions of Media Ethics

Newspapers have reported that the Aam Admi Government has reportedly told its legal team to file a criminal case against three channels for airing doctored videos where the words, “ Bandook”, “Sher ke bacche”, and “Hurriyat ke jawaan” were inserted (extraneously) into the videos to mislead the public. Even “Pakistan Zindabad” were telecast although they were not raised at the event after a magisterial inquiry submitted its investigation report.

Three of the seven videos examined by the Truth Labs, Hyderabad to ascertain whether they were doctored or not, were found to have been doctored. The television channels that telecast these doctored videos have not been named in the report.
The reporter and cameraman of Zee News were invited onto the campus at 5.20 p.m. by Saurabh Sharma of the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) who is general secretary of the JNUSU, on February 9, and it is after the telecast by Zee television of the doctored videos the next day that the local police station lodged the FIR. The FIR, filed under section 124A of the Indian penal Code (IPC) did not name any students as offenders.
While Zee News/television willingly gave the CD of the Video recording of the news telecast that led to the registration of an FIR to the police, the same news channel, despite repeated requests did not make available any recording for the purpose of the Magisterial Inquiry. This amounts, in law to suppression of evidence and non-cooperation with a judicial officer.
Several of the Security Officers under the Administration gave contradictory statements to the District Magistrate and the Internal Inquiry Committee.

The Report submitted by Sanjay Kumar, Magistrate on March 2 completely exonerates Kanhaiya Kumar from shouting any anti-national slogans on February 9, 2016. Even on the role of Umar Khalid, the report states that the voice (allegedly heard giving certain slogans) is not visible on the video from the same source as the image, clearly suggesting doctoring. In the case of Anirban and Ashutosh, certain other slogans could be found to have been uttered by them but the melee and confusion of the crowd makes it difficult to offer certain conclusions. Further investigation has been recommended.

Delhi Government report on JNU Incident
Factual Report by the Government of NCT of Delhi, on the Incident which took place at the JNU Camus on February 9, 2016. Sanjay Kumar, Magistrate, New Delhi

Major Findings of the Report of the District Magistrate (DM):

Nothing adverse could be found against Kanhaiya Kumar. No witness or video available to me could support allegation against him.
Umar Khalid was visible in videos. His support for the role of Afzal Guri is known and he was the organizer of the event. His role needs to be further investigated (Page 1 ) The Magistrate further says that after a close watching of the videos, he “did not hear any slogan from the mouth of Umar Khalid” (Page 23)
Three out of seven videos which were sent for verification were found to be doctored including one news clipping of a News Channel found on You-Tube

Rise Up against the Proxy War on Students by the Modi Regime: Shehla Rashid

April 28, 2016

Rise up against the proxy war on students by the Modi regime.

Cartoon by V. Arun Kumar

JNUSU rejects the report of the enquiry committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to look into the 9th of February incident. JNUSU also rejects its reports and any punishment handed out by it. The JNUSU and JNUTA had repeatedly asked the administration to democratise the enquiry committee, but this was not done. Now, when the holidays are here, the VC has made public the punishments, after one and a half months of submission of the HLEC (High Level Enquiry Committee) report.

[Shehla Rashid, VP, JNUSU, speaking at the Press Conference in JNU on April 26 against the HLEC. Courtesy, ‘We are JNU’ Youtube Channel ]

The punishments are nothing but a proxy war waged against the students by the Modi govt through its puppets installed in the JNU administration. Modi govt cannot answer our difficult questions, and is, therefore, resorting to these tactics. They want to create a chilling effect and discourage students from speaking up against Modi government’s failures. Here are 12 reasons why we must fight against these undemocratic “punishments”:

1. On the advice of the then Registrar, Bhupinder Zutshi, who has been exposed as an RSS puppet and whose removal the JNUSU & JNUTA demanded, the newly appointed VC had picked three members, Prof. Suman Dhar, Prof. H.B. Bohidar and Prof. Rakesh Bhatnagar, who is also the Head of the Committee, to conduct the enquiry. Zutshi is also the person who allowed the police to raid the hostels, and banned the entry of media into the campus.

2. The then Chief Proctor, Prof. Krishna Kumar, had resigned over the way in which a Proctorial Committee was first formed, and then dismissed within four hours of its formation. As a matter of routine, all matters involving students are looked at by the Proctor’s office. However, in this case, the Proctorial committee was dissolved arbitrarily and replaced by a “high level” committee, headed by Prof. Bhatnagar who is a known anti-reservationist. He continues to be the authority responsible for raising funds for the rabid student group, “Youth for Equality”.

3. No woman, no SC/ST/OBC/minority teacher, no one from the Social Sciences was included in the committee, whereas the defendants all hail from poor and marginalised backgrounds, include women and are mostly from the Social Sciences!

4. The CVO, Chief Vigilance Officer, is the final appellate authority of the University, but he himself is part of the HLEC. Prof Suman Dhar, who happens to be the CVO, is a member of the Committee. Hence, we cannot even appeal against this decision!

5. When all these questions were raised, the VC added two more members to it. These are simply token additions, as they were added after the entire enquiry process was over. We demanded that, since the composition of the enquiry committee had changed, a fresh probe must be started, as the newly inducted members did not get a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and evidence. This is a legitimate demand, but it was not accepted. Even in the enquiry committee that handed out punishments to Rohith Vemula and his friends, a token Dalit member was added in the end. This is a shamefully cosmetic move and does not make any difference to the enquiry process.

6. Due to all this, the students refused to participate in the enquiry process. Based on one-sided depositions of ABVP members, the enquiry committee has come up with massive fines, rustication, draconian out-of-bounds orders and what not? This shows how scared the government is of dissenting voices.

7. The HLEC has randomly punished people. One of the students, Anirban, has been punished with rustication and out-of-bounds orders for five years! Around 14 students have been fined for Rs. 20,000 each and threatened to pay the fine by 13th of May or face hostel eviction. Former JNUSU President, Ashutosh Kumar has been evicted from hostel for one year and fined with Rs. 20,000. Such punishments are unheard of, and reek of extreme vendetta against student activists. This is clearly a war bugle sounded by the Central government.

8. Nowhere do the punishment orders mention the exact crime committed by the students. All the orders cite a statute that reads, “Any other action deemed inappropriate by the Vice-Chancellor.” This cannot be the yardstick to measure the legality of any event. The administration, in these orders, repeatedly says that “taking part in a march”, “raising slogans” is unbecoming of a JNU student. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. In order to punish anyone, a three-step link has to be established by any enquiry committee:
a) Establish the exact action for which punishment is being handed out.
b) Justify how that particular action violates a certain University statute.
c) Justify how a certain violation attracts a certain amount of punishment.

The committee hasn’t bothered to do any of this, and has arbitrarily punished students for holding political opinions that they may not like.

9. The scope of the enquiry committee was never clarified. If it was constituted to look into slogans, why have the provocative slogans being raised by the right-wing student groups not been accounted for? If the enquiry report itself says that outsiders raised the slogans, why are JNU students being punished? Why is there no enquiry into the reason why Zee News was called by JNUSU Joint Secretary, Saurabh Sharma, of the ABVP, an hour before the programme? Why is there no enquiry into the reason Zee News and Times Now circulated doctored videos, even though the Delhi govt has also filed cases against these channels on these very issues? If mere speech and slogans are to be criminalised, why is there no action against Prof. Amita Singh, who has called Dalit and Muslim teachers as anti-nationals? Why is there no enquiry committee looking at the violence unleashed by ABVP members on 13th of Feb against Rajya Sabha MP, Anand Sharma on JNU campus? Why has the complaint of misbehavior filed by the teachers residing at Paschimabad against ABVP members, not been taken up? Why is JNU administration, despite repeated communications from the JNUSU Vice-President and the JNUTA President, not acted against Amit Jani, who threatened to kill Kanhaiya and Umar, and whose brother has been arrested for planting arms in a JNU-bound bus?

10. why has GSCASH representative, Aishwarya Adhikari, been fined with Rs. 20,000 even though her name is not even there in the enquiry committee report?

13103383_523386344537165_3419703043461168415_n

JNUSU Office Bearers Burn Copies of the HLEC Document. Photo by Mohit Pandey

11. The HLEC had submitted its report one and a half months back to the VC. However, the VC has waited till the onset of holidays to make the punishments public, showing how scared the VC is of students’ protests. But we want to remind the new VC here that, many struggles have been fought by the student community during the time of exams and vacations. The struggle to implement Mandal-II (OBC reservation in higher educaiton) saw a 34-day hunger strike in JNU during holidays. In the summer of 2014, under the Dera Dalo movement, students and workers together occupied the Ad Block for 14 days in blazing heat, to demand hostels and workers’ rights. The 16th December movement and the Occupy UGC movement went on despite holiday, biting cold and water cannons.

12. Why has the VC not held an Academic Council meeting which is supposed to happen every semester? Every year, there are two AC meetings- one in October and one in April. This is a huge failure on part of the VC, who is so afraid to face the students and the teachers that he cancelled the AC meeting scheduled on the 19th of April and hasn’t reconvened it. The reality is, that without consulting the students and teachers, sweeping changes in admission policy have been brought about by the new administration. It is shocking that, without discussing the issues of reduction of deprivation points for women and BA applicants, and introduction cluster system in BA entrance exam, these changes were brought into the prospectus. Also, bypassing the High Court order to provide relaxation to OBC applicants at two stages, the administration has decided to grant the relaxation at only one level. Not only will we oppose the punishments, we will also raise these issues through our hunger strike.

The Modi government cannot deal with the issues we raise, cannot answer our questions regarding organised scams, communal hate mongering and economic failure. They cannot answer our questions on non-NET fellowship and Rohith Vemula, on minority institutions, on police action on students, on Bastar, on Kashmir, on Gajendra Chauhan. Rather than countering us politically, rather than working on developmental and economic issues, the Modi govt has directed all of its energy into crushing opposition. However, not only will JNUSU continue to fight against these fines and punishments, we will continue to expose the government. Not only will we oppose the rustications, we will also raise difficult questions. Students, teachers, farmers’ organisations, women’s groups, bank employees’ Unions and IT employees’ Unions across the country have assured support to us. People from all walks of life are supporting JNU students against this targeting. We will launch a countrywide campaign to expose this government’s anti-student, anti-Dalit character.

Poster Announcing Commencement of Hunger Strike at JNU, Courtesy, Rama Naga, Gen. Sec. JNUSU

We appeal to everyone to join Mashaal Juloos from Ganga Dhaba to Ad Block tomorrow at 9 p.m., culminating in fast unto death at the Ad Block (renamed Freedom Square). The March/Mashaal Juloos has its dedicated events page on Facebook, please share and circulate the link widely.

Students will prepare for their entrance examinations by sitting at AD BLOCK, we will write our papers at the freedom square, students will write their synopsis and term papers from the site of the hunger strike. We from JNUSU appeal all the students to join in ever larger numbers tomorrow’s March from Ganga to Ad Block at 9 PM, culminating in a fast unto death.

Shehla Rashid, is Vice-President, JNUSU

Courtesy: Kafila.org

How the Ulema are Perpetuating Male Hegemony in the Name of Islam

April 28, 2016

First published on: February 29, 2016

Photo: Courtesy DNA
The self-appointed custodians of Islam are doing the greatest disservice to Islam and Muslims, women especially

In our understanding the values of kindness, compassion and justice are the core values enshrined in the Quran. Clearly, hegemony is not an Islamic value and yet the experiences we have undergone in the course of our work in the last ten years give rise to certain fundamental questions.

Why are so many Muslims, particularly men, so hegemonic in their thinking? Why do most of them seem to think that reading, understanding and interpreting of the Quran is a sole male prerogative? They seem to think that Allah created men and women as unequal. This view of an unjust Allah is not acceptable to us and therein lies the crux of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan’s (BMMA) existence.

Globally, eminent scholars such as the late professor Fatima Mernissi, Dr Amina Wadud, Dr Khalid Masood, Dr Ziba Mir Hosseini and several more have dedicated their lives to reading and interpreting the Quran to highlight that Allah is just and fair. Volumes have been written on the tawhidic framework about Allah as a uniting, harmonizing force. But the fact remains that these scholarly works that bring out the essence of Islam as a religion of peace and justice remain unheeded and are not referred to by large mass of people in Muslim societies.

Unfortunately, the dominant thought processes that control Muslim societies remain patriarchal. The traditions and practices followed are often in direct violation of the Quranic spirit of justice. The stranglehold of patriarchal hegemony in India and in South Asia has got exacerbated by the arrival of Salafi-Wahhabi ideologies that now threaten to become the mainstream in Muslim society. This ideology has led to further strengthening of the hegemony of patriarchal mindsets in our community. Practices such as triple talaq and halala are manifestations of this trend. But at the core of this thinking is a patriarchal mindset of male superiority and domination.

We want to refer here to the dominant common sense prevalent in the Indian Muslim community about men being superior to women. Islam gave equal rights to women over 1400 years ago; but have they been translated into reality? So long as the dominant common sense about male superiority dictates the mindsets and behavior of Muslims these rights will remain on paper.

In what has been a masterstroke the patriarchal forces have succeeded in attributing this subjugation and injustice to Islam through misinterpretations, distortions and lies. They have invented fiction, half-truths and references that equate women with cattle and allow the men to get away with the worst kind of atrocities against them. In the process they not only violate the basic tenets of Islam, they also help demonisation and stereotyping of the whole community.

They treat their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters unjustly and, even if unwittingly, help the Hindutva campaigns. The self-appointed custodians of Islam do greatest disservice to Muslims and to Islam. It is a pity that even some so-called educated Muslims blindly support these custodians thanks to the common sense about male superiority in Islam that they suffer from.

Why has there been no concerted effort so far to challenge these patriarchal custodians? Why is it that the Muslim women themselves had to initiate a challenge to these hegemonic elements? Why are the wise Muslim men not supporting Muslim women’s’ struggle for Quranic rights of justice and equality? Or are they forever going to allow the conservative clerics to keep deciding for all 17 crore of us? Are they not aware that Islam has no place for intermediaries between Allah and believers? And lastly, what legitimacy do they have to question Muslim women who stand up and fight for their Quranic rights?

We will recount here some direct evidence about the dominant Indian Muslim male thinking being hegemonic and in violation of Islamic values of justice and fairness. This is not to say that there are no exceptional and courageous Muslim men; all of us know many of them in our respective spheres. But as a whole, it is the patriarchal conservative thought process that dominates our conduct.

All of us Muslim women had come together in the aftermath of the communal violence of Gujarat in 2002 to unequivocally oppose the communal forces and to demand rehabilitation and justice for the survivors. Our work at the time was focused around fighting discrimination on communal basis and demanding equal citizenship for the largest minority.
As we began to know and learn about each other spread across different parts of the country we could at once identify a lot of common ground and the need for coming together as a national entity. We were all bold and gutsy women who had fought with their own adverse circumstances and were struggling for equal citizenship in our respective locations and local contexts.

After informal interactions spanning over nearly two years we realised that we shared a commonality of purpose and had a shared worldview. We felt that Indian Muslims were poor and backward despite the Constitutional guarantees. We agreed that we were denied our Quranic rights thanks to the nexus between the patriarchal forces in our community and various governments. We decided that we need to change the situation.

We were clear that women needed to take up the leadership of the Muslim community in India for so-called male leadership was responsible for the all-round failure. We formed the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan in January 2007. Our name was a very deliberated and considered exercise. We felt that we needed a name that spells out what we stood for. We were as Bharatiya as anyone else and we would not offer apologies for being Muslim and Bharatiya. Nobody can appropriate the word Bharatiya and exclude others.

We put together our worldview in the form of our mission document where we clearly stated that we believe in the values of justice, equality, pluralism and democracy enshrined in the Constitution of India. We also clearly stated that we saw no contradiction between these values and the Quranic values. We set forth to work on attaining our Quranic as well as citizenship rights. We clearly stated our solidarity with all those who are working for justice and equality in the country and the world.

We also stated that we believe in secularism, religious harmony and peaceful co-existence as opposed to communalism and intolerance. We wanted to develop an alternative voice of the Muslim community that was rooted in pluralism and mutual respect between communities. And we were clear that it should be a feminine voice as the regressive male voices had failed to achieve anything for Indian Muslims in sixty years after 1947.

Nobody asks where these scholars are when a triple talaq takes place in their respective cities or mohallas! Nobody talks about the scholars’ moral obligation to act when practices like halala are found rampant in our society! Another common experience is being told by a male member of a largely Muslim audience: your views are ok but why are you not dressed in Islamic way? Pray what is the Islamic way, we ask?

We embarked on a journey towards our mission focusing on the citizenship rights of our excluded community. A campaign on Sachar Committee’s findings and implementation of the recommendations was taken up in the initial years nationally and in various states. As soon as we found some bearings and women started becoming our members in large members we were faced with the reality of legal discrimination against Muslim women.

Across all states women began coming to us saying: I was divorced orally; I was thrown out after triple talaq, where do I go with my children; I received a post card from my husband divorcing me; I was away at my parents’ home for two months and learnt that my husband has married another woman; my husband divorced me and now wants me back; the qazi is asking me to undergo halala (meaning, marry and consummate marriage with another man, divorce him, only then remarry your former husband) etc etc.

The sad reality of male hegemony that rules the roost in our community ostensibly in the name of Islam dawned on us! We could not have asked the women to just go away! We realised that the long-term solution lay in the codification of the Muslim personal law based on the Quranic tenets. And this brought us into direct confrontation with the established patriarchal forces who had always spoken in the name of religion. We are not attempting here to give a summary of our work; anyone interested reader can visit our website. (www.bmmaindia.com).

Every public meeting, every seminar, every program of ours takes us on a familiar pattern of responses from Muslim males. We have women participating in large numbers, giving their testimonies, their inputs on a range of issues such as Muslim personal law, government schemes, communal harmony, different happenings in society etc. Above all, they give us their trust.

But invariably at the end of the program a Muslim male stands up and begins teaching us about Islam as he perceives it. He takes it upon himself, in spite of his apparent ignorance of the issue, to teach us about Islamic tenets. He thinks it is his prerogative since he represents the male species in a room full of women! Often such wise men beat a retreat when ordinary women start retorting with evidence and confidence.

We see another interesting response pattern at different public hearings across the country of women who have been orally divorced. After hearing heart-rending testimonies of their suffering, when there is an open discussion towards the end a male would stand up. He would say in a satiric, authoritative or sometimes angry tone that all this talk about triple talaq is uncalled for since triple talaq is un-Islamic!

Then, some of us would ask: why then does it take place in our society? Why do we not have a law against it? To this he would have no answers. Our women leaders regularly get invited to speak at various fora. It is a common occurrence, especially if the gathering has large numbers of Muslim male participants, to be told that your views are ok but we need to consult scholars. Obviously, in their opinion a scholar is someone with grey hair and maybe a beard!

Nobody asks where these scholars are when a triple talaq takes place in their respective cities or mohallas! Nobody talks about the scholars’ moral obligation to act when practices like halala are found rampant in our society! Another common experience is being told by a male member of a largely Muslim audience: your views are ok but why are you not dressed in Islamic way? Pray what is the Islamic way, we ask, only to receive stock replies. Again we see male hegemony at play trying to hide behind Islamic dress this time!
The problem seems to be that these men are not used to the presence of empowered women in their midst, leave alone their opinions. And they take refuge behind an imagined version of Islam for they have no real arguments.

Sometimes some well-educated persons who are sympathetic to our work end up suggesting: your draft law on Muslim Personal Law is very good; why don’t you send it to some ulema for their approval? This is gross ignorance to say the least and in the ultimate analysis only strengthens the stranglehold of patriarchy.

In recent days when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of our demands for reform in Muslim Personal Law, a well-known Muslim lawyer pleaded with the court to allow the male clerics to be party to the petition. We wonder why a Muslim lawyer of such eminence would think it fit to rope in the clerics for this. After all, is he not aware that the conservative clerics are the impediment to any solution? In fact they are not just part of the problem; they are the problem!

This section has stonewalled any talk of reform in Muslim Personal Law since 1947. In 1986 they raised a hue and cry over a pittance of Rs 125 being provided to 65-year-old Shah Bano as maintenance post divorce on the ground that this would put Islam and Muslims in danger! And yet if large sections of educated Muslims think that the male orthodoxy is the sole custodian of Islam there is something wrong here. This is rank patriarchal hegemony being passed off as Islam.

Sanghis, Sex and University Students: What is it Really All About?: Ayesha Kidwai

April 28, 2016

[ The prurient fantasies contained in the ‘JNU Dossier’, produced by some right wing faculty members of JNU in or around October 2015, have been ‘outed’ by an excellent report by Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta in Wire.org. This comes exactly at the time when the JNU administration has shown its fangs by delivering a low blow by way of the measures outlined in the report of the ‘High Level Enquiry Committee’ appointed by the Vice Chancellor. An impartial examination of the HLEC document and the ‘Dossier’ in will reveal some startlingly resonant patterns. Clearly, the ‘Dossier’, which had been dismissed by the former Vice-Chanceller, Prof. Sopory, has been reincarnated at the express orders of the Nagpuri masters of the present dispensation. We are sharing below an excellent response to the ‘Dossier’ by Ayesha Kidwai, one of the professors – ‘named’ in the dossier. This is taken from Ayesha Kidwai’s status update on her Facebook Page.

For another take down of the ‘Dossier’ – see also – “Sex and sedition: What the JNU dossier tells us about the right-wing imagination” – in Scroll.in by Kavita Krishnan. Meanwhile, JNU Students have commenced on a ‘fast unto death’ in protest against the university administration’s senseless measures. Kafila]

Sanghi smut is in season again! For the authors of the Dirty Dossier, JNU nights are forever scented with musk, with couples draped on every bush, suitably fortified by free alcohol, thoughts of secession, and cash payments supplied by the Awesome Foursome. At its peak, the party can practically involve the whole university, because as per Shri Gyan Dev Ahuja’s estimates, the number of students frolicking this will be 7000 (3000 condom users X 2, plus 500 injectable walas X 2). (Assuming of course that the few hundred left over have gone to fieldwork, have exams, or are abstemious and/or abstinent in nature.)

Laugh as we may (and must) at these feverish imaginings, it’s also important to understand that the very notion of a free university challenges not only misogyny, but also the social apartheid produced by caste and exclusionary religion.

Cartoon by Jyothidaas K.V.

In most educational institutions, caste and religious differences and distances are studiously reproduced by caste/community based hostels (e.g. I am told Calcutta University has a hostel exclusively for Muslim men and that Patna University has one for Yadavs and another for Kurmis) and an entrenched system of discriminatory administrative and pedagogical practices. What is interesting is that even where such segregation practices is not institutionally enforced, strict hostel curfews for women, moral policing, dress codes, and a generalised heteronormativity that pervades every institutional space and practice seem to suffice to reproduce the very same social order.

A Fragment of Page 14 of the ‘JNU Dossier’

What extreme threat does women students’ freedom and the free mingling of the sexes pose? Well, if sexuality and amorous choices can be freed from the borders and boundaries enforced by caste and community, the main social institution crucially involved in the reproduction of caste and exclusionary religion — the FAMILY– is in danger of being reinterpreted. If Wheatish Brahmin from Uttar Pradesh is to find love with Whitish Animist Adivasi from Arunachal Pradesh (in Sanghspeak from the ’90s you had to say Vanvasi — no one dare be more adi than the Brahmins), how can either caste or religious exclusion be reproduced? And worse, it usually doesn’t stop there, because Wheatish Brahmin could love another Wheatish Brahmin, and decide to –gasp!– procreate only Wheatishes henceforth. By not incarcerating women, by having a GSCASH, by relentlessly struggling for a gender-plural campus free of surveillance and policing, universities like JNU challenge not only patriarchy, but also its chief clients: caste and exclusionary religion.

It should therefore be no surprise to any student as to why from the Sanghistanian perspective, at least some normal young people look like they have already seceded from a nation built on the hegemonies of caste (Brahminism), religion (Hinduism) and gender (antiquated Male, size 56). And JNU students, having Kissed With Love in Jhandewalan and Married in Parliament Street P.S. for many hours, there is no reason to complain, really.

Ayesha Kidwai is Professor of Language, Literature and Cultural Studies at the Centre for Linguistics, Jawaharlal Nehru Universities.

Courtesy: Kafila.org

JNU Students Throw Down the Gauntlet: 20 Students Including Kanhaiya to Go on Indefinite Hunger Strike

April 27, 2016

Pictures by V Arun Kumar, JNU Teesta Setalvad

Twenty Students, including JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar will go on a hunger strike starting today to protest the high handed functioning of the JNU administration under Vice Chancelor Jagadesh Kumar that has taken harsh and irrational actions against several students of the university without following due process or giving fair hearing. The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers Association (JNUTA) ha today seriously challenged the functioning of the university under this VC.

After a Mashaal March that started at Ganga Dhabha around 10 pm. a march with over a thousand students that wound its way to "Freedom Square", a public meeting addressed by Kanhaiya Kumar culminated in the voluntary decision announcimng the indefinite hunger strike. The students who will join the strike are Sanjeev, Avdesh, Birendra, G Suresh, Sunaina, Samanta Singh, Partipan, Umar Khalid, Pankhuri Zaheer, Anant Prakash, Pratim Ghoshal, Fayaz, Nitisha, Raksha, Srabani, Anant, Chintu, Sweta Raj, Rama Naga and Kanhaiya Kumar.

In a fiery and substantive speech Kanhaiya Kumar vowed that the struggle for autonomy and decency in JNU was a struggle that all right thinking people in the country identified with/ It was a matter of shame that this vindictive government under Modi and Smuriti Irani had chosen a time when students were busy preparing for their examinations to launch this assault. We will fight and we shall win, Kanhaiya said. Moreover we appeal to progressive movements all over the country to join and support the battle for justice.

In Support and Solidarity with Evacuees of the Narmada Valley’s Sardar Sarovar Project, Protest at MP Bhavan, Delhi

April 27, 2016

A strong protest of the Narmada Bachao Andolan on behalf of 2,00,000 dam displaced evacuees of the Narmada valley will be held outside the Madhya Pradesh Bhavan, Delhi on April 28, 2016. Thirty years –three decades—since the people of the Narmada valley have been struggling against their unjust displacement due to the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, today the construction of the dam was restarted in June 2014 and now the dam height is nearing completion.

On April 28 , 12:00 pm, protesters will gather at the Madhya Pradesh Bhavan, New Delhi in solidarity with the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the lakhs of people affected by the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project. This is happening at a time when a three day protest- chetavani upvas and satyagraha is taking place in Bhopal.

As the 2016 monsoon approaches, two hundred thousand people are faced with the threat of submergence. These families are still living in the submergence zone, they will lose their villages, schools, places of worship, houses, farms with prime agriculture, panchayats and a township partly submerged earlier will be further affected.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) has challenged the government’s false affidavits on the question of complete R&R and exposed the massive corruption involved in the process. The NBA’s petition to the Madhya Pradesh High Court constituted a commission of Enquiry under Justice S S Jha (referred to as the Jha Commission). The Jha commission submitted its report after nearly seven years of detailed investigation into cases of corruption involving government employees and accepted the massive fraud which was to the tune of thousands of crores.But the State of Madhya Pradesh has refused to grant the people access to the report! Furthermore, even the MLA’s have not been given access to the report. All this has been done citing privilege of the State Assembly.

The Justice Jha Commission report has the details of all fake registries, the amount of money wasted, and all the agents and officials involved in the scam. There is an urgent need to uncover the corruption involved in terms of money, land and the rights in the distribution of house plots and construction of resettlement sites. In addition, the question of the quality of resettlement sites cannot be ignored. All culprits involved must be punished regardless of being an officer or an agent. The corruption in the Narmada Valley Development Authority (N.V.D.A) must be uncovered.

During decades of struggle the NBA has succeeded in getting 14,000 Adivasis, Dalit farmers and their families to receive land. ) especially in Gujarat and Maharashtra. But Madhya Pradesh is a different story, only 40 to 50 displaced families have been allotted land. Even today, 40,000 families live in the submergence zone.The Madhya Pradesh government has constantly fudged the number of oustees even changing the data relating to the Back Water Level, and thereby excluded many people from the submergence area and lists of Project Affected People thereby denying them their due R&R share – initially 4374 families and then another 15,900 families. Such action affecting about 20000 families is both unscientific and illegal.

These villages that lie in the submergence zone are full of life and activity, which cannot be submerged without proper resettlement violating the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal and Supreme court judgments of 1992, 2000 and 2005. Despite all this, the Centre along with the Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat governments, have continued the construction of dam, which is almost complete.

Major Demands:

1. Make public the Jha Commission Report on massive corruption in rehabilitation. Send the guilty to Jail. Now!

2. Complete Rehabilitation & Resettlement of thousands of farmers, labourers, fisher people, and artisans before the monsoons. Gates of the dam should not be closed till R&R is complete and all affected are resettled at new sites, in 3 states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat at the earliest with all entitlements as per law and SC judgments.

Hundreds to Fast for Justice to the Sardar Sarovar Project Affected

Hundreds of people from Narmada Valley have been observing fast April 27 to 29, 2016 in Bhopal demanding justice to families affected by the Sardar Sarovar Project.

The 30-year old struggle by the Sardar Sarovar Project affected people of the Narmada Valley, continues even today against the government’s tardy rehabilitation process. Even today, after the Jha Commission Report, the families who haven’t been rehabilitated have not yet been granted justice or rights, neither have the culprits been punished.

Along with the fast in Bhopal, people from various tehsils in Maharashtra, MP, Gujarat and different parts of the country would also stage a dharna at their places in solidarity.
Through the Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharastra governments, the Modi Government has pulled strings to increase the height of the dam by 17 meters. “We will not let them complete the increase of the dams height through JalSamarpan will save the valley,” organizers of the program said adding, "Now, the time has come again that together we challenge the preparations made by those in power and involved in corruption, to drown thousands of families in years old civilization of the Narmada Valley". They point out, “The question of Narmada is linked to the various people’s movements of the country and vice-versa.”
Justice Jha Commission, which was formed on the directions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2008, had submitted its report on corruption after 7 years. The irony is that a copy of the report is not even made available to Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) who is a petitioner in this particular case. NBA was not allowed to open the report in the court neither the report was given to MLAs, but only tabled in the State Assembly, and therefore not available publicly.
The Supreme Court has sought ‘Action Taken Report’ regarding the report submitted by the Commission, in six weeks time from the state government.
“It has to be found out which officials are involved in corruption, apart from finding out about money and land. Those who are guilty needs to be identified and punished accordingly. Even before we went to the High Court, the displaced people were being sent to jail; which was stopped by the High Court; the future action also have to be planned accordingly," organizers said.
In 30 years, 14,000 Adivasi and Dalit farmers in Gujarat and Maharashtra were rehabilitated with land. But in Madhya Pradesh only 40 to 50 farmers were given land as a part of rehabilitation with more than 50,000 displaced families still residing in submergence area. The action of Madhya Pradesh government to rehabilitate 4374 families earlier and 15,900 families now to the submergence area is unscientific and illegal. According to the organizers of the protests, dharamshalas, panchayats, temples, mosques, shops, markets and livelihood of lakhs of people cannot be drowned without rehabilitation as per Supreme Court orders of 1992, 2000 and 2005.

‘Our society has become deeply dehumanised’

April 27, 2016

An interview with Nandita Haksar

Image: Frontline

Mohammad Aamir Khan was born in Delhi in 1977. In 1998, he was kidnapped, tortured and framed by the Indian state in eighteen bomb blast cases. It took him fourteen years to prove his innocence. When he finally came out of jail, it was into a drastically changed world: his father was dead and his mother paralysed. He had no job and no security. Despite his daily struggle to survive and support his family, Aamir has involved himself in the struggles of people fighting against discrimination and oppression—whether for the rights of religious minorities, prisoners, women or the LGBT community.

Framed as a Terrorist, published by Speaking Tiger, Delhi, is Aamir’s account of his illegal arrest, custodial torture, and being framed by the Indian state. We interview human rights lawyer and activist Nandita Haksar, who represented Aamir in court and has co-authored the book with him, about the implications of his wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

Speaking Tiger

Let us begin with questions of legality. You have mentioned that Aamir’s arrest was illegal and the magistrate at no point expressed any concern about this. Could you elaborate on what reform is necessary to change this state of affairs?
In writing Aamir’s story I have tried to document step by step how an innocent person is framed in false cases by the police, and in this case also the intelligence agencies. The first step is the actual arrest; which is almost always illegal. In other words, the police do not follow the procedure laid down under the Criminal Procedure Code. The procedures in the criminal code have been further elaborated by the Supreme Court’s direction in the D. K. Basu case, which I have quoted in the book.

There have been many attempts at police reform and there was even a ten-volume report on the subject some years ago. But if police reform is to take place there are two pre-conditons: (a) the political will and (b) much greater awareness among citizens.

In a footnote to the first chapter you mention we still don’t know who Guptaji—the person who first contacted Aamir to work as a spy—really is. Why hasn’t the police or courts investigated this? How long can the Indian intelligence services remain outside the purview of legislators or citizens?
Aamir’s story illustrates the vast powers exercised by the intelligence agencies. They are able to operate outside the law with impunity. One of the biggest hurdles to any investigation is that the intelligence agencies are outside the ambit of the Right to Information Act. The other impediment is that the issue has not taken centre stage in our political life.

There are many interesting moments in Aamir’s story: for instance, how a neighbour of his in Chandni Chowk could not go for an interview because there was a curfew, and who is now a seller in the bazaar. Do you think Framed as a Terrorist is not just Aamir’s personal account, but part of a larger narrative, of brilliant resilience and hope in the face of state violence?
I personally do not think Aamir’s story is one of “brilliant resilience and hope” precisely because it is not about one person’s survival. Aamir is not a Papillon. His is a story of hundreds of political prisoners, especially Muslim prisoners, who are still in jail and have no hope of getting out.

There has been no national outrage after the book came out. Instead, Aamir’s story is being celebrated as an achievement of Indian democracy—especially by liberal Hindus.

To come to accounts in the book of the brutal torture Aamir faced. Torture in police custody is a systemic epidemic, with no punitive measures for the perpetrators. What is the way forward? And, with respect to the victims, how can we build institutions where they are treated for the trauma they suffer in their encounters with the state?
There are two questions you seem to be asking: (a) how can we stop torture being used as an instrument of state policy and (b) how can the victim of torture get help for post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

The only way torture will ever be abolished is if it becomes a political issue, in which political parties have a stake in abolishing it. But as long as this so-called war against terrorism continues, there is not even a remote possibility that torture will not be used as an instrument of state policy. However, a vigilant human rights movement, which is crucial, can definitely put a check on the practice.

There is a need for psychiatrists or counsellors with special training who can deal with PTSD. We need a political approach rather than a purely medical approach. The same is true for lawyers; we need human rights lawyers rather than criminal lawyers to handle cases such as Aamir’s.

Narratives such as Aamir’s do help the mainstream understand the perspective of individuals maligned and persecuted by the state. But isn’t there a flipside: might such accounts strengthen others’ distrust of the Indian state? What was your intention in writing Framed as a Terrorist?
My primary motivation for writing the book was to help Aamir. It was an act of solidarity. He wanted to tell his story and I helped him do so. However, I added a long introductory chapter to put the context of the story. Unfortunately, many of the readers just read it as a moving story but they do not always understand the political and legal implications.

I hope the book helps initiate a national outrage against the criminal justice system, which frames and imprisons innocent citizens and has no mechanism for the compensation and rehabilitation of its victims. The book exposes how deeply dehumanized our society has become, and how the foundations of Indian democracy have been weakened by the subversion of the criminal justice system.

See here for an interview with Mohammad Aamir Khan.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

1...2,5542,5552,556...2,696 Page 2,555 of 2,696

Hindutva’s Fascist Heritage

When Highhandedness Defies the Cardinal Principles of Natural Justice: JNU

Rise Up against the Proxy War on Students by the Modi Regime: Shehla Rashid

Rise up against the proxy war on students by the Modi regime.

How the Ulema are Perpetuating Male Hegemony in the Name of Islam

First published on: February 29, 2016

Photo: Courtesy DNA
The self-appointed custodians of Islam are doing the greatest disservice to Islam and Muslims, women especially

Sanghis, Sex and University Students: What is it Really All About?: Ayesha Kidwai

JNU Students Throw Down the Gauntlet: 20 Students Including Kanhaiya to Go on Indefinite Hunger Strike

In Support and Solidarity with Evacuees of the Narmada Valley’s Sardar Sarovar Project, Protest at MP Bhavan, Delhi

‘Our society has become deeply dehumanised’

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Rise up against the proxy war on students by the Modi regime.

First published on: February 29, 2016 Photo: Courtesy DNAThe self-appointed custodians of Islam are doing the greatest disservice to Islam and Muslims, women especially

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

First published on: February 29, 2016

Photo: Courtesy DNA
The self-appointed custodians of Islam are doing the greatest disservice to Islam and Muslims, women especially