About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 1935

How Dyal Singh College Became Vande Mataram College!

By
-
0

All hell was let loose on the evening of November 17,  when the Chairman of Dyal Singh College on Lodhi road New Delhi made an announcement after an irregular meeting of the Governing body meeting that the name of Dyal Singh College(Evening Classes) now onwards will be ‘Vande Matram College’!

Prior to this meeting and afterwards unpleasant scenes were witnessed. Students of the college who were protesting against bifurcation of the college were threatened with expulsion from the college by the Chairman. College teachers who questioned Chairman’s unsavoury conduct towards students (as he had forcibly taken away the identity card of some students), were also shouted at by the Chairman. A shouting match ensued and videos of this Chairman-teachers-students shout each other went viral on social media.

Dyal Singh College

Next day, newspapers, first in Delhi followed by Punjab further ignited the issue. Protests  broke out among not only political groups, even among academics and writers, who took it as an affront to attack on the healthy progressive legacy of great son of pre-partition Punjab-Sardar Dyal Singh Majithia-the philanthropist, who willed all his huge property to ensure that the institution and many others take birth: schools/colleges and libraries. Newspapers like The Tribune and even the Punjab National Bank had already been set up through his efforts from Lahore.

Dyal Singh Majithia, born in 1849 and died in 1898, at rather young age, made a will prior to his untimely death. When the will was opened, he left a small part of his vast properties for his family and bequeathed most of the properties for public good. He formed a committee of Trustees himself to take care of School/Colleges, Public library and The Tribune-all three in Lahore. The trustees included at that time Lala Harkishan Lal, Babu Joginder Chander Bose, Lala Ruchi Ram, Dewan Narender Nath and many more eminent personalities of the period. The Tribune was set up in year 1881 itself and remained in publication until the time of his death. Dyal Singh trust Lahore set up Dyal Singh Public library Lahore in 1908 and Dyal Singh College was set up later in 1910 at Nisbat road Lahore, just adjacent to Dyal Singh Public library. This legacy continued later from Indian side at Delhi, Karnal and Chandigarh, as well as at Lahore itself. Dyal Singh College Lahore was set up in the leadership of first Principal N G Wellinkar, followed by Principal Sadhu T L Vaswani, who served from 1912 to 1915 as Professor of Religion and Philosophy as well. He was succeeded by Principal S C Roy and later by Pandit Hemraj, Professor of Mathematics as long time Principal from 1922 to 1938. Professor of English Daya Nath Bhalla succeeded him, who continued till partition of 1947, when Prof. Bhalla migrated to Delhi.

Dyal Singh College in Lahore was taken over by Government of Punjab and was renamed as Govt. Dyal Singh College, which name it bears, to date. Very few Professors remained in College after partition and Syed Abid Ali was appointed Lahore College Principal on September 1, 1947 and College reopened on October 1, 1947. (Reference to above facts from book-‘100 years of Dyal Singh College Lahore-1910-2010’ by Dr. Syed Sultan Mahmood Hussain, 2010 from Izharsons Lahore)

Dewan Anand Kumar, son of Raja Narnder Nath , a founder trustee of Dyal Singh trust, made efforts to rebuild Dyal Singh institutions at Delhi and Karnal in post partition India. A camp college for refugee children was set up at the Mandir Marg primary school in 1948 at Delhi, affiliated to newly set up Panjab University in Punjab, a transgression on Delhi University jurisdiction area. Classes were held in evening after school hours. Later, the Dyal Singh library, Tribune office and Dyal Singh College was set up in Rouse Avenue, this college was recognised by UGC in 1952. Camp College was attached to this College and this status of College continued till 1959, with affiliation to Panjab University. Dewan Anand Kumar, brother of Rameshvari Nehru,  had become Vic Chancellor of Panjab University was a major functionary of Dyal Singh trust society, registered at Karnal in post partition India. His son Dewan Gajender Kumar at the age of 94 years still continues to be the member of Dyal Singh trust society, though he is immobile now. His son D K Raina is present secretary of society.

From August 1959, Dyal Singh College was affiliated to Delhi University and it was allotted land on Lodhi road in 1961. The College was shifted to its present location in October 1962. Camp college was merged into it and Camp college material can still be found in present Dyal Singh College, since Camp college was evening classes college, so Dyal Singh college first became two shift college between 1963-66, later from 1967, evening classes started at present college location and it was designated as Dyal Singh College (Evening classes), the governing body of the College remained same and continues till date same. Evening classes had Vice Principal in charge earlier, later from 1997, full-fledged Principal and staff was recruited for evening college. In 1976, Dyal Singh Trust society offered Delhi University to take over the college as constituent college of the University, without seeking any monetary reimbursement for land and building.

However an agreement was signed between Delhi University and the society, in which clause 12 mentioned that the name of the college will not be changed and as per clause 16, the land will be transferred to the DU subject to No Objection certificate from the Land & Development office, incidentally that NOC has not been given by L&DO till date and all correspondence continues in the name of Dyal Singh trust society. In 1984, additional land was given to college that too was in the name of the society. Electricity bill still is in the name of the society.

Dyal Singh College has many luminaries on its trust and Governing body in the past. D N Bhalla continued as Principal from Lahore to Delhi, later many more Principals served the college including B M Bhalla, present Principal Inderjit Singh Bakshi joined as Principal in year 2006 and he has not seen such tense days in College, as he feels in last two years. The governing body of the college has had chairmen who were prominent freedom fighters and writers from the Lahore days, in the past . For example, Lala Feroze Chand, Dewan Anand Kumar, Prof. V P Dutt, Lala Brish Bhan, Shailja Chander, S S Gill and Prof. Shahid Mahdi.

However, this quality and eminence has declined during present NDA II rule. The Delhi University Vice Chancellor (in order to appease political bosses) has been appointing non educationist persons, affiliated to the RSS-BJP as chairmen of the college’s governing bodies. Incidentally, the Delhi University VC has been rejecting such respectable names sent by Delhi government for its own 28 colleges such as as Prof. S K Sopory, former VC of JNU, Prof. Ira Bhaskar, just because they have a ‘JNU’ tag, an offence for present NDA government! Present Chairman of Governing body of Dyal Singh College is Mr. Amitabh Sinha, a BJP leader and Supreme Court advocate. The eight to twelve member governing body consists of the principal of Morning College is member secretary, responsible for calling meetings of body and taking minutes. However in Mr. Sinha’s chairmanship, the principal has been reduced to nobody. The chairman has for the first time in the 107 year history of the college, has forcibly occupied conference room and put his name plate there, the room which has name boards of all the former chairmen and former pPrincipals of the college. College officials are scared even to open that room as Chairman misbehaves with officials and staff, get their signature on attendance sheets of the Governing body meeting and holds indoor meetings with only some members of his choice in bolted room, keeping many members sit out and prepares or get minutes prepared on his own and without the presence of member secretary in deliberations, forces him to own the minutes.

Even during the meeting held on November 17, in which name of Dyal Singh College (Evening) was illegally changed to ‘Vande Matram’ College, the member secretary was not allowed to sit in the meeting. Earlier while suspending a more than 70% physically charged assistant Professor of Hindi Dr. Kedarnath Mondal, the principal was not allowed even to indicate that suspension of any teacher cannot be effected without Delhi University approval, as college is constituent college of the University. Dr. Mondal was not issued any show-cause notice and suspended straightaway, just because as a Dalit literary critic, he made some remarks about Durga, as happened in the case of film S…Durga!

 The Dyal Singh Morning college has nearly 5200 hundred students at present and evening college has 3200 plus students. Turning the evening college into morning college in the same building is an absurd idea, as the infra structure can house only students of one college. With evening college it was fine as the same infra structure was shared in different time schedule. And why Delhi University is allowing closure of evening colleges at all? There are number of working people, including women, who continue their higher education after office hours, there has been no complaint from women students facing any problem in evening time in this prime South Delhi area college.

Technically, the land and building of college is still in the name of the Dyal Singh trust society, as per the agreement of DU with the society, the name of College in this land cannot be other than Dyal Singh, so chairman of the college is illegally violating the agreement. Even Delhi University has not formally divided the college into two colleges, as a demarcation committee is formed, which has yet to give its report. The whole process adopted by Chairman of the college smacks of political design rather than any academic or social concern for either the students or higher education in general.

  The only appropriate step in present circumstances is to remove this non-academic chairman of the governing body of the college and replace him with some respectable educationist, who could honour the legacy of Dyal Singh Majithia, honour the agreement between Dyal Singh trust society and DU, win the trust of students and staff of the college, thus saving the fair name of college from ignominy! Delhi University or Chairman of college can set up another college in different location and name it as they wish to, but Punjab people will not allow this chairman to harm Dyal Singh Majithia legacy in any form.

(The author is is a retired Professor from JNU and a Fellow of Panjab University Chandigarh; who visited Dyal Singh College and wrote to Delhi VC to not approve change in name of the College)
 

Why did Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar publicly burn the Manu Smruti on Dec. 25, 1927?

By
-
0


 
This story was first published on January 26, 2016. (Towards Equality:  Why did Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar publicly burn the Manu Smruti on December 25, 1927?). We are re-publishing it today, December 24, 2017.

Manusmruti Dahan Din

Eight-eight (now 89!)  years ago, on December 25, 1927, huge strides were made in the movement for self-dignity of Dalits. Under the leadership of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, a small town/village, Mahad in Konkan, the coastal region of Maharashtra, made history.
 
Manusmurti Dahan Din. The day that the text of caste Hindus epitomizing hegemony, indignity and cruelty to Dalits and mlecchas (that included women) was publicly burned in a specially constructed symbolic funeral pyre before Dr Ambedkar and thousands of volunteers gathered to protest and agitate.
 
The Mahad satyagraha (peaceful agitation and protest) had been organised so that Dalits (untouchables) could drink from the Mahad (Chavadar) water tank, a public water source open to all. A previous legal notification of the Collectorate authorised free access to all. Despite the existence of this order, caste hegemony and oppression had not created conditions for access to this facility for the oppressed. On the eve of the protest, caste Brahmins had obtained a stay order from a local court against untouchables accessing water from the tank!
 
Pressure of an unimaginable kind was put by caste Hindus to somehow abort the protest. This included tightening access to any public ground for the proposed meeting. Finally, a local gentleman Mr. Fattekhan, who happened to be a Muslim, gave his private land for the protest, extending solidarity with the struggle. Arrangements for food and water as also other supplies had to be made meticulously by the organisers facing a revolt in the village. A pledge of sorts had to be taken by the volunteers who participated in the protest. This pledge vowed the following:

  • I do not believe on Chaturvarna based on birth.
  • I do not believe in caste distinctions.
  • I believe that untouchability is an anathema to Hinduism and I will honestly try my best to completely destroy it.
  • I will not follow any restrictions about food and drink among at least all Hindus.
  • I believe that untouchables must have equal rights to access to temples, water sources, schools and other amenities.

 
The arrival of Dr. Ambedkar to the site of the protest was cloaked in high drama, faced with the possibilities of all kinds of sabotage from other sections of society. He came from Bombay on the boat “Padmavati” via Dasgaon port, instead of Dharamtar (the road journey), despite the longer distance. This was a well-planned strategy, because, in the event of boycott by bus owners, the leaders could walk down five miles to Mahad.
 
In front of the pandal where Dr Ambedkar made his soul-stirring address, the “vedi” (pyre) was created beforehand to burn the Manusmruti. Six people had been labouring for two days to prepare it. A pit six inches deep and one and half foot square was dug in, and filled with
sandlewood pieces.
 
On its four corners, poles were erected, bearing banners on three sides. The banners said, 
1. “Manusmruti chi dahan bhumi”, i.e. Crematorium for Manusmruti.
2. Destroy Untouchability and 
3. Bury Brahmanism.
 
It was on December 25, 1927, in the late evening, at the conference, that the resolution to burn the Manusmruti was moved by Brahmin associate of Ambedkar, Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe and was seconded by PN Rajabhoj, an untouchable leader. Thereafter, the book Manusmruti was kept on this pyre and burned. The Brahmin associate of Ambedkar, Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe and five six other Dalit sadhus completed the task. At the pandal, the only photo placed was that of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This has been interpreted to mean that, at this stage the Dalit leadership, including Dr. Ambedkar had yet to be disillusioned with Gandhi.
 
In his presidential speech Ambedkar said that the aim of the movement was not only to gain access to the water or the temple or to remove the barriers to commensality; the aim was to break down the varna system which supported inequality in society. He then told his audience about the French Revolution, and explained the main points of the Charter of Human Rights enunciated by the French Revolutionary Council. He pointed out the danger of seeking temporary and inadequate solutions by relating how the rebellion of the plebians of Rome against the patricians failed, primarily because the plebians sought only to gain a tribune of their choice instead of seeking to abolish the system dividing society into patricians and plebians.

In the February 3, 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat (his own newspaper) he explained the action saying that his reading of the Manusmriti had convinced him that it did not even remotely support the idea of social equality.

The root of untouchabilty lies in prohibition of inter-caste marriages, that we have to break, said Ambedkar in that historic speech. He appealed to higher varnas to let this “Social Revolution” take place peacefully, discard the sastras, and accept the principle of justice, and he assured them peace from our side. Four resolutions were passed and a Declaration of Equality was pronounced. After this, the copy of the Manusmruti was burned
 
One sees here a definite broadening of the goal of the movement. In terms of the ultimate goal of equality and of the eradication of the varna system, the immediate programme of drinking water from the Mahad water reservoir was a symbolic protest, to herald the onset of a continuing struggle for dignity.
 
The other crucial points of Dr. Ambedkar’s speech were:
“…So long as the varna system exists the superior status of the Brahmans is ensured….Brahmans do not have the same love of their country that the Samurai of Japan had. Hence one cannot expect them to give up their special social privileges as the Samurai did in the interest of social equality and national unity of Japan. We cannot expect this of the non-Brahman class either. The non-Brahman classes like the Marathas and others are an intermediate category between those who hold the reins of power and those who are powerless. Those who wield power can occasionally be generous and even self-sacrificing. Those who are powerless tend to be idealistic and principled because even to serve their own interest they have to aim at a social revolution. The non-Brahman class comes in between; it can neither be generous nor committed to any principles. Hence they are preoccupied in maintaining their distance from the untouchables instead of with achieving equality with Brahmans. This class is weak in its aspiration for a social revolution…..We should accept that we are born to achieve this larger social purpose and consider that to be our life’s goal. Let us strive to gain that religious merit. Besides, this work (of bringing about a social revolution) is in our interest and it is our duty to dedicate ourselves to remove the obstacles in our path.
 
There was a strong reaction in the section of the press, perceived to be dominated by the entrenched higher caste interests. Dr Ambedkar was called “Bheemaasura” by one newspaper. Dr. Ambedkar justified the burning of Manusmruti in various articles that he penned after the satyagraha. I n the February 3, 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat (his own newspaper) he explained the action saying that his reading of the Manusmriti had convinced him that it did not even remotely support the idea of social equality. To burn a thing was to register a protest against the idea it represented. By so doing one expected to shame the person concerned into modifying his behaviour. He said further that it would be futile to expect that any person who revered the Manusmriti could be genuinely interested in the welfare of the Untouchables. He compared the burning of the Manusmriti to the burning of foreign cloth recommended by Gandhi. Protests the world over had used the burning of an article that symbolised oppression to herald a struggle. This was what the Manusmurti Dahan was.


 
The tactical retreat
 
Meanwhile, condemned by a sudden Court ruling to hold back the satyagraha of drinking water from the public water tank, Dr Ambedkar explained the dilemma faced by on the one hand the government/British Collector and entrenched high caste interests.
 
In a note entitled ‘Why the Satyagraha was Suspended’ in the 3 February 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat, Ambedkar said:
“The untouchables are caught between the caste Hindus and the government. They can attack one of the two. There is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting that today they do not have the strength to attack both of them at the same time. When the caste Hindus refused to concede the legitimate rights of untouchables as human beings willingly and on their own initiative, we thought it wise to arrive at a peace (agreement) with the government…… There is a world of difference between a satyagraha launched by caste Hindus and one launched by untouchables. When the caste Hindus initiate a satyagraha it is against the government and they have community support….. When the untouchables launch a satyagraha all the caste Hindus are arraigned against us.” 
 
He observed further that the agitation of the untouchables was not limited to the Mahad water tank. It had been launched to achieve the larger goals the untouchables had set for themselves. The answer to whether it could have been sustained depended upon one’s estimate of the loss and the hurt that would have resulted from the satyagraha and the means that were available to protect the people from this loss and hurt. If the people had seen that they could not recover from the loss inflicted on them by one satyagraha in Mahad they would never rise again to join another satyagraha. This question had to be weighed.
 
What stands out is the openly rational, almost calculated approach to the strategy of the struggle and a willingness to present it as such. There is no effort to obfuscate or mystify it. Ambedkar responded to the concern that the withdrawal of the satyagraha would give caste-Hindu slanderers an opportunity to scoff at the untouchable leaders, by saying merely that he had not launched the satyagraha to win their approbation.
 
References:
The Social Context of an Ideology, Ambedkar’s Social and Political Thought, MS Gore, Sage Publications

Sacrifices of Mother & Young Sons of Guru Gobind Singh Very Relevant Today

By
-
0

 

Image Courtesy: Pinterest

This week marks 312th anniversary of the martyrdom of the two young sons of Guru Gobind Singh and his mother.

 
The tenth master of the Sikhs had laid the foundation of the Khalsa, a sect that was dedicated to fight against state oppression of the Mughal rule and determined to challenge the caste-based divisions practiced by orthodox Hindus.
 
Guru Gobind Singh was born 350 years ago to father Guru Teg Bahadar and mother Mata Gujri. Teg Bahadar was the ninth Guru of the Sikh faith that was founded by Nanak. Sikhism is based on the principles of egalitarianism and social justice. Guru Gobind Singh was very young when he lost his father, who laid down his life for human rights and religious freedom by coming to the defence of Kashmiri Hindus who were being forcibly converted to Islam by the Mughal Empire.
 
Mata Gujri brought up young Gobind Singh with courage following the execution of her husband. Guru Gobind Singh who led the community as the tenth Guru had resolved to fight against state violence by raising a force of committed men who ended caste barriers to give a united challenge to the enemy. For this Guru Gobind Singh had to face the dual threat from the Mughal government and Hindu kings who could not tolerate people from the so called low castes being empowered with the formation of Khalsa army. So great was this perceived threat that they even tried to incite the Mughals against Guru Gobind Singh.
 
During the year 1705 he had to fight a very tough battle in which he lost his two elder sons, Ajit Singh and Jujhar Singh, while Mata Gujri and his two younger sons Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh were separated from the entire family. The three of them were handed over to a Muslim governor of Sirhind state by a treacherous Hindu servant who deceived them after being bought over by the enemies. Mata Gujri was thrown into jail alongside her grandsons.
 
Both Zorawar Singh aged nine and Fateh Singh aged seven were pressurised by the Mughals to embrace Islam to save their lives. Undeterred by these warnings, they accepted death with dignity and were bricked alive. Upon receiving the news of the merciless killings of her grandsons, Mata Gujri also died in the prison.
 
Today when state repression spreads everywhere and we see no end to bigotry, the episode of the great sacrifices made by Guru Gobind Singh, his parents and sons has become even more relevant.
 
All we need to understand is the real message behind this powerful story rather than letting communal forces misinterpret this history for their ulterior motives. It’s a shame that right wing political parties such as the Hindu supremacist BJP that governs India continues to appropriate the Sikh history in an attempt to polarise Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims, whereas the Sikh gurus and their families fought against repression and not any particular religion. Rather they had some good Muslims on their side as several hostile Hindus joined hands with the Mughal Empire.
 
The growing incidents of violence against Muslims and Christians under the BJP government(s) would instead have forced the gurus to revolt against the current regime if they were still among us. They would never have compromised with a government whose supporters frequently  terrorise minorities with impunity and force Muslims and Christians to embrace Hinduism in the name of Ghar Waapsi – which is nothing but a well-organised religious conversion (through force and intimidation).
 
Apart from this, the current regime is no different from the then tyrannical Mughal government that killed two small children and let their aging grandmother die in the jail. Activists like Prof. GN Saibaba who are being incarcerated despite being ninety percent disabled below waist for standing up for the oppressed people is a classic case of the brutality of the Indian state. The under- age Kashmiris continue to be arrested and attacked by the Indian forces in the name of war against terror in the valley where uprising for right to self-determination has been going on for years. Even in Punjab during the Sikh insurgency in 1980s the under age children on the militants and their parents were subjected to killings and torturers. Only recently, Jagtar Johal, a young Sikh activist from UK was detained and tortured in Punjab on the allegations of murdering of right wing leaders.  
 
The story is relevant internationally too as this week we saw the arrest of 16-year-old Ahed Tamini – a Palestinian activist who slapped an Israeli soldier for continued repression of her people and the occupation of her homeland by the state of Israel. The indigenous activists in North America also face highhandedness of the state for opposing extraction of natural resources from their traditional lands without informed consent.
 
Those who believe in the philosophy of Mata Gujri and her young grandsons must come together to raise voice for those who are being persecuted for showing resistance against repression anywhere in the world and defeat the forces of bigotry.
 
 

Day of Judgement: Reichstag Arson Trial, 84 Years Ago

By
-
0


Eighty Four Years Ago, Today Dimitrov Was Acquitted in the  Reichstag Fire trial at Leipzing

 
Twenty seven days after Adolf Hitler was sown in as Chancellor of Germany and head of the coalition government, a fire broke out, arson, that brought the Reichstag down. The home of the German Parliament building was burnt down. Hitler used this incident to blame it on a murderous communist conspiracy, although later it was largely believed to have been the action of a lone Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe who was caught near the building. The hysteria and propaganda around the event was pivotal in consolidating power of Nazi rule in Germany.
News of the fire that started in the Reichstag building, was received by an alarm call of a Berlin fire station received shortly after 9 p.m. By the time the firefighters and the police arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies part of the Reichstag was almost completely destroyed, engulfed in flames. The police conducted a thorough search inside the building and found van der Lubbe. He was arrested, as were four communist leaders soon after.
Adolf Hitler pushed German President Paul von Hindenburg to declare an emergency after passing a decree. This act suspended all civil liberties and allowed the Nazi brown shirts to hound the Communist party of Germany. Mass arrests of communists followed, including all of the Communist Party parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazi Party went from being a party dependent on others. to the majority, thus enabling Hitler to consolidate his power. In January 1933, the Nazis had only 32% of the seats.
In February 1933 itself, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as the “Reichstag Fire Trial”: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoy Popov (all Bulgarians). Who caused the fire? To date this subject is the topic of historical research. Historians disagree as to whether van der Lubbe acted alone, as he said, to protest the condition of the German working class. The Nazis accused the Comintern of the act. Some other historians endorse the theory, that the arson was planned and ordered by the Nazis as a false flag operation.
Trial
In July 1933, three persons were charged with setting the Reichstag on fire. They were Marinus van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler, georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popoy and Vasil Tanev. From September 21 to 23 December 1933, the Leipzig Trial took place and was presided over by judges from the German Supreme Court, the Reichsgericht. The accused were charged with arson and with attempting to overthrow the government.
Hitler used the Leipzig Trial for state propaganda against communists and it was predicted that the court would find the Communists guilty on all counts and approve the repression and terror exercised by the Nazis against all opposition forces in the country. At the end of the trial, however, only Van der Lubbe was convicted, while his fellow defendants were found not guilty. In 1934, Van der Lubbe was beheaded in a German prison yard. In 1967, a court in West Berlin overturned the 1933 verdict, and posthumously changed Van der Lubbe’s sentence to 8 years in prison. In 1980, another court overturned the verdict, but was overruled. In 1981, a West German court posthumously overturned Van der Lubbe’s 1933 conviction and found him not guilty by reason of insanity. This ruling was subsequently overturned. He was however pardoned  in January 2008, he was pardoned under a 1998 law for the crime on the grounds that anyone convicted under Nazi Germany is officially not guilty. The law allows pardons for people convicted of crimes under the Nazis, based on the idea that the laws of Nazi Germany “went against the basic ideas of justice”.
Georgi Dimitrov began his testimony on the third day of the trial. He gave up his right to a court-appointed lawyer and defended himself successfully. When warned by Judge Bürger to behave himself in court, Dimitrov stated: “Herr President, if you were a man as innocent as myself and you had passed seven months in prison, five of them in chains night and day, you would understand it if one perhaps becomes a little strained.” During the course of his defence, Dimitrov claimed that the organizers of the fire were senior members of the Nazi Party and frequently verbally clashed with Göring at the trial.
Highpoint of the trial was on November 4, 1933, when Göring was in the witness box and was cross-examined by Dimitrov. Excerpts:
Dimitrov: Herr Prime Minister Göring stated on February 28 that, when arrested, the “Dutch Communist Van der Lubbe had on his person his passport and a membership card of the Communist Party”. From whom was this information taken?
Göring: The police search all common criminals, and report the result to me.
Dimitrov: The three officials who arrested and examined Van der Lubbe all agreed that no membership card of the Communist Party was found on him. I should like to know where the report that such a card had been found came from.
Göring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire…could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of Van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that Van der Lubbe had no such card on him.
Dimitrov: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior what steps he took to make sure that Van der Lubbe’s route to Hennigsdorf, his stay and his meetings with other people there were investigated by the police to assist them in tracking down Van der Lubbe’s accomplices?
Göring: As I am not an official myself, but a responsible Minister it was not important that I should trouble myself with such petty, minor matters. It was my task to expose the Party, and the mentality, which was responsible for the crime.
Dimitrov: Is the Reichsminister aware of the fact that those that possess this alleged criminal mentality today control the destiny of a sixth part of the world – the Soviet Union?
Göring: I don’t care what happens in Russia! I know that the Russians pay with bills, and I should prefer to know that their bills are paid! I care about the Communist Party here in Germany and about Communist crooks who come here to set the Reichstag on fire!
Dimitrov: This criminal mentality rules the Soviet Union, the greatest and best country in the world. Is Herr Prime Minister aware of that?
Göring: I shall tell you what the German people already know. They know that you are behaving in a disgraceful manner! They know that you are a Communist crook who came to Germany to set the Reichstag on fire! In my eyes you are nothing, but a scoundrel, a crook who belongs on the gallows!”.
The judge played safe in his verdict. Judge Bürger stated that while he believed that there had been, indeed,  a Communist conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag, he said that except for in the case of Van der Lubbe, there was insufficient evidence to connect the accused to the fire or the alleged conspiracy. Only Van der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. The rest were acquitted and were expelled to the Soviet Union, where they received a heroic welcome. The one exception was Torgler, who was taken into “protective custody” by the police until 1935. After being released, he assumed a pseudonym and moved away from Berlin.
Hitler was enraged with this outcome of this trial. He decreed that henceforth treason—among many other offenses—would only be tried by a newly established People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof). The People’s Court later became associated with the number of death sentences it handed down, including those following the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler, which were presided over by then Judge-President Roland Freisler.
December 23, 1933 was the day Dimitrov was set free.
 

The case for a uniform civil code in Bangladesh

By
-
0

A uniform civil code is the bedrock of any working secular state

The case for a uniform civil code
Without a civil code, prosperity and stability are hard to come by/BIGSTOCK
 

Many constitutional democracies in Asia, including India, Bangladesh, and Lebanon, are often trumpeted for secularist credentials. This is due to the enduring co-existence of various religious communities within their borders.

But these countries also segregate their population on the basis of religion. There are different sets of personal law for each religious community. In our sub-continent for example, colonial-era legislation like the Muslim Personal Law, Hindu Personal Law, and Christian Marriages Act serve as the basis of personal law, instead of a uniform civil code.

In Bangladesh, the lack of a uniform personal law undermines legal equality.

The country relies on colonial-era legislation to govern issues of marriage, divorce, alimony, and property inheritance. According to Human Rights Watch, Bangladeshi law gives a Muslim female spouse fewer rights to marital property than a male spouse; a Hindu female spouse does not have the right to divorce; and a Christian female spouse has limited freedom to divorce.

Buddhist families are governed under Hindu family laws despite being of a separate religion. Religious laws restrict the freedom of spouses to end abusive marriages and force many into poverty.

Discrimination and corruption are often seen during the process of inheritance. Despite calls for reform, the government has failed to provide adequate legislation to abolish the existing inequalities in personal law.

India chose to continue with religious family law even after proclaiming itself a secular republic following independence from British rule. Lebanon not only applies religious family law, but it reserves the highest positions of state for members of a particular religious sect: A Maronite Christian has to be president, a Sunni Muslim has to be prime minister, and a Shia Muslim has to be the speaker of parliament.

Many commonwealth countries like Bangladesh and India have been averse to adopting civil codes due the influence of English common law and the unwritten British constitution

Equality for all

Segregation is a detriment to national integration. In a democratic state, all citizens need to be equal before the eyes of the law. All citizens must enjoy equality of opportunity. Archaic, religious segregation impedes these fundamental requirements of a democracy. Orthodox religious groups may challenge these notions, but there should be no compromise on equality in the rule of law.

In hindsight of the post-colonial era, Asian countries with legal pluralism have not achieved the level of stability and prosperity as Asian countries with a civil code, including Japan and South Korea. National civil codes remain the bedrock of most continental legal systems in Europe.

Indeed, there has even been consideration for one civil code covering the entire European Union.

In addition to personal law, a civil code can also codify the law of contract. Adopting a uniform civil code can reform the existing contract law enacted during the British Raj in 1872. Such a reform is necessary in reflecting the conditions for business and enterprise in the 21st century.

Perhaps one of the reasons behind the lack of a civil code in Bangladesh is the legacy of the British rule. Many commonwealth countries like Bangladesh and India have been averse to adopting civil codes due the influence of English common law and the unwritten British constitution. But it is possible to adopt elements of civil law into an English-inspired legal system, as is the case in Mauritius.

A uniform civil code can be an enduring reform. Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Civil Code of 1804 influenced countries across Europe and Latin America, said: “My real glory is not to have won 40 battles — Waterloo will erase the memory of all these victories. What nothing will erase, what will live eternally, is my Civil Code.”

Umran Chowdhury is a student of the Sorbonne-Assas International Law School.

Republished with permission from Dhaka Tribune.
 

On the rise of communal ideology in India: In conversation with A. Bilgrami

By
-
0

Notes from the Tenth Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture


Image courtesy Global Thought Columbia University

This year, the tenth Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer memorial lecture was delivered by Professor Akeel Bilgrami on 8 December, 2017, in the wake of the twenty fifth anniversary of the planned demolition of Babri Masjid and the beginning of the devastating Bombay riots. There could not have been a better occasion and time to learn about the history of communalism in modern India because the event was organised to commemorate the life and work of Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, who tirelessly worked for communal harmony during his lifetime and was also the founder of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Professor Bilgrami, who is Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, and has been deeply invested in the study of secularism all his life, was gracious enough to meet me before the lecture and talk to me about the rise of communal ideology in India in recent years, especially after the rise of BJP in India.

When I asked him rather naively what lies ahead for a generation wracked by communal violence — a generation that wants to fight the forces causing such violence – he responded by saying that we need to understand the specific nature of such violence, and in doing so, gauge exactly when such violence took its root. But he provided an important caveat – he suggested that we need to first understand the difference between antecedents and roots while looking at the recent history of communal violence in India before we consolidate a movement to fight it. Historians, especially those belonging to progressive circles, often hark back to the Hindu Mahasabha and its opposition to important nationalist movements, the role people like Savarkar, Mookherjee and others played in consolidating a monolithic Hindu identity that defines itself in opposition to Muslim identity. This is an important antecedent, that is, the birth of the Hindu Mahasabha certainly foreshadows later instances of communal violence in India in general, but the roots of the communal violence we see now lie elsewhere. They lie in the formation and the implementation of the Mandal Commission in 1990. The BJP’s dream of a singular, unified Hindu identity was about to be disintegrated and divided along caste and class lines. Both L.K Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee nearly threatened to withdraw their support if the government did not review its stand. According to Professor Bilgrami, the rise of the BJP in its current avatar should be traced back to this important event. The eighties and the nineties, therefore, planted new roots of communal violence in India. This may also further help us understand how the hindutva side of the BJP government and its political economy, which is a neo-liberal economy, prop each other up. Their apathy for the deprived classes also comes from their failure to gauge the millennia-long violence against dalits and minorities in our country. The ban on beef, the mindless torture on minorities by self-styled gaurakshas, demonetisation are some of the symptoms of this apathy (stemming from their desire to consolidate a singular undivided Hindu identity) from recent times.

This brings us to his illuminating lecture on the relationship between populism or populist rhetoric and fascism which points to the limits of liberal discourse to address the rise of communal or rightwing ideology in India. Populism is defined as a political approach that aims to disrupt the existing social order by mobilising the common people against elites. But, populism has become a word of “opprobrium”, to borrow a word from Professor Bilgrami’s lecture, for both the rightwing and those who belong to progressive circles because of the blatant appropriation of the term and populist rhetoric by the former (we must not forget that Modi’s rise can be attributed to his populist rhetoric of being a common man – someone who garnered favour because of his humble background as a one-time chaiwalla, to say nothing about the election of Ram Nath Kovind — who is a dalit — as the president of India) and the unfortunate failure of the latter to capture the common man’s concerns. He expresses concern over a “movement vacuum” in our country, a gap filled by some important student movements in recent times, but a consolidated fight against rightwing forces cannot ignore the roots of the communal violence seen in recent times, and has to take into account the question of caste and thereby define a strong populist movement by reclaiming populism as an approach that is in favour of dalits and muslims in our country.

In order to explain the fascist tendencies of rightwing-communal ideology in India, I quote these memorable lines from his talk:

Apart from the feature of finding the external enemy within (the Jews then, Muslims now) and despising and subjugating it, there are several other details:  above all there is the sinister and powerful paramilitary organisation of the RSS shaping the ideological outlook of the government (no other right wing nationalism in the world, so far as I know has anything quite like this); then there is the menace of a vigilante youth group (the ABVP) mimicking the Balillas in Mussolini’s Italy, bullying students on campuses who raise deep questions about caste or about economic inequality or about Kashmir or…; then there is the calling critics of the government ‘treasonous’ and ‘anti-national’; then there is the constant talk of purity in caste which echoes racialist attitudes on blood and descent in European fascism, and finally there is the ‘fusion’ of the interests of the corporations and the state which was Mussolini’s explicit definition of fascism and which is exemplified in the strident neo-liberal aspirations of the Indian government with widespread support among a wide range of classes including of course, as I said, the middle classes. 

Perhaps now, the newly elected dalit leader Jignesh Mevani from the Vadgam constituency of Gujarat can guide the way and stand as a beacon in such dire times.
 

Akeel Bilgrami is an Indian-born philosopher of language and of mind, and the author of Belief and Meaning, Self-Knowledge and Resentment, and Politics and the Moral Psychology of Identity  as well as various articles in Philosophy of Mind as well as in Political and Moral Psychology. Bilgrami is currently the Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University in New York.

Sneha Chowdhury is member of the editorial collective of the Indian Writers’ Forum.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum.
 

Not just Muslims, Adivasis have also suffered at the hands of ‘Gau Rakshaks’

By
-
0

In Jharkhand, the violence has deeply impacted the lives of Adivasis, and these incidents are taking place  merely 40 km from the capital, Ranchi.

Over the past three and a half years, India has witnessed an increase in attacks on marginalised communities in the name of “cow-protection” (Gau Raksha). From Jammu and Kashmir to Karnataka and West Bengal to Maharashtra, it would be fair to say that the series of attacks have left few states untouched. The impact of these attacks has been especially felt in the state of Jharkhand, which has been witness to some of the worst attacks by right-wing goons in the name of ‘protecting’ cows. From the brutal murder in Latehar, including that of a minor, to the mob attacks in various parts of the state, the state has seen some of the worst attacks in the country. TCN’s Afroz Alam Sahil travelled across Jharkhand to understand and narrate how the terror spread by right-wing fundamentalists  under the garb of protecting the cow has left a trail of blood in its path. In the first of the eight-part series, Afroz looks at how the violence around “cow protection” often with the collusion of the local administration and police has left Adivasis reeling in their own state.

Across India, it has now become common to see Muslims tortured, murdered and humiliated in the name of cow protection. In other cases, like in Una, Gujarat, Dalits have been at the receiving end of this terror. However, in Jharkhand, the violence has deeply impacted the lives of Adivasis, and these incidents are taking place  merely 40 km from the capital, Ranchi.

The story of Alma Khalko, an Adivasi woman from the village of Naro, is one of the many such stories. Khalko was beaten up by the goons affiliated with Bajrang Dal for allegedly trading/selling?  beef, even though Khalko, a labourer by profession, is actually a member of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).

 

In a conversation with TwoCircles.net, Khalko says that the attacks on her followed a long period of threats from the fundamentalists of the region. “I have been working with the labourers and making them aware of their rights…this did not go down well with some of the locals. On August 24, my house was surrounded by goons of Bajrang Dal. They beat up my husband and accused me of selling beef. They also threatened to kill me. When I approached the Police to file a complaint, they instead rebuked me and failed to take any action against the attackers,” she said.

On December 8, Khalko was attacked again, but the police refused to take action against the culprits.

It is important to mention here that while the attacks are conducted to show that these are related with “cow protection”, the truth lies somewhere else, in an issue that is only too familiar to Jharkhand: land grabbing by non-Adivasis. Khalko says, “Bajrang Dal goons attack Adivasis because that might lead to us (Adivasis) leaving the villages and thereby making space for land to be occupied.

Khalko’s story is unfortunately not the only one from Jharkhand. In August this year, more than a dozen Adivasis were attacked by mobs in the village of Barkol of Garhwa district. The attacks led to the death of Rakesh Minj, a 40-year-old local. The case has been registered in the Bhandaria police station.

Sunil Minj, who works with the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), has been following cases of attacks on Adivasis in Jharkhand in the name of cow protection. In a conversation with TwoCircles.net, he says, “A person from the village (Barkol) sold an old bull to a Christian Adivasi for Rs 1,000. The seller was well aware of what use the bull will be but did not object then. However, when the bull was killed, then the local villagers attacked six Adivasi homes in that village. Even children and women were not spared…the attackers took Ramesh as a captive and beat him mercilessly…his ‘fault’ was that he was taking some meat back to his village.

“The goons did not stop there…they also picked the Adivasi men and took them to the local police picket. The police, instead of taking these men to the hospital, posed for pics with the tail of the cow instead…these men were rendered incapable of even walking. It was police negligence that led to the death of Rakesh Minj,” he says.


Anita Minj

“His neck, legs were broken… government promises were a lie”

Anita Minj, the wife of Rakesh Minj, is yet to recover from the shock of her husband’s death. In a conversation with TwoCircles.net, she says that a day before the incident, Minj had visited Chhattisgarh. On the day of the incident, he had gone to buy fertilisers. “When we returned from the forest, we found out that he had not returned home. We thought he had stayed back in his ancestral village. The next day, we were informed that he had been beaten up by the villagers for carrying ‘prohibited meat’. We rushed to the police station…we tried to feed him but he could barely eat. He was bleeding all over…his fingers, neck, legs were broken. The Police took him to Garhwa, where he was admitted. On August 22, we were asked by the police to come see my husband in Garhwa. When we reached, we were told that he was dead.”

After the incident, the police filed an FIR based on Anita’s complaint, and the local administration gave Anita a cheque of Rs 35,000, Rs 5,000 in cash and 35 kg ration. However, the local police, Anita alleges, continues to shield the perpetrators. Anita was also promised widow’s pension. But Anita told TwoCircles.net, “The promises made by the local administration was nothing but hogwash to protect the accused…the police have arrested 9 people but the ones who committed the crime continue to roam scot-free. And we know the reason…they are associated with the ruling party.”

After Rakesh’s death, Anita has been left with four children aged between 16 and 3 with no breadwinner to support them. Anita breaks down during the conversation, and says, “I do not know how I will feed my family…my husband’s mobile was recovered, but the police won’t tell us about the whereabouts of the SIM card and the memory card. The government and the police couldn’t care less about the issues of the poor…”.

This article was first published on Two Circles.

 

Appeals Court Rules Trump’s Third Travel Ban Illegal

By
-
0

Another legal setback for Trump.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that Trump’s travel ban, the third he has proposed since becoming president, is illegal. Issued in September 2017, the third travel ban, imposed “indefinite and significant restrictions and limitations on entry of nationals” from seven countries —  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

Excerpts from the decision:
The Government’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) not only upends the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has embodied in the INA, but it deviates from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well. Further, the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: Before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Proclamation once again conflicts with the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas.

The decision questions Trump’s claim that, as President, he can do whatever he’d like with regard to banning people from any country for any reason.

The Government argues that the President, at any time and under any circumstances, could bar entry of all aliens from any country, and intensifies the consequences of its position by saying that no federal court—not a federal district court, nor our court of appeals, nor even the Supreme Court itself—would have Article III jurisdiction to review that matter because of the consular nonreviewability doctrine. Particularly in the absence of an explicit jurisdiction-stripping provision, we doubt whether the Government’s position could be adopted without running roughshod over the principles of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

The court also takes on the xenophobia underlying Trump’s order:

In assessing the public interest, we are reminded of Justice Murphy’s wise words: “All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land.” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 242 (Murphy, J., dissenting). It cannot be in the public interest that a portion of this country be made to live in fear.
The court issued a limited injunction blocking the ban as it applies to “foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The entire verdict may be read here.
 

1...1,9341,9351,936...2,697Page 1,935 of 2,697

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved