Right in action

September 30, 1999

Hindutva’s large–scale takeover of educational institutions is one of the little–known but major achievements of the Kalyan Singh government in U.P.

Kalyan Singh’s bhagwa sarkar in UP was taught a resounding lesson during the recent elections but one
issue that did not receive nationwide focus despite persistent efforts by local groups was the systematic infiltration into educational and cultural institutions by ideologues of the RSS.

Exactly a year ago, last September, the Kalyan Singh government introduced a unique policy initiative in the area of state education. The kulp yojana was set into motion, a compulsory initiative that links every single state– run school in the state to the RSS shakha. The brainchild of the UP state education minister, Narendra Kumar Singh Gaur, this scheme was made compulsory for all primary schools in the state. It was, according to the government circular, aimed at the “moral and physical development of the child.” Through it, schools have been directed, especially in rural areas, to involve the RSS pracharak in ‘naitik shiksha’ (moral education).

The aim of the scheme is to orient all state–run schools in UP along the lines of the RSS–run Saraswati Shishu and Bal Vidya mandirs. While announcing the scheme in Uttar Pradesh, the minister said that kulp was being introduced to “enhance the qualitative standard of education” in schools and to ensure that “teachers are an intermediary between school, family and society”. (see Communalism Combat, October 1998).

The same minister, N.K. Gaur, who introduced this scheme that has already been implemented by the UP state government in the rural areas was also responsible for exposing the UP bureaucracy officially to exhortations from the RSS chief, Rajendra Singh. Way back in the 1960s, Rajendra Singh, sarsanghchalak of the RSS, professor of physics at the Allahabad University would often turn up for his lecture clad in the RSS uniform, khaki shorts and white shirt, straight from the morning shakha.

But to imagine that four decades later, on July 25, 1998, the same professor stirred up a controversy by formally meeting some of the top bureaucrats of UP in Lucknow and giving them sermons on “nationalism and honesty.” This meeting was organised by state minister Gaur, and a former RSS pracharak and now an IAS officer, Akhand Pratap Singh. The presence of UP chief secretary, Yogendra Narayan and DGP, K.L. Gupta among the 60–odd officers created ripples across the establishment.

While Kalyan Singh’s criminal-run raj and even the gross human rights’ violations by the police and the law and order machinery have drawn some national attention, the systematic infiltration or take–over by educational and cultural institutions by ideologues of the Hindu right have been, unfortunately, ignored.

Neither the state nor the country could have forgotten the controversy over the state government’s attempts to impose the singing of Saraswati Vandana and Vande Mataram in schools all over Uttar Pradesh. What is less well–known are the persistent government moves to thrust its ideology in higher education institutions through the appointments of hard core RSS ideologues as vice–chancellors of various universities.

Persons identified clearly with an RSS background have already been put as vice–chancellors for Kumaun, Purvanchal, Lucknow universities, Kashi Vidhyapeeth. Chairman of other educational bodies like SCERT and Higher Education Commission are also RSS men now. The government is also awaiting the completion of the tenures of other vice–chancellors appointed earlier. The non–RSS chancellors are facing various administrative problems including undue political interference in day–to–day affairs.

Dr. Rooprekha Verma, who remained officiating vice– chancellor in Lucknow for a brief spell from February 1998 to December 1998 recalls how she was repeatedly gheraoed and subjected to unprecedented hooliganism on flimsy grounds by the ABVP — the student wing of the BJP — while the UP police and administration stood as silent spectators. Not only this, she was openly criticised by the general secretary of the student’s union of the ABVP, not for anything specific, but for her views on academics, culture and politics in the presence of the chief minister, Kalyan Singh, during the swearing–in ceremony of the office bearers of the students’ union.
The chief minister, at the function, openly sided with the ABVP member’s brow–beating, thereby boosting their morale. Observes Roop Rekha Verma, bitterly, “While the BJP swears by the old Indian traditions where the seat of learning used to be higher than the King’s, under BJP rule in Uttar Pradesh, the institution of the vice–chancellor has been made subservient to bureaucrats and ministers.”

During her tenure, Verma received several phone call and letters from members of Parliament and ministers to pressurise her in the matter of admissions and appointments. Since they were not obliged, the administration took a non–cooperative attitude at the instance of their masters. The height of non–cooperation was that even the district magistrate and the superintendent of police were never available when problems of law and order arose within the campus of the Lucknow University. “The Govt. spent Rs. 12 lakhs in building a ‘Deoras Dwar’ on the campus but despite its pronouncements, did not release funds for academic purposes,” Verma told Communalism Combat.

The BJP state government’s and its vice–chancellor’s (Verma’s successor) blatant and unethical support to the ABVP was witnessed during the elections to Lucknow University Student Union. The ABVP’s nominee, Daya Shankar Singh, though defeated in the elections, was administered the oath of president. A similar event took place in the Christian Degree College associated with the University. Such moves have given a free hand to the ABVP, which has almost taken over control of the university and is dictating terms to not only the VC but teachers as well.

The morale of anti–social elements under this kind of political patronage is so high that, just before the elections, a girl student of Kailash Hostel was molested in broad daylight while on a campus bus. The university authorities preferred to turn a blind eye. The professor in–charge of the campus, a staunch proponent of the RSS ideology, made a public statement saying that since teenagers do indulge in such acts, it is not serious enough to invite strong action.

One of the other instances of the open support to the criminals within the universities in Uttar Pradesh is the case of the Hindu Hostel of Allahabad university where the vice– chancellor, who incidentally has not been appointed by the BJP, wanted to flush out criminals but was vehemently opposed by the state education minister, who is also a teacher in Allahabad University.

The state government also began the process of ‘saffronising’ the state–funded literary and cultural organisations by selectively positioning their own persons at the helm, applying no criterion of merit. Besides, the government has, in a parallel process also begun promoting, funding and patronising their own cultural organisations with a specific political objective.

The post of vice–chairman of the Hindi Sansthan once held by eminent writers like Hazari Prasad Dwivedi, Amrit Lal Nagar and Shiv Mangal Singhsuman is currently occupied by one, Saran Behari Goswami whose literary contributions are known only to RSS and BJP! The entire executive and general body of the Sansthan tells the same story. Only recently, the Sansthan excelled itself by conferring an award to P.N. Oak. Oak is notorious for his brazenly communal writings. The hostility of the Hindi Sansthan in its new ideological garb to creative literary work was evident from the fact that in 1998 it refused to give any financial assistance to Katha-kram, an annual literary event organised by writers themselves at a national level.

The position of the Sangeet Natak Academy is no different. The post of the chairman of Sangeet Natak Academy, once held by cultural stalwarts like Jaidev Singh, Amrit Lal Nagar, Birjoo Maharaj is currently occupied by D.P. Sinha, a retired member of the IAS who, of late, has sponsored another cultural organisation. It is a similar tale with the Urdu Academy, Lalit Kala Academy and Bhartendu Natya Academy.

Despite the existence of so many academic institutions and organisations, the organisation of major cultural events like the conferring of the Avadh Samman to Ali Sardar Jafri and the staging of a National School of Drama production, Quaid–e– Hayat, were left to culture vultures and the bureaucracy!

The next few weeks are going to see hectic parleying between parties on the critical question of law and order following the political debacle of the BJP in UP. What will escape national and media attention, however, is the track record of the Kalyan Singh government on two counts. A dismal human rights’ record that resulted in poor innocents being shot dead by a state police force that was encouraged in their acts by the chief minister himself. Kalyan Singh has also brazenly refused to constitute a human rights’ commission in the state despite repeated enjoinings by the National Human Rights’ Commission. And, as significantly, the systematic infiltration of all educational and cultural institutions by the ideologues of the sangh parivar.

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 1999, Anniversary Issue (6th) Year 7 No. 52, Cover Story 9

War of words

September 30, 1999

The construction and re–construction of the historical past has become in the modern age a method by which nation states and their dominant ideologies control knowledge and influence generations through a one–sided viewpoint

War is fought, not only by modern sophisticated weapons but also, most effectively, by ideas. Knowledge has become more powerful than guns and missiles. Therefore, those nations who have despised knowledge are destroyed by knowledge. Powerful groups tend to use knowledge in their favour, especially historical knowledge which is distorted and re-adjusted to strengthen their political position. We can see how repeatedly historical knowledge is constructed and designed to foster a particular ideology and to further the interest of a particular group.

Historical myths are also created in order to involve target groups being used for certain goals. Similarly, traditions are invented for political and social domination of selected groups.

The past is constructed again and again in the light of the present. Repeatedly new interpretations make it dynamic and vibrant. One of the patterns of shaping the past has been by the colonial powers. They constructed the past of their colonies specifically with a view to deny their capacity to rule: such was the case of India; the British Indian historiography proved that the Indians were not capable of understanding state–craft and the rules of governance.

Colonial British historiography made out a strong case for justifying that India and Indians, having always been ruled by foreigners. The Indian past was portrayed in such a way that then British rule appeared a blessing for India. Indian historians responded to the challenges thrown up through British historiography and constructed their own past with a nationalist approach arguing that Indian civilisation had reached a zenith in the past. The construction, for nationalist mobilisation, was that it was glorious for political, cultural, social and economic achievements.

However, it is evident that in the construction of the Indian past, both the colonial as well as the nationalist took extreme points of view; both served the interests of certain groups. It shows that whenever the past is constructed, it serves the interest of a politically–dominant minority and not the whole of society. That is why it is shaped and re– shaped again and again with changes in the political spectrum.

In another pattern, we see that selective historical facts are manipulated in construction of the past, especially in instances when the land and countries were occupied by outsiders and the original inhabitants were either decimated or reduced to an insignificant position. The act of elimination of the population is always justified by constructions that suggest ‘they were uncivilised and savage’, and by implication, therefore, had no right to occupy the land. The superior race is thereby given a stamp of legitimacy in possessing their land. Such groups all over the world have justified their claims by arguing that they brought civilisation to the land and made it a cradle of culture.

Take the case of America where the white settlers accused the so-called ‘red’ Indians as savages and barbarians. Once they were de–humanised thus, it became easy to eliminate them and dispossess them from their land. There was no prick of conscience for the American historians, writing the history of America, who ignored the Indian past and started their history with the advent of Colombus. The use of the word ‘discovery’ implies that it was obscure and lying neglected — the white settlers brought it to light and subsequently linked it to European civilisation.

To establish the superiority of the European civilisation, the ancient civilisations of South America were downgraded and their contribution to the human civilisation is, even today, not recognised. This method of construction of the past suited the white settlers in their political designs to expel the red Indians from their settlements and occupy them believing, and all along fully justifying these acts.
A similar pattern has been followed in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Palestine. The same arguments have been used, that the local people were scattered and had no culture; that the land was empty; that the settlers brought civilisation and linked these lands to western culture which was the most advanced and progressive culture of the world.

This pattern of construction of the past has been successfully adopted by Israeli and pro–Israeli historians to justify the occupation of Palestine and depriving the Palestinians of their homeland.

Keith W. Whitelam in The Invention of Ancient Israel (1996), surveys the historiography of Israel and points out how these historians manipulated the historical facts and after distorting or ignoring the facts which do not fit in their framework, constructed the Israeli past which suits the present state of Israel that also denies the rights of the Palestinians. The existence of Israel, he writes, “has led to the construction of an imagined past, which has monopolised the discourse of Biblical studies, an imagined past which has come to dominate and deny Palestinian history”.

In legitimising their existence, the Israelis are not only using history but also archaeology. Trigger in his book, Approaches to Archaeology (1984), discusses how nations use archaeology in their attempt to construct a past of their liking. He then points out how Israelites are excavating only those sites which help them to strengthen their case of occupying Palestine. The selected archaeological evidence serves their political interest and denies the claim of the Palestinians. The Jewish settlements are justified on the basis that they were ancient Jewish settlements on the same site in the late Bronze and early Iron Age. Thus, the past which is built on archaeological evidence is used to prove that there is a continuity in Israeli history.

The attempt is also to prove that the Palestinians have no history and no proof of their existence in the past. The popular image which is created by the new research is that the land of Palestine was barren and deserted, the population was scattered and settled here and there; that they were not capable to use the resources of the land. With the settlement of the Jews, a new civilisation and culture is brought to this land and made it vibrant and full of life.

This argument echoes the Nazi concept of the Lebensraum which inspired the Germans to conquer its neighbouring countries on the ground that the Germans were superior and competent to use those resources of the conquered countries which were not used by the local people because of their laziness and incompetency.
The inferior races could only live a life of subordinates. Whitelam points out how newly excavated sites are used for present political purposes. For example, the excavation of Masada, a Jewish city which was besieged and conquered by the Romans, became a national symbol of the Jewish state. Y. Zerubavel in his article, ‘The death of memory and the memory of death’, declares Masada and the holocaust as historical metaphors” (1994) writes: “We will not exaggerate by saying thanks to the heroism of the Masada fighters – like other links in the nation’s chain of heroism, we stand here today, the soldiers of a young ancient people, surrounded by the ruins of the camp of those who destroyed us. We stand here, no longer helpless in the face of our enemy’s strength, no longer fighting a desperate war, but solid and confident, knowing that our fate is in our hand, in our spiritual strength, the spirit of Israel, the grandfather revived. We, the descendants of these heroes, stand here today and rebuild the ruins of our people.” He further writes: “Masada is no longer the historic mountain near the Dead Sea but a mobile mountain which we carry on our back anywhere we go.”

This pattern of construction of the past has been successfully adopted by Israeli and pro–Israeli historians to justify the occupation of Palestine and depriving the Palestinians of their homeland.

In their first step to de–construct the history of Palestine, the Israeli historians make attempts to obliterate the name of Palestine and replace it with Israel. It is given different names like Land of the Bible, the Holy Land, Eretz Israel, Canaan, The Promised Land, Ancient Israel–Palestine and Old Testament Palestine.

The argument is that there was no Palestine in history. M Dothan in his article, ‘Terminology for the archaeology of the biblical periods’ (1984) writes: “Thus for nearly 700 years, the name Palestine was hardly used. Only in the nineteenth century, with the awakening of European religious, historical and political interests did the Latin name Palestina reappear. We may conclude that the chronologically late and inconsistently used term ‘Palestine’ was apparently never accepted by any local national entity. It therefore can hardly serve as a meaningful term for the archaeology of this country.”

By depriving the people of Palestine of the name of their country, their right to live and claim it as their homeland, the newly constructed Israeli past makes them stateless and homeless. The second important step which is taken to divest them from their historical roots is to make the Bible the major source of ancient history because it favours the Israelis. In this history, Israel replaces Palestine and Israelite history supersedes pre–history and Canaanite history.

Commenting on it, Whitelam writes: “In the scholarship of the past and in the reality of the present, Palestine has become the ‘land of Israel’ and the history of ancient Israel is the only legitimate subject of study. All else is subsumed in providing the background and understanding for the history of ancient Israel which has continuity with the present state and provides the roots and impulse of European civilisation.”

The third step is to have an alliance and close relationship with European civilisation and culture. As the present Israeli state is getting all moral and material support from Europe and America, it is therefore, argued that in ancient history, Israel played the part of the mediator between Egyptian/Babylonian and Western culture. It makes the Western past a continuity of the Eastern culture, through Greece and Rome, to the Renaissance and Reformation and the universalisation of European civilisation. Thus Europe is indebted to Israel and in return must help her in keeping the torch of European civilisation burning in the Middle East.

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians shows the contrast of both attitudes and thinking. The Israelis are using all the media — literature, films, history, archaeology, religion, exhibitions of photographs of the holocaust, gas chambers and the life of the Jewish people in the third Reich — in order to strengthen their case of a separate homeland.

The voice of the Palestinians is silenced by propagating the case of Jewish miseries and anti–Semitic movements within the western nations. The Zionist movement emerging from the soil of Europe inherited it’s intellectual, scientific and technological culture from the Western civilisation. Therefore, when it came in conflict with Arab culture, it found no problem in surmounting it. Because, on the one side there was order, discipline, knowledge and skill, while the other side had neither skill, nor knowledge, order or discipline.

The whole scenario of this conflict is vividly depicted by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre in O Jerusalem! (1972). The battle against the Palestinians was won because of the modern knowledge of the Israelis and the ignorance of the Arabs.

Keeping in view the present situation, it is clear that the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular are not responding to the Israeli construction of the past and the deconstruction of Palestinian history. Therefore, it is evident that the Palestinians cannot win their battle unless they build their own system of knowledge and construct their own history. Not by rhetoric but only with knowledge can they win their battle.

(Excerpted from Pakistani historian Dr. Mubarak Ali’s, History On Trial, recently published by Fiction House, Lahore, 1999).

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 1999, Anniversary Issue (6th) Year 7 No. 52, Cover Story 10

Left is right

June 30, 1999

Given Hindutva’s fascist threat, a distinction must be made between the pragmatic communalism of the Congress and the programmatic communalism of the BJP

The electoral arena in the 90s has taken a qualitative turn for the worse. The earlier electoral equation, Congress vs. the Janata Dal/Janata Party and its allies, has been replaced by a triangle with first the BJP and now the BJP and its allies as the base of the triangle. Of the two other arms of the triangle, one is the Congress and other is the declining Third Front.

Progressive groups and individuals are faced with a serious dilemma as far as voting in various constituencies and campaigning is concerned. Barring the Left parties — whose secular and democratic credentials are strong — and the other earlier constituents of Third Front — though they had earlier stood on secular and democratic ground, many of them now seem to be wavering — both the major combatants in the electoral battle field are tainted with communalism of different varieties. It is in this context that the stance of the Left in singling out the BJP as THE communal force, to be isolated and dumped on a priority basis, has come for criticism from certain friends and groups from the liberal, progressive and left spectrum. Bringing to our attention the gory deeds of Congress in subtly tolerating communalism, these radical elements are advocating equi–distance from the BJP and the Congress. I would like to examine the pitfalls of this equi–distance thesis in this article. Congress and Communalism: Right since its inception, the main thrust of the Indian National Congress has been to struggle for a democratic, secular India at the formal level. At the same time, there has always been a weakness to accommodate and tolerate communal elements, more so Hindu communal elements. Some of the major leaders of the Congress had strong streaks of Hindu nationalism. The important ones in this category include Lala Lajpat Rai, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Dr. Munje (one of the founders of RSS). Many leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha were also the members of the Congress. Dr. K. B. Hedgewar, the first Sarsanghchalak (supremo) of the RSS founded in 1927 was formally in the Congress till 1934. In the pre-Independence era, the Congress acted merely as a platform, the dominant part of it being secular and democratic as represented by the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru.

Undoubtedly, Hindu communal elements within the Congress put pressure from within to supplement the agenda of the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, to act as the opposite and parallel of Muslim communalism represented mainly by the Muslim League. With Partition, formation of Pakistan and the migration of theMuslim elite from different parts of the country to Pakistan, Muslim communalism in a way got deflated.But it did survive in the Indian polity, assuming strident postures at crucial times like the Shah Bano case etc, to provide much needed prop to Hindu communalism.

The Congress underwent major transformation in the mid–sixties. Though it continued to pay lip service to secular rhetoric, apart from appeasing the fundamentalist sections of Muslim community, it did little to ameliorate the conditions of minorities. Also, the state apparatus started getting infiltrated by the Hindu communal elements — RSS trainees — who at the grass root level started giving a Hindu slant to the policies of a formally secular state. It is due to these factors that Muslims started getting discriminated against in jobs and social opportunities. They also became victims of anti–Muslim violence led by Hindu communal organisations, supported and abetted by a ommunally infected State. The Congress was not principled enough to oppose and curtail this as a section of its leadership was either ‘soft communal’ or had no qualms in compromising with and promoting Hindu communalism.

During these years the principal project of the Congress was to build a strong Indian State. In this process it started suppressing ethnic and regional aspirations and imposed the Indian identity and laws on many
ethnic groups and regions by force. The Congress pursued the policy of relentless centralisation and intervened in state affairs at every minor pretext. This led to situations of insurgency in the Northeast, Kashmir and Punjab. In Punjab and Kashmir, the worsening situation was allowed to take a communal turn. The anti–Sikh pogrom led by the Congress in 1984 can be said to belong to this category of repression of ethnic aspirations of Sikhs.

But as Aijaz Ahmed pointed out some years ago, Congress communalism is a pragmatic one that has been used by it time and again to ‘solve’ some other problem, for example, suppressing thno–regional aspirations (Economic and Political Weekly, June 1,1996, Pg. 1329). They have to be contrasted with the systematic and sustained anti–Muslim violence whose ideological roots lie in the very concept of Hindu Rashtra.

Hindu Communal Politics: The basic premise of the RSS is to work towards the goal of Hindu Rashtra and as its political arm, the BJP, is committed to help in the realisation of that goal. Since 1986, the BJP has pursued the aggressive agenda of Hindu Rashtra through the Ramjanambhoomi campaign leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque, post–demolition communal violence etc. Most of the inquiry commission reports on communal violence (Jagmohan Reddy, Justice Madon, Vithayathil, Srikrishna and Venugopal) have proved without any shadow of doubt that the various constituents of the sangh parivar have been the major actors in anti–Muslim communal violence. More recently, the National Human Rights Commission, National Minorities Commission and independent human rights groups have highlighted the role of most of the progenies of the RSS in anti–Christian violence. Lately, after realising that it cannot grab power at the Centre on its own on a communal, the BJP has ‘cleverly’ been talking of the need for a ‘National Agenda of Governance’ and a ‘National Democratic Alliance’ to woo the regional parties whose narrow regional interests and tubular vision does not permit them to see the core communal project of BJP. This temporary democratic posture of the BJP is merely for the sake of gradually increasing its vote bank/social base to be able to come to power at Centre on its own so that the agenda of Hindu Rashtra ‘in toto’ can be imposed on society. Till then the decent looking agenda will remain sprinkled with hidden agendas.

In the long term this elite, middle class party will freeze society in the existent social dynamics, taking away the rights of exploited, oppressed and those on lower rungs of hierarchy to struggle for social, economic and gender justice. The communalism of BJP is a cover for a gradually evolving fascism, with the aim of foisting Brahminical Hindu politics on the country. In the words of Aijaz Ahmed, the sangh parivar’s and the BJP’s is a programmatic communalism.

Equi–distance and comparisons: It is not to say that the other parties are desirable, ideal and capable of sustaining the secular democratic programme. We have seen that the Congress could impose Emergency with ease and pass various anti–democratic legislation time and again. It has often compromised with and aided Hindu communalism. The other parties have also shown manifest inadequacies as far as perusal of democratic principles is concerned.

But all said and done, none of them is driven by the engine of RSS, a fascist organisation wedded to the concept of Hindu Rashtra — a Brahminical–Hinduism based nationalism akin to race based nationalism or Muslim nationalism. This is what makes the BJP a different cup of tea – nay, poison. Historical Precedents: As I have argued elsewhere(Fascism of Sangh Parivar, EKTA, Mumbai, 1999), the sangh parivar is a fascist variant with a number of similarities to European fascism which got strengthened, post–Mandal, in reaction to Dalit, OBC assertion in 1990s.

In Germany, Hitler rapidly increased his social and electoral base by projecting the fear of a strong workers movement. The triangle there was: communists, Hitler’s National Socialists (fascists) and the Centrists – Social Democrats, akin to the Congress in India. In spite of seeing the methods and dangerous potential of Hitler, communists, who were a substantial force, in a way followed the electoral policy of
equi–distance from Social Democrats (whom they called social fascists) and the National Socialists (Hitler’s party). Though Hitler did not have majority he was able to come to power through negotiations as the opponents had shifting and divided aims and were unable to focus on the real essentials of power while Nazis had unwavering aims and had a firm grasp on ‘real politics’.

The Imminent Dangers: In view of what I have argued above, the BJP should totally be out of reckoning as far as electoral choice is concerned. Just because there is a vacuum of parties with decent secular and democratic credentials does not mean that one lands up supporting a party whose fascist potential is there without any shadow of doubt? What if the Congress, which time and again has used communalism to fulfil its political ambition, benefits from it? Surely, it is an evil whose magnitude is ‘n’ times lower than thedangers of BJP being in power.

The equi—distance position stance holds no water. The BJP cannot be equated with any other party; it has to be an ‘untouchable’ for us — Historical revenge of the untouchables!

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999, Year 6 No. 51, Debate

Crusader for Human Rights

June 30, 1999

Few men could have led so full a life, a life devoted without a break for what is right, fair and just as V.M. Tarkunde who turned 90 on July 3

Tarkunde celebrated his 90th birthday on July 3, 1999. Few men could have led so full a life, a life so rich in achievement, a life devoted without a break for what is right, what is fair and just.

Having become a barrister, he started practising law, first in Pune, then in Bombay. From the very beginning, he devoted a large part of his life to social work. Social work for Tarkunde meant hard and uncomfortable work in the villages which he was fully qualified to do as he had a degree in agricultural economics. He did not do such work for publicity and self–advancement, but because he thought it right to do it. After he shifted to Bombay, social work meant assisting the trade union movement. He was also involved in the freedom movement.

He was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court and proved to be an outstanding judge with a passion for justice. For Tarkunde, the very object of law was to bring about justice. He analysed the underlying principle behind the law and to the extent possible decided in a manner that was fair and just. He was a judge for 12 years during which he delivered a number of judgements of distinction in the field of administrative and other branches of law.

On retiring, he started practising in the Supreme Court. He soon had a flourishing practice. He was always, however, available to appear for an impecunious client or a worthy cause. Many lawyers have done such work but few have done it so extensively. And, unlike most lawyers, Tarkunde did such work whenever required, not only when convenient so as not to disturb the flow of flourishing and paying work. Tarkunde in fact gave priority to such work and there were weeks when he did nothing else.

He was always in great demand for such work as he devoted all his energy and formidable legal ability to such work. But that was not all. He did not merely appear in court for good causes. That is easy. He also attended conferences and conventions all over the country, participated in demonstrations and protests. He travelled to small towns, staying in inconvenient and uncomfortable places. He was not afraid, and on at least one occasion, he was in a silent procession which was ruthlessly dispersed by the police, with Tarkunde himself being beaten up.

It is not even possible to list his many activities. He was at the fore–front of the campaign to end police atrocities against the Naxalites. After the vicious anti–Sikh pogrom in Delhi which followed the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, he took the lead in exposing the involvement of the Congress leadership and the higher police authorities in the pogrom. He supported the Bohra reformists in exposing the policies of the Bohra priesthood in suppressing all kinds of dissent. When the Khalistan movement was at its height, he had the courage to condemn the way in which the police and the para–military authorities had functioned. He did the same when Kashmir was racked by militancy later.

Unlike some activists, he condemned all acts of violence and atrocities, whether committed by the police or by the militants. He had the courage to do so in Srinagar when he was attending a militant rally!

Tarkunde is not a Gandhian in the formal sense; he does not wear khadi, and he enjoyed his game of golf. But if being Gandhian means a devotion to truth and principle, he is a great Gandhian.

He is a person who puts the human being first, above all "isms"; what he is devoted to is the freedom and welfare of the man. He abhors dogma and fundamentalism of all kinds.

At the function held to felicitate him on his 90th birthday in Mumbai, he spoke and made a few points which sum up the man, and which deserve to be widely known.

He stressed that he believed in morality which he explained meant doing what was good and right, not to oblige others, not to be thanked or praised, but because doing good should satisfy and please the person who does it. He called this enlightened self–interest. He said that he was a nationalist, but also a democrat; nationalism to him meant not believing in an abstraction called the nation, but working for the welfare, freedom and happiness of the people who constitute the nation. And speaking at the height of the Kargil crisis, he said that he unhesitatingly condemned the action of the militants in torturing and killing some Indian jawans, but reminded the audience not to forget that thousands of Kashmiris who had disappeared without a trace after being arrested by the police. Saying this required courage and this reveals the real Tarkunde, a man of great courage with the highest principles.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999. Year 6 No. 51, Tribute 1

‘Beware, the enemy within!’

June 30, 1999

(We reproduce below excerpts from the J.P. Memorial lecture delivered by Justice Tarkunde at a function organised by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, on March 23, 1993 in New Delhi. The principal focus of the lecture remains relevant even today)

THE 23rd of March is observed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties every year as the J.P. Memorial Day. It was on this day in 1977 that the emergency which had been
declared by Mrs. Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975, was lifted by the Janata government which came to power by defeating the Congress of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the 1977 election. Jayaprakash Narayan played a pivotal role in forging unity of the opposition parties and fashioning the electoral defeat of the Indira Congress. March 23, 1977 is rightly regarded as the day of India’s liberation from authoritarianism, and it is very appropriate that the day should be observed to express our regard and gratitude for Jayaprakash Narayan.

The danger of Indian democracy being replaced by personal dictatorship did not altogether disappear with the lifting of the emergency on 23rd March 1977. The danger of authoritarianism re–appeared with the success of Mrs. Gandhi the post–emergency election of 1979–80 and it continued even under the unprincipled regime of Rajiv Gandhi. After Rajiv Gandhi’s tragic death, however, the Gandhi–Nehru family has ceased to be in possession of political power and, the danger of personal dictatorship has receded into the background.

In the meantime, however, a graver and more serious danger to Indian democracy has appeared on the horizon. It is represented by the growing strength of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the power behind it – the R.S.S and the Sangh Parivar consisting of such organisations like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal. They are giving to the Indian people a heady mixture of aggressive Hindu communalism and an equally aggressive Hindu nationalism. In that process they are promoting animosity between Hindus and Muslims. The events which led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 show that the forces involved in this communal – nationalist movement have no regard for the rule of law and the institutions of judicial administration.

As I will show later, the movement which is being fostered by these forces contains all the essential characteristics of fascism. By promoting communal animosity the BJP has during a short time of about two years increased its strength in Parliament from

two to 119 members. During this process, more than 2,000 persons have died as a result of communal riots prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and more destructive communal riots have taken place thereafter all over the country. As the Congress (I) is now much weaker than before and the opposition parties are unable to unite to form an anti–communal secular platform, the BJP expects to come to power in the next election. If this happens, secular democracy in India is liable to be replaced by a potentially fascist theocratic State.

I am of the view that the communalist nationalism which is being propagated by the BJP and the sangh parivar represent a far greater danger to Indian democracy than the personal authoritarian rule which Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the Gandhi–Nehru family were likely to impose on the country. A personal authoritarian rule is a lesser danger because it is largely external to the people. Most of the people do not approve of it, although they are usually too afraid to stick out their necks and openly oppose it. It is true that those who are in favour of the status quo are positively in favour of such an authoritarian rule, but they do not form the majority of our people. In the course of time, an increasing number of bold spirits come forward to openly oppose the imposition of individual authoritarianism. That is what happened during the emergency between June 1975 and February 1977.

Communalism, however, particularly when it is the communalism of the majority and can therefore take the form of ardent nationalism as well, can find a positive response in the minds of the people who are still prone to religious blind faith and among whom the humanist values of democracy — the values of liberty, equality, fraternity – are yet to be fully developed. Communalism in such cases is an internal enemy residing in the human mind and it is far more difficult to eradicate than an external enemy like an autocratic ruler.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999. Year 6 No. 51, Tribute 1

AFTER KARGIL KASHMIR

June 30, 1999

The surreptitious bid on India’s part to divide the people of multi-religious, multi-cultural J and K into Muslim K ashmir, Hindu Jammu and Buddhist Ladakh fits well into Pakistan’s communal agenda. And the RSS view of the latest conflict in Kargil as an integral part of the 1,000–year–old face–off between ‘Muslim barbarians’ and peace–loving Hindus’ echoes the call for ‘jehad’ from across the border

Kargil has quite naturally dominated the Indian media’s attention ever since intruders from Pakistan were discovered on its glaciated peaks. Every aspect of the situation has been analysed form every possible angle by experts from every discipline. But I have yet not come across any mention of the impact of the event on the minds of the Muslims in Ladakh, in Kashmir and Jammu, on Buddhist–Muslim relations in Kargil, and Muslim–Hindu relations in the other two regions which have important implications for the future of the state.

While writing in the present context, many experts have re–examined the lessons of earlier experiences of Indo–Pak wars, from diplomatic, strategic and other angles, viz., terms of cease fire agreements, territories gained or lost. But again, no one has made any mention of the relationship between external involvement and the local mood of the people, and the impact of war on them.

The present tilt of international opinion against Pakistan is being variously explained as the achievement of able diplomacy of the BJP government, realisation on the part of America of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, which has become powerful in Pakistan, or the importance that India has acquired as a market and an investment avenue.

These explanations may be true to some extent. But the fact that is being completely ignored is that international opinion is also influenced by the merit of a case. The package is important but not more than the material it covers. Every nation watches its national interest but that concern must also include its influence and image among the rest of the nations.

That India did not get much international support against Pakistan during the decade–long insurgency in Kashmir was due to the fact that, inter alia, people of the Valley, rightly or wrongly, supported it. Kashmiri youth used to cross the LoC and get arms and training and return as militants for the cause of ‘Azadi’. The ruthless manner in which the insurgency was sought to be suppressed in the initial phase invited universal ondemnation.

In contrast, today it is essentially an operation of the Pakistan army with the support of specially recruited and specially indoctrinated Mujahids in an area where there is no freedom movement. Of course, India’s restraint in dealing with the situation has also paid diplomatic dividends.

But why did Pakistan change its position as a champion of the rights of Kashmiris to that of an aggressor? The BJP blames the Congress Party for defeating its government, which tempted Pakistan to exploit the consequent political instability in the country. The Congress blames the naivete and gullibility of the Prime Minister who was mesmerised into complacency due to the euphoria created by his bus diplomacy.
More objective experts offer a number of strategic theories for the gamble that Pakistan played in Kargil, viz., it wanted to do a Siachen on India, or to open an alternative route of infiltration to the Kashmir valley.

In short, all debate on Kargil that dominates the national agenda is based on the presumption that the entire conflict between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir is based on the title over real estate. This approach errs in ignoring the fact that Pakistan’s behaviour is influenced by the political mood of the people and that it has political motives also. In other words, it means a ref usal to accept the vital fact thatpeople of the state also matter.

If the way the situation was developing or drifting within the state in the recent period was watched carefully, any observer could not have missed the writing on its political wall regarding what has happened in Kargil.
A further confirmation would have been available if turmoil across the LoC, too, had been noticed. For understanding Kargil, an understanding of the wider ethno-cultural milieu of which it is a part is necessary. But that requires much more rigorous homework which is beyond our tribe of Kashmir experts.

Let me recount some of the evidence that gave an indication of the shape of things to come. Pakistan was under a compulsion to convert the Kashmiri movement for Azadi into a Muslim movement for Pakistan.
For, Kashmiri nationalism was a double–edged weapon. India used it against Pakistan from 1947 to 1953 and from 1975 to the mid–eighties. The ideological gap between the Kashmir movement and Pakistan could be a political threat to the latter. Thus Pakistan wriggled out of its commitment to the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, the pioneer of militancy in Kashmir, for Azadi. Pakistan gradually reduced and then withdrew all support to it. Instead, it sponsored pro–Pakistan and Islamic fundamentalist groups of militants. The leadership of its verground political wing, under the banner of All Parties Hurriyat Conference, too, shifted accordingly.

Meanwhile the J and K chief minister, Farooq Abdullah, shifted his allegiance from the Left–supported United Front to the BJP and issued a certificate of patriotism to the RSS. The effective political choice for the people of Kashmir was thus confined to a pro–RSS face of India and a pro-Pakistan Jamaat–led Hurriyat Conference. But to close their options, Jammu and Ladakh needed to be communalised. Hence the Muslim pockets within them became a target of the militants.

Their task was facilitated by the communal polarisation of Jammu between the National Conference and BJP, and of Ladakh between the former and the Ladakh Buddhist Association. The voting in the parliamentary election of 1998 was a neat reflection of this polarisation. It suited the National Conference rulers if the perennial regional discontent in Jammu and Ladakh was divided along communal lines.
Thus as a reaction to some voices for separate statehood of Jammu and Union Territory status for Ladakh, the National Conference started a campaign for separation of Muslim majority parts from their respective regions. In April 1999, the state government formally proposed re–demarcation of these regions on communal basis, of course for public discussion.

By this time, fresh initiatives came from America–based think tanks for the solution of the Kashmir problem on the basis of traditional official American thinking that the problem must be resolved “accordingly to the wishes of the people, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists”. This simplistic thinking completely ignores the ethnic identities and their aspirations.

Reflecting the same thinking, the US–based and influential Kashmir Study Group recommended that “the state be reconstituted through an internationally supervised ascertainment of the wishes of the people on either side of the Line of Control”. This portion be constituted “as a sovereign entity (but without an international personality)”. Two Indian representatives who had participated in the meeting which made
this recommendation later clarified that it meant the reconstituted state should be within Indian sovereignty. But obviously they did not object to reconstitution.

Pakistan came nearer to this position when its foreign minister proposed a district–wise plebiscite to determine the future of the state; thus limiting its claim to, besides the Kashmir Valley, to the Muslim majority districts of Rajouri, Poonch and Doda in Jammu region and the district of Kargil in Ladakh. After extending militant activity to the former area, Kargil appeared to be its natural target. It may merely have been more encouraged by internal developments and external proposals on the subject.

The Pakistan government had not properly taken into account the lack of response of the Muslims of Kargil, the formidable military challenge of the Indian armed forces and hostile international reaction to its action. But India’s decisive victory would depend on how far it can meet the political fall–out of Kargil. Can it help Kargil to feel a secure and proud part of a secular Ladakhi identity, which requires restoration of traditional friendly and cordial relations between Buddhists and Muslims? Can a part of the solidarity and sympathy that the whole nation is expressing for valiant soldiers and their families be extended to the patriotic people of Kargil and about 30,000 homeless, famished refugees?

Again, how would India meet the international pressure, which would turn on it after Kargil crisis is over, to solve the Kashmir problem with some semblance of popular satisfaction? Can India satisfy the urge for identity, democracy and good administration of the people of Kashmir and help them to have friendly relations with peoples of the other two regions of the state?

There are some lessons of Kargil for the nation as a whole, too. While it has generated sentiments of patriotism, sacrifice and fellow feeling, a few reactions exceed legitimate limits of patriotism and, in fact, undermine its moral and psychological basis. The government ban on PTV is, for instance, a reflection on the patriotism of an average citizen which is supposed to be so fragile that it cannot stand a hostile propaganda. If Pakistan can continue its confrontation with India in Kargil, and if India has fought earlier four wars without a ban on the foreign media, why should the present government presume that Indians have become less mature now.

What makes the ban silly is the fact that it is totally unimple-mentable in Kashmir and on the entire Indo–Pak border. Moreover, PTV’s non–news programmes, particularly its plays, are very popular in many parts of India. Why should even the entertainment offered by PTV be banned? Another display of misplaced patriotism is the plea by veteran cricketer Kapil Dev to snap all sports relations with Pakistan. It is true that Indo–Pak matches often arouse jingoist sentiments in both countries and, on this ground, a case could be made to suspend them till tempers cool down. But to argue a sort of sport boycott of Pakistan for its action in Kargil is a case of over–reaction. Does Kapil suspect that every sportsman and sportswoman or sports lover in Pakistan is involved in sponsoring intrusion in Kargil and is an enemy of India? In the past persons belonging to the fields of sports, culture, literature and music have in the worst of times, been messengers of peace and friendship
between the two neighbours. We have to draw a distinction between the people of Pakistan and their rulers. Among the former there has always been an India- friendly constituency which, in our own interest, we
should not let down.

There are some voices demanding of some eminent Muslims that they prove their patriotism, or advocating a ‘final solution’ to the centuries–old aggression upon India from Mohammad Bin Kasim to Mian Nawaz
(Bal Thackerey and the RSS weekly, Panchajanya, respectively. These are too absurd to be discussed; but if such views gather more support, that would pose a greater threat to the existence of a united and civil
India than the military, political, ideological and diplomatic threat ever posed by Pakistan.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999, Year 6 No. 51, Cover Story 1

From ‘azadi’ to ‘jihad’

June 30, 1999

Pakistan and Afghanistan’s role in transforming the movement for ‘Kashmiriyat’ and ‘azadi’ in Kashmir into an Islamic ‘jihad’ is well established

Excerpts from the report, ‘The New Islamist International’ of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare set up by the US House Republican Research Committee (February 1, 1993).

Sponsoring international terrorism and separatist subversion and insurgency is not new to Pakistan. Since the 1970s, Islamabad has been training Sikh and other Indian separatist movements as part of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s strategy of “forward strategic depth”, and also as a part of his effort to gain revenge for India’s support of an independent Bangladesh.

The extent of the external, that is Pakistani and Afghan, influence on the Islamist transformation of the Kashmiri insurgency is quite clear. Indeed, Kashmir was the only area in India where, as of the mid–1980s, Islamic revivalism had “taken a radical political stance” and where “the slogans of the Islamic state have been publicly raised” and had been received with growing popularity. The population was increasingly adopting the leadership of Jamaat–e–Islami of Pakistan and Khomeinists representing the “following of the line of Imam Khomeini” as their own leaders. Consequently, by 1984, an Islamic radicalisation had developed that saw the rise of such movements as the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Mahaz–i–Azadi and the Liberation League.

Later, by 1985, both the Jamaat–e–Islami and Al–Jihad movements, the latter “a clandestine organisation influenced by the ideology of the Iranian revolution,” were becoming highly influential in Kashmiri politics. Indeed, the Al–Jihad movement publicly raised the issue of an “Islamic Revolution” as “the only way to liberate” Kashmir in the mid–1980s.

Thus, in the space of a few short years, “there was a marked erosion of the secular Kashmiri personality
and a Muslim identity with fundamentalist overtones started emerging rapidly”. Therefore, it also became
imperative for the emerging separatist leaders to “give the struggle a Pan–Islamic character and
extra–territorial dimension.”

Indeed, as noted, this trans-formation was assisted and reinforced by an active ISI program. Initially, the emphasis of this program was on using the Afghan-support infrastructure in Pakistan to support Kashmiri militants. Indeed, during the main escalation of Islamist violence in Indian Kashmir in mid–l988, Pakistan provided assistance in the training and arming of Kashmiri terrorists, as well as sanctuaries to Kashmiri insurgents across the border.

The rise of Islamist ideology to predominance throughout Indian Kashmir facilitated the emergence of a tight link between the Kashmiri insurgents, their supporters, and Islamabad.”Muslim fundamentalists in Pakistan see the Islamic surge in Kashmir as the long awaited hour for jihad against Indian infidels, a holy war for which Pakistan must funnel material and moral backing.”

There is a profound difference between support for Sikh terrorism in Punjab, which is a matter of harassing New Delhi, and Islamist terrorism in Kashmir, where there is a genuine whole–hearted commitment to jihad. The ISI estab-lished and runs its own “Kashmiri organisation”. The most important among these are the Hizb–e–Islami, which is comprised of former Kashmiri Mujahideen who were trained by the ISI and then fought with Gulbuddin Hikmatyar’s organisation in Afghanistan. Also, there is Harakat–ul–Jihad another highly professional terrorist group created in Pakistan. It is made up of veteran ‘Afghans’ from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kashmir who receive extensive ISI support.

In the early summer of 1992, some 200 highly–trained and well–armed Afghan Mujahideen infiltrated into Indian Kashmir in order to assist in what was by now a full blown armed struggle. They are directly responsible for the increase in violence in Kashmir, in itself a part of a concentrated effort sponsored and backed by the ISI. Another group of 300 Afghans in command of a larger force of Pakistani–trained Kashmiris are waiting in Pakistani Kashmir for the opportune conditions in order to infiltrate into Indian Kashmir and open a new terrorist front.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999, Year 6 No. 51, Cover Story 2

‘Islam is just a facade for Pakistan’

June 30, 1999

We reproduce below excerpts from the website run by the Shabir Shah-led Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, castigating Pakistan for using the façade of a ‘jihad’ to impose its own agenda in the Valley

The ruling elite and the military establishment of Pakistan is paranoid about an independent Kashmir — and I really don’t understand why. Pakistan talks about "self–determination" as long as it means Pakistan will be able to gain. Pakistan is completely allergic to the "I" word. They have an agenda to suppress, undermine, and prevent any organized movement that begins to harness the natural aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir for independent Kashmir.

Pakistan has backed groups that have a destructive approach to the freedom struggle and have a distorted agenda which exploits the name of Islam. In 1990, Pakistan realised that JKLF would not serve its selfish interests so they went to the old habits they learnt from the CIA in the Afghanistan war theatre — they backed multiple groups, most notoriously Jamaat-e-Islami and Hizbul Mujahideen and encouraged them to wipe out the pro–independence struggle while they fought India. The battle or "jihad" waged by these groups was designed to create chaos and create desperation but it never was disciplined, organized, strategic, or aimed to empower the common people of Kashmir to stand up for themselves.

Pakistan supported extremists with a Pakistani nationalistic agenda in Kashmir. It must be understood that their agenda is separate from main stream Islam and they only exploit the name of Islam for their political agenda. As such they tried to create a desperation in the Kashmiri society and force a communal revolt. There are reasons for this. An activist of Jamaat Islami once explained that they must wipe out tourism and education in order to make the common people desperate and ready for "revolution".

I never understood why in Kashmir schools were burnt or why blasts were placed in civilian, non–military zones. Why bridges were destroyed. Why Kashmiri people were kidnapped. I know of people who would have sacrificed everything for freedom who were kidnapped and told to pay so many lakhs of rupees or give their son for their organisation or be killed. Why did this happen? And why did this continue with full knowledge of the leadership of these organisations? Its absolutely inexcusable.

A Jamaat supporter once explained to me that sometimes you have to force a people to wake up and realise what is best for them. He said without jobs and education "jihad" will be the only avenue. These politicians call this creation of chaos, this self–destruction "jihad"? I call it a "facade". Do these organizations think you can call something "Islamic" and that is enough?

(T)hey manipulated and extorted. Their methods broke down political and social institutions when what was needed was a strengthening of these institutions so they might be utilised for the cause of freedom. What’s more, these organizations directly targeted JKLF boys and then they fought even among themselves. How could these organisations be expected to succeed with this type of treachery and lack of morals?

We have seen what was done to Kabul in the name of Islam — the blood of Muslims was made to run through its streets at the hands of other Muslims. Hekmatyar had a dispute with Prof. Rabbani and it resulted in the death of thousands of Afghans. Mosques were destroyed. An entire city which survived the evil Soviet onslaught was razed to the ground. This was a dispute between two Jamaat Islami supporters. And both sides called it "jihad". What’s more, the Taliban have taken their place, also in the name of Islam and also with the backing of Pakistan.

Tolerance is the epitome of Jammu and Kashmir and all the people of the state of different faiths have, do, and will live in peace with each other. And the communal flames of the last nine years have been ignited by foreign hands and have nothing to do with Kashmiri actions. And if Islam is to spread further in Jammu and Kashmir it will spread by example and by practice and according to the will of Allah— just like it did when Islam first came to Kashmir.

The truth is the people of Kashmir are sincere Muslims – meaning that they are also tolerant, positive, and caring human beings. There is a profound love for Islam and the people of Kashmir embrace tolerance and compassion towards all as part of their belief. Likewise, the people of Jammu and Kashmir are not just Muslim. In fact a significant portion of the population is Buddhist, Sikh, and Hindu. And Kashmiris have co–existed in a peaceful way for centuries.

Much to the dislike of Pakistan and pro–Pak groups, the majority of Kashmiris want re–unification and independence. And they are going to have to come to terms with this reality sooner or later. And no matter how much they cloak their rhetoric in terms of "Islam" this fact is not going to disappear.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999, Year 6 No. 51, Cover Story 3

1...2,6872,6882,689...2,696 Page 2,688 of 2,696

Right in action

War of words

Left is right

Crusader for Human Rights

‘Beware, the enemy within!’

AFTER KARGIL KASHMIR

From ‘azadi’ to ‘jihad’

‘Islam is just a facade for Pakistan’

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT