Home Blog Page 2614

Stop the killings, Gandhi tells India and Pakistan

0


 
Text of the speech on the first day of his last fast, on January 13, 1948 at the Prayer meeting at Birla House, New Delhi

On January 13, 1948 Gandhiji began his last fast to protest the brutal killings that had bloodied the streets of Delhi and other parts of India and Pakistan following the Partition of the sub-continent. His speech that day at the Prayer Meeting is worth recalling given the Goebellian propaganda around his motives propagated by the votaries of a Hindu nation

Brothers and Sisters,
Today I may not finish my speech in 15 minutes as usual, as I have much to say.

Today I have come to the prayer meeting because for the first twenty-four hours after beginning a fast, the body does not feel it or should not feel it. I began eating at half past nine this morning. People kept coming and talking to me. I finished eating a little before eleven. So I have been able to come to the meeting and this is not surprising. Today I can walk about and sit up and I have also done some work. From tomorrow there will be some change. Rather than coming here and not speaking, I might as well sit in my room and think. If I have to utter the name of God, I can do it there. I therefore feel that I shall not be coming to the prayer meeting from tomorrow. But if you do wish to join in the prayer you may come if you feel like it. The girls will come and sing the prayer. At least one of them will come. I have told you my programme in case you should feel disappointed at my not coming.

I had written down yesterday's speech and it has been pub­lished in the newspapers. Now that I have started my fast many people cannot understand what I am doing.

Who are the offend­ers- Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims? How long will the fast last? I say I do not blame anyone. Who am I to accuse others? I have said that we have all sinned. That does not mean that anyone particular man has sinned. Hindus in trying to drive out the Muslims are not following Hinduism. And today it is both Hindus and Sikhs who are trying to do so. But I do not accuse all the Hindus and Sikhs because not all of them are doing it.

People should under­stand this. If they do not, my purpose will not be realized and the fast too will not be terminated. If I do not survive the fast, no one is to be blamed. If I am proved unworthy, God will take me away. People ask me if my fast is intended for the cause of the Muslims. I admit that that is so. Why? Because Muslims here today have lost everything in the world. Formerly they could depend on the Government. There was also the Muslim League.

Today the Mus­lim League is no longer there. The League got the country partitioned and even after the Partition there are large numbers of Mus­lims here. I have always held that those who have been left behind in India should be given all help. It is only humanity.

Mine is a fast of self-purification. Everyone should purify himself. If not, the situation cannot be saved. If everyone is to pu­rify himself, Muslims will also purify themselves. Everyone should cleanse his heart. No one should find fault with the Muslims what­ever they may do. If I confess before someone that I have done wrong, then it is a kind of atonement.

I do not say this in order to appease the Muslims or anyone else. I want to appease myself which means that I want to appease God. I do not want to be a sinner against God. Muslims also must become pure and live peacefully in India. What happened was that for election purposes Hindus and Sikhs recognised the Muslim League. I shall not go into that history. Then followed the partition. But before partition became a fact the hearts had already become divided. Muslims were also at fault here, though we cannot say that they alone were at fault. Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, all are to blame. Now all of them have to become friends again. Let them look to God, not to Satan. Among the Muslims too there are many who worship Satan. Among the Hindus and the Sikhs many worship not Nanak and other Gurus, but Satan. In the name of religion we have become irreligious.

Since I have undertaken the fast for the cause of the Mus­lims, a great responsibility has come to devolve on them. They must understand that if they are to live with the Hindus as brothers they must be loyal to the Indian Union, not to Pakistan. I shall not ask them whether they are loyal of not. I shall judge them by their conduct.

I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan and when that happens, a Mus­lim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then terminate the fast

Then the name of the Sardar is being mentioned. The Mus­lims say that I am good, but the Sardar is not and he must be removed. They say that Jawaharlal too is good. They say if I join the Government it will be a good thing. They object only to the Sardar. I must tell the Muslims that their argument serves no pur­pose, because the Government is the whole Cabinet, neither the Sardar nor Jawahar by himself. They are your servants. You can remove them. Yes, Muslims alone cannot remove them. But at least they can bring to the Sardar's notice any mistakes which in their opinion he commits. It will not do merely to criticize him by quoting some statement or other he might have made. You must say what he has done. You must tell me. I meet him often and I shall bring it to his notice. Jawaharlal can dismiss him and if he does not, there must be some reason. He praises the Sardar. Then the Govern­ment IS responsible for whatever the Sardar does. You too are responsible for he is your representative. That is how things go in a democracy. Therefore I shall say that the Muslims must become brave and fearless. They should also become God-fearing. They must think that for them there is no League, no Congress, no Gan­dhi, no Jawaharlal but only God; that they are here in the name of God. Let them not take offence at whatever Hindus and Sikhs may do. I am with them, I want to live and die with them. If I cannot keep you united, my life is worthless. The Muslims thus carry a great responsibility. They must not forget this.

The Sardar is blunt of speech. What he says sometimes sounds bitter. The fault is in his tongue. I can testify that his heart is not like his tongue. He has said in Lucknow and in Calcutta that all Muslims should live here and can live here. He also told me that he could not trust those Muslims who till the other day followed the League and considered themselves enemies of Hindus and Sikhs and who could not have changed overnight and suddenly become friends. If the Leage is still there who will they obey, Pakistan or our Government? The League's persistence in its old attitude makes him suspect it, and rightly so. He says that he no longer has faith in the bona fides of the League Muslims and he cannot trust them. Let them prove that they can be trusted. Then I have the right to tell the Hindus and Sikhs what they should do.

The song these girls sang was composed by Gurudev. We sang it during our tours in Noakhali. A man walking alone calls others to come and join him. But if no one comes and it is dark, the Poet says, the man should walk alone because God is already with him. I asked the girls especially to sing this song which is in Bengali. Otherwise they would have sung only Hindustani songs. The Hin­dus and Sikhs should cultivate this attitude if they are true to their religions. They should not generate an atmosphere in which the Muslims should be compelled to flee to Pakistan. Hindus and Sikhs should become brave and show that even if all the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan were to be killed there would be no retaliation in India. I do not want to live to see our people copy Pakistan. If I am to live I shall ask every Hindu and every Sikh not to touch a single Muslim. It is cowardice to kill Muslims and we must become brave and not cowards.

I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan and when that happens, a Mus­lim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then terminate the fast. Delhi is the capital of India. It has always been the capital of India. So long as things do not return to normal in Delhi, they will not be normal either in India or in Pakistan. Today I cannot bring Suhrawardy here because I fear someone may insult him. Today he cannot walk about in the streets of Delhi. If he did he would be assaulted. What I want is that he should be able to move about here even in the dark. It is true that he made efforts in Calcutta only when Muslims became involved. Still, he could have made the situation worse, if he had wanted, but he did not want to make things worse. He made the Muslims evacuate the places they had forcibly occupied and said that he being the Premier could do so. Although the places occupied by the Muslims belonged to Hindus and Sikhs he did his duty. Even if it takes a whole month to have real peace established in Delhi it does not matter. People should not do anything merely to have me terminate the fast.

So my wish is that Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians, and Muslims who are in India should continue to live in India and India should become a country where everyone's life and property are safe. Only then will India progress.
(Speech at the Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, January 13, 1948, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol-90, P. 413)

 … My fast, as I have stated in plain language, is undoubt­edly on behalf of the Muslim minority in the Union and, therefore, it is necessarily against the Hindus and Sikhs of the Union and the Muslims of Pakistan.
It is also on behalf of the minorities in Pakistan as in the case of the Muslim minority in the Union.
(Excerpt from the Speech at Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, January 15, 1948, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol-90, P. 428-429)

Relieve Rural Distress, Release MGNREGA funds, FM told

0

Over 65 Citizens including academics urge the Modi government to release budgetary commitments as per law

Image Courtesy: Indranil Bhoumik/Mint
 

  • Release Funds earmarked in Central Budget for MGNREGA
  • 95 per cent of current year’s budgetary releases for MGNREGA exhausted
  • MGNREGA workers in at least 12 States are at work with no funds available with the State Governments to pay their wages
  • Threat of Illegal and Inordinate delays in payment of wages; Worse, implementing agencies in the country will not even register demand for Rural Work
  • Demand based framework of the legislation appears not to be backed by Central government
  • FM Arun Jaitley’s 2015 Budget Speech allocated only Rs 34,699 crore (of which Rs 6426 crore was required simply to meet the pending obligations of the previous year)
  • FM Jaitley promised another Rs. 5,000 crore, should there be tax buoyancy; tax buoyancy has been acknowledged by Government
  • An Act like MGNREGA passed unanimously by Parliament must be unconditionally financed by Government and not depend upon ad hoc decisions of the Finance Ministry

 
What is MGNREGA ?

  • MGNREGA was unanimously passed by Parliament in 2005, providing a demand based legal guarantee for any rural family seeking up to 100 days of work
  • In the decade since it has provided employment to over 10 crore families and continues to be a lifeline for lakhs of families, particularly in times of distress.
  • The 2016 drought has brought home the usefulness of the programme in providing immediate relief to rural citizens as well as providing some injection of demand in depressed rural markets.
  • The Ministry of Rural Development notifying additional days of employment under the MGNREGA to 150 in six drought-affected states is an indication of this  

 
These demands were made in an Open Letter to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today. The signatories are Aruna Roy, Jean Dreze, Jayati Ghosh, Nikhil Dey among others


The text of the letter:
 
Dear Mr Jaitley,         

This is a submission to be handed over to you at the pre-budget consultation on the social sector on January 12, 2016, sent through invited members of citizen groups.

While the continuing trend of meagre and slashed budget allocations for the entire social sector is a reason for alarm, we write to you today regarding an immediate and urgent concern regarding the budgetary allocations and disbursement of funds for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) for the current financial year. We feel that if this issue is not addressed conclusively, the discussions of the pre-budget consultation for the upcoming budget would be rendered symbolic, and inspire little confidenceas an actionable consultation.

As you know the MGNREGA was unanimously passed by Parliament, providing a demand based legal guarantee for any rural family seeking up to 100 days of work. In the ten years since then, it has provided employment to over 10 crore families and continues to be a lifeline for lakhs of families, particularly in times of distress. The drought this year has again revealed the usefulness of the programme in providing immediate relief to rural citizens as well as providing some injection of demand in depressed rural markets. The notification of additional employment days to 150 in six drought-affected states by the Ministry of Rural Development is an indication of this.  

Timely release of funds this year so far, has led to some improvement in the demand for work generated over last year, and in making timely wage payments. However, as funds have dried up, the crisis of the last few years threatens to be repeated. As the Minister of Rural Development communicated to you on December 31, 2015, Ninety-five % of the current releases from the Finance Ministry have been exhausted. States have been making repeated requests to the Ministry based on their approved labour budget. Further, workers in at least 12 States are at work with no funds available with the State to pay their wages. This will inevitably lead to illegal and inordinate delays in payment of wages. It will also mean that most implementing agencies in the country will not even register demand.

This pattern of fund shortage is undermining the credibility of the legal framework. It has passed a chilling message down the administration that the demand based framework of the programme is not backed by the Government of the day. Another fund crisis at this point would not only multiply rural distress but also deal another crippling blow to the law and the programme.

We would also like to point out that simply maintaining the allocation in 2010-11 at Rs. 40,100 crore, taking into account inflation, would imply a budget in 2015-16 of Rs. 61,445 crore.In terms of percentage of GDP, the MGNREGA budget allocation has fallen from 0.59% in 2009-10 to 0.25% in 2014-15.In your budget speech for 2015-16 you allocated only Rs 34,699 crore (of which Rs 6426 crore was required simply to meet the pending obligations of the previous year) with a promise for another Rs. 5,000 crore, should there be tax buoyancy. While the Government itself has acknowledged increased tax buoyancy this year, we would like to underscore that the MGNREG Act passed unanimously by Parliament legally mandates unconditional availability of funds to honour demand for work and therefore the amounts provided cannot be based on decisions of the Finance Ministry.

We have two submissions: Given the immediate crisis and the requirement of the remaining three months of the FY 2015-16, we request the additional Rs. 5,000 crores to be made available to the Ministry of Rural Development immediately. Secondly, subsequent budget estimations and allocations to the programme must be brought in line with inflation;be measured and maintained as a percentage of share of GDP and fundamentally operate through a ‘demand pull’ system as required by the law.

Budgetary allocations for social sector programmes, when compared with allocations to other sectors in India, are a matter of national shame. This is in turn reflected in our pathetic indicators on health, education and women’s participation in the workforce. Claims of shortage of funds ring even more hollow when one considers the continual hike in allocations for elected representatives, and to public servants through the Seventh Pay Commissions.It is intriguing that the central government that denies resources for fulfil the basic needs of the majority of the population can easily find over Rs 1,00,000 crore additional resources from 2016-17 onwards to meet the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission that benefit employees and retirees who are less than 1 per cent of the population.

This is why we reiterate our overwhelming concern about the release of adequate funds for MGNREGA this year. The law requires it. The States are demanding it. The Ministry of Rural Development is making repeated demands for it. Implementing agencies are in desperate need of it. People will be driven to inhuman conditions of distress and starvation without it. There can be no legitimate justification for not making the releases to meet these demands and further increasing the amount as per demand.           

It is left to be seen how the Finance Ministry will respond.

Minority Institutions: Rights or Privilege?

0

‘AMU is not a Minority Institution,’ says the Modi government to the SC

 
Showing its true colours on issues related to minority rights, the Central government dominated by the supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS) has opposed the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In a complete turnaround from the earlier Central government, under UPA I and II, that had challenged a judgement of the Allahabad high court reversing AMU's minority status, the Modi government has withdrawn its name as one of the petitioners challenging the 2005 Allahabad high court verdict.[1] The Supreme Court had stayed implementation of the high court judgement in 2006.

Making the submission in the Supreme Court, attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi said, “It is the stand of the Union of India that AMU is not a minority university. As the executive Government at the Centre, we can’t be seen as setting up a minority institution in a secular state.” He was referring to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 that was subsequently amended by Parliament twice in 1951 and 1981. The stand came as a surprise to the three member bench consisting of Justices JS Khehar, MY Eqbal and C Nagappan who pointed out that this stand of the Centre was contrary to what was filed previously by the Centre before this court and the Allahabad HC. Justice Eqbal asked, “With the change in Government, can you change your stand?” The Bench has asked Rohatgi to file an affidavit in this regard and posted the case for hearing next on April 4, 2016.

Communalism Combat has been analysing and tracking the issue of the minority status of the AMU for the past decade. We bring you some of our archival issues that trace the background of establishment of this institution as also the erosions in certain principles that require rectification.

Advocate Mihir Desai author of a book on the subject [2] analysed for us the grave fallacies in the verdict of the Allahabad high court. Faizan Musatafa, then registrar of the AMU too argued how the judgement was bad in law. CC brought to its readers a critical dimension to the issue when we investigated and found that communal reservations at Aligarh Muslim University have struck at the very character and repute of the institution. Noted scholar Asghar Ali Engineer argued that while the Aligarh Muslim University is, without doubt, a minority institution, it must allow reservations for Backward Caste Muslims.

We bring to our readers the various dimensions of the issue that has a crucial bearing on minority rights within a democracy.

Links to 2005 Communalism Combat issues archived here

  1.  The Case of the Aligarh Muslim University, 2005 : Alas, Your Lordships!
  2.  Minority Institutions: Rights or Privilege?
  3. Wong in Law 
  4. No to Communal Reservations
  5. Flawed Judgement

 


[1] Modi govt opposes minority character of AMU in Supreme Court, http://muslimmirror.com/eng/modi-govt-opposes-minority-character-of-amu/
[2] Minority educational institutions and law, 1996, Mihir Desai, Akshar Prakashan

Swami Vivekananda, theirs or ours?

0


 
A close look at the Swami on his 153rd Birth Anniversary

 
In their systematic attempt to appropriate every important historical personality as a forefather of Hindutva, the myopia of jaundiced visionaries is evident. But selective counter-quotes will not help the secular cause either
 
Today, is the 153rd birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. And. the Indian prime minister, first and foremost a  pracharak of the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS), began his early morning communications with the nation with tweets on the occasion. Vivekananda is one of the crucial figures that the Sangh has appropriated. The Vivekananda International Foundation that describes itself as an "independent, non-partisan institution that promotes quality research and in-depth studies" is in actuality affiliated to the  Vivekananda Kendra, a ‘charitable’ organisation set up by Eknath Ranade, a former General Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) The Vivekananda Kendra is said to be one of fifteen important front organisations of the RSS, which derives its income from the Vivekananda Rock memorial also set up by Ranade.
 
Rewind to August 1993 and note the performance. In August of that year, nearly 23 years ago, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) sponsored the Global Vision 2000 in Washington. The meet was meant, ostensibly, to commemorate Swami Vivekananda's celebrated address at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. But the stridency of the speakers did violence to the message of Universal Brotherhood delivered by the Swami a hundred and twenty three years back.
 
Here is what the main speakers said.  Murli Manohar Joshi: “We are committed to the rebuilding of a grand temple to Sri Ram in Ayodhya.” (to a loud applause). I saw the dream in the eyes of those young boys and girls and I knew that India would no more tolerate any symbol of subjugation or slavery. That was what we saw on December 6 (1992) – the most memorable day of my life." Uma Bharati, true to character, was more threatening and blunt. Pointedly referring to liberal Hindus who had responded to events of the previous year with anguish, she thundered: “To those of you who say you are ashamed to be Hindu, we want to tell you: WE are ashamed of YOU. After December 6, the tiger has been let out of the cage.” The occasion was a mere excuse. What mattered to the VHP was not the Swami's message but the fact that his appropriation could provide much needed legitimacy to the aggressive Saffron Front.
 
The symbol used then (and one that is still useful currency for the Sangh), was that of a towering historical figure, a man committed to Hinduism with a deep sense of spirituality who personified, in a sense, a rejuvenation of Indian self-confidence battered by colonisation and one whose thoughts laid the germs of the Hindu nationalist stream in the Independence movement.
 
But what was brandished at Vision 2000 by the VHP was not in any sense the philosophy of Vivekananda but an open celebration of it's own exclusivist, hate-ridden politics that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, deaths, rape and destruction.
 
Swami Vivekananda is not the only one subjected to this cavalier treatment by the Sangh Parivar. They’ve tried it before and since. With Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Shivaji, Dr. Ambedkar, Gautam Buddha, even with Gandhiji. The attempt is to grab prominent figures of Indian history, mythology and philosophy, selectively interpret their words and actions and project them as emissaries of a “Hindu nation” as only the Sangh Parivar sees it.
 

Views on Vivekananda
  • Swami Ranganathananda, president, Ramkrishna Mission, Hyderabad: “Swamiji was a dreamer of Hindu-Muslim unity.”
  • S. Gurumurthy, chartered accountant: “It is impossible to de-saffronise Vivekananda.”
  • Madhu Dandavate, socialist: “Vivekananda cannot be communalised.”
  • Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, editor, Al-Risala: “Vivekananda saw hope in our motherland through a junction of two systems, Hinduism and Islam.”

Secular responses to such efforts at misappropriation of the heroes of Indian history have been of two kinds. One has sought to tear away, through quotes and counter-quotes, from Vivekananda any element of Hindu chauvinism or superiority while belatedly acknowledging the secular thrust of his Spirituality. The other has merely scoffed at Indian civilization’s claim to tolerance and assimilation. Many problems beset both approaches. The first gets limited to a mere response to a Parivar-determined agenda with no attempt to shift the terrain of discourse and debate. The second, which shows scant knowledge of our own cultural heritage, fits well with the popularly flaunted stereotype of the “rootless”, West-oriented secularist. The latter has been regularly ridiculed by the saffron brigade for its inherent contempt and dislike of all things Indian (Read Hindu).
 
Noisy advocates of the Sangh Parivar have set themselves a crude, if simple, task. Once chosen, appropriated and “saffronised”, all discomforting or unsuitable (for Hindutva) aspects of our past leaders are glossed over in order to recreate a mythical Hindu tradition united in its distrust and hatred of Islam and Muslims.
 
Facts, however, do not fit well with Hindutva’s scheme of things. Sardar Patel projected as a protector of Hindu interests was, as Union Home Minister, staunchly against the state exchequer bearing the expenses for re-building the Somnath temple.
 
Soon after Independence, it was he, as Indian Home Minister, who wrote an anguished letter to the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Govind Vallabh Pant, urging him not to re-open the Babri Maslid dispute “while the wounds of Partition were still so raw.” But such details do not bother the saffron ideologues.
 
Some of Dr B R Ambedkar’s critical views on Muslims (and Islam) are today being crudely projected by pro-Hindutva writers in their desire to forge an all-Hindu unity. But they ignore his scathing views on the brutal inequalities within Hindu society and his life-long battle against it. What could be a greater show of protest against organised Hinduism than the mass conversion of thousands of Dalits led by Ambedkar to Buddhism, in October 1956?
 
For every passionate follower of Ambedkar there are as many stout proponents of the Gandhian approach. Many within the radical left circle have for long condemned Ambedkar as “pro-imperialist” because of his refusal to unconditionally support the anti-colonial movement. They fail to recognise the fact that the Dalit leader did not necessarily see liberation from the Hindu caste system and orthodoxy as a natural by-product of the anti-colonial struggle.
 
Ram is worshipped in the north, Ravana in the south. Which Asoka will we flaunt before the world today – the successful king who commanded the widest expanse of territory in ancient India through a series of wars on weak rulers? Or the anguished and lonely monarch who hit by remorse over the blood and gore caused by his ambition, renounced Hinduism and converted to Buddhism?
 
Must we worship one and shun the other? Must women of yesteryear, Mirabai or Razia Sultan, be any less regarded because they were women of their times typecast by history into the only two available roles – devoted lover or male-like ruler?
 
Do the literary works of Tulsidas and Shakespeare deserve any less mention because of their avowed male chauvinism?
 
The problem, in a sense lies in an inability to celebrate history. Selective approaches are not merely self-limiting but also reveal a shallow reading of man or womankind, the growth of civilization. In this instance of Indian civilization and history.
 
Above all, the strategy of the Sangh parivar is to push the average, peace-loving, religious and India-proud Indian against the wall. It is they who celebrate – however selectively and with a single goal in mind – our glorious history while the dry well of secularism has not much to offer to people. Well-orchestrated propaganda helps to drive home the point.
 
“The fundamental sanity of Indian civilization,” writes Romila Thapar in the first volume of The History of India, “has been due to the absence of Satan.” It is the very nature of this Indian being, unhampered by rigid notions of Good and Evil and able to regard other or unconventional mystical, aesthetic and intellectual traditions with benevolence, that perhaps results in his accommodative spirit.
 
Every historical figure, however tall, has also to be seen as a product of his or her times. Seen in this perspective, Vivekananda cannot be so easily pigeon-holed as “theirs” or “ours”. Why must we deny that even people who are not ritually-minded find participation in an aarti at the Ramkrishna Mission anywhere in the country peace-giving or soul elevating? Irrespective of his belief system, doesn't a non-sectarian individual experience something similar during a quiet service in a cathedral? Or, for that matter, while simply marveling at the architectural beauty of the Bada Imambara mosque in Lucknow?
 
Unfortunately one of the techniques of the Hindutva brigade is monopolizing of historical figures. In 1993, except the VHP-RSS brigade, the occasion of the centenary of Vivekananda’s Chicago address was largely ignored by ‘secularists.’ Similar other milestones of the Indian tradition are similarly left to the supremacists to grab. Does this not mean conceding the Indian cultural space to sectarian Hindus?
 
To remember Vivekananda and to acknowledge his contributions does not have to mean his deification. It in no way implies glossing over differences with aspects of his world-view.
 
The Swami, for example, viewed Hinduism as a spiritual reservoir superior to and vast enough to subsume all spiritual traditions. “This is the great ideal before us, and everyone must be ready for it – the conquest of the whole world by India – nothing less than that, and we must all get ready for it, strain every nerve for it. Let foreigners come and flood the land with their armies, her mind. Up India and conquer the world with your spirituality.”
 
But love (a synonym of spiritualism for Vivekananda) was his only weapon. “Ay, as has been declared on this soil first, love must conquer hatred, hatred cannot conquer itself. Materialism and all its miseries can never be conquered by materialism. Armies when they attempt to conquer armies only multiply and make brutes of humanity.” (Complete works, 33.276-77).
 
We may agree or disagree with Vivekananda. But how can we ignore that one of his greatest concerns was for the poor, downtrodden masses? “The one thing that is at the root of all evils in India is the condition of the poor. The only service to be done for our lower classes is to give them education, give them their lost sense of individuality. (Complete Works 4: 307-309).
 
Vivekananda’s commitment to the poor got translated into the Ramkrishna Mission, whose national network of volunteers are engaged in dedicated welfare and developmental activities even today.
 
Yet, the same Vivekananda supported the fundamentals of the caste system, even while staunchly opposing any notion of special privilege. “Caste in a natural order. I can perform one duty in social life and you another; you can govern a country I can mend a pair of shoes; there is no reason why you are greater than I because I can mend my shoes…. but there is no need to trample on my head… Caste is good. That is the only natural way of solving life. Men must from themselves into groups and you cannot get rid of that. Caste but no privileges.” (The Complete Works of Vivekananda, 3:245-46, 460).
 
We all may disagree. But denying one or the other aspects of the man is denial of a fact of history.
 
Eminent historian Sumit Sarkar says that in Ramakrishna and in the pages of the Kathamrita “there is no developed sense of a sharply distinct ‘Hindu’ identity—let alone any political use of it”. In an Occasional research paper Sarkar draws attention to how Vivekananda at the pinnacle of his radicalism had said, “forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the poor, the illiterate, the cobbler, the sweeper, are thy flesh and blood, thy brothers.” Today’s reality may be far from that ideal, but still “enough of the original catholicity” of the Ramakrishna Mission survives to this day, “to keep it — so far away from the contemporary politics of aggressive Hindutva,” Sumit Sarkar adds.
 
Other scholars like Jyotirmaya Sharma argue that Vivekananda’s views could lend itself to a pro-Hindutva interpretation. “Vivekananda’s interpretation of Ramakrishna is a simultaneous act of fidelity and distortion. In every instance, the skeleton of Ramakrishna’s thought is kept intact but the flesh and blood imposed on the skeleton often bear little resemblance to the original. In 1896, Vivekananda gave two lectures in America and England on Ramakrishna. At the outset, he confesses that he speaks on behalf of his Master, but the errors in interpreting the message are entirely his own. .. . What was the parity and equality of all faiths becomes “phases” of one “eternal religion” in the hands of Vivekananda."

Says Sharma, “It is worth marking that he calls them “sects” and not religions. But the overall tone and tenor is one of remarkable liberality. Now read the last line of the quote: “We must each have our own individual religion, individual so far as the externals of it go.” The plurality of faiths, then, is limited to the externals. Remove the externals and what will emerge is a universal faith defined by Vivekananda, based entirely on his reading of the Vedanta. The Vedantic ideal of Oneness and the Universal Soul would ultimately prevail. 

(Portions of this article have been archived from the cover story of Communalism Combat, A Disputed Heritage, September  1993)
 

References:
1)   The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, originally published in 1907
2)   An exploration of the Ramakrishna Vivekananda tradition (Occasional paper) Sumit Sarkar, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1993
3)   Cosmic Love or Human Apathy: Swami Vivekananda’s Restatement of Religion, Jyotirmaya Sharma, Harper Collin

 

Hi-Jackers of history

 
As the Sangh Parivar was never part of our freedom movement, it has no hero who can be offered to attain legitimacy as a patriotic body. They have, therefore, been trying to usurp national figures like Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and others and project them as if they were members of the Parivar.
 
Now they have laid their hand on Swami Vivekananda. It is the Vishwa Hindu Parishad that is celebrating the centenary of Swamiji's Chicago address in the US. His complete works, in eight volumes are before me and I am trying hard to find something in common with the Parivar’s ideology.
 
Guru Golwalkar, the parivars chief ideologue, in his Dheyasmriti says: “If you examine closely, you will find that Hindu religion is the only one that can be called a religion (dharma). The others are not religions at all.” Sita Ram Goel, his disciple, elaborates further in his book Secularism: Rashtra Droh ka Dusra Naam.
 
“It is a mistake to accept Islam as a religion. And this is the root of all other mistakes. Hindus in their ignorance have recognized Islam or Christianity or for that matter any other religion. This recognition has to be withdrawn. This is the first implication of the emerging national vision.”
 
Swamiji's vision was different: “If one religion be true, then all others must be true  … As different streams mingle all their water in the sea, so O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”
 
The RSS has drilled into the minds of innocent children trapped in shakhas that Hindus in India were converted by force. Swami, Vivekananda questions this falsehood.
 
“Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammedans? It is no nonsense to say that they were converted by sword. It was to gain their liberty from the zamindars and the priests, and as consequence you find in Bengal there are more Mohammedans than Hindus amongst the cultivators, because there were so many zamindars there.” The main attraction of Islam, according to Swamiji was its message of equality and brotherhood.
 
Guru Golwalkar said Christians and Muslims must convert to Hinduism if they want their rights as citizens. Swami Vivekananda’s soul must be anguished as he had declared that religious unity cannot be achieved by the destruction of others.
 
“Brothers, yours is an impossible hope. Do I wish that the Christian would become a Hindu? God forbid! Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist become Christian? God forbid! All must assimilate the spirit of others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.”
 
Ashok Singhal repeated in the US what he has been saying in India – that the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6 would be recorded in “letters of gold” and Hindus would not rest till the Ram mandir was built.
 
But what Swami Vivekananda said in the US in 1893 is true even today. “You erect churches (read temple in the present context) all through India. The crying evil in the east is not religion, they have religion enough . . . they ask for bread.”
 
It is hypocritical for anyone to own up Swami Vivekananda without disowning the teachings of Dr Hedgewar, Guru Golwalkar and fanatics like Ashok Singhal. The Sangh Parivar’s ideology has nothing in common with Swamiji, who spoke about the rise of Sudras and the downfall of Brahmanical Hinduism.
 
Courtesy: MIDDAY, Bombay, 1993.