About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2615

What is the RSS: Madhu Limaye on an ‘age-old enemy’

By
-
0

Veteran Socialist on the RSS soon after the split in the Janata party in 1979.

I entered political life in 1937. I was quite young then but as I had passed my matriculation examination at a relatively early age, I also entered college quite early. Quite active in Pune in those days were the RSS and the Savarkarites (followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) on the one hand and nationalist, socialist and leftist political organisations on the other. On May 1, 1937 we took out a march to observe May Day. The marchers were attacked by the RSS and Savarkarites when, among others, the well-known revolutionary Senapati Bapat and our socialist leader, SM Joshi, were injured. We have had serious differences with these Hindutva organisations ever since.

Our first difference with the RSS was over the issue of nationalism. We believed that every citizen had equal rights in the Indian nation. But the RSS and the Savarkarites came up with their notion of Hindu Rashtra. Mohammad Ali Jinnah too was a victim of a similar world view. He believed that India was made up of two nations, the Muslim nation and the Hindu nation. Savarkar too said the same thing.

The other major difference between us was that we dreamt of the birth of a democratic republic while the RSS claimed that democracy was a western concept that was not appropriate for India. In those days members of the RSS were full of praise for Adolf Hitler. Guruji (Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar) was not only the sarsanghchalak (head) of the RSS; he was its ideological guru as well.

There is amazing similarity between the thoughts of Guruji and the Nazis. One of Guruji’s books, We or Our Nationhood Defined, ran into several editions, its fourth edition having been published in 1947. At one point in the book, Guruji says, "The non-Hindu people in Hindustan must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-old traditions but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead – in a word, they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights."

In other words, Guruji wanted to see millions of Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted all their citizenship rights taken away. Incidentally, these ideas of his were not newly formulated. From the time we were in college (in the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined to follow Hitlerian ideals. In their view, Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be treated the same way that Hitler treated Jews in Germany.

The extent of Guruji’s sympathies for the views of the Nazi Party is evident from the following passage from We or Our Nationhood Defined: "To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by" (We or Our Nationhood Defined, 1947, p. 42).

You might say that this is an old book, of a time when India was in the throes of the struggle for independence. But then there is his second book, Bunch of Thoughts. I cite below an example from this "popular publication" which was brought out in November 1966. In this book, while discussing India’s internal security problem, Guruji identifies three internal dangers. One is Muslims, the second Christians and the third Communists. In Guruji’s view, every Indian Muslim, every Christian and every Communist is a danger to the nation’s security. Such is his ideology.

Our second major difference with Guruji and the RSS has to do with the caste question. They are supporters of the caste system while a socialist like me is its greatest enemy. I consider myself to be the biggest enemy of brahminism and the caste system. I am of the firm view that there can be no economic and social equality in India until the caste system and the inequalities based on it are demolished.

But Guruji says, "Another unique feature of our society was the varna vyavastha (caste system, the former occupation-based classification of society) which is today vilified as jati pratha (a rigid caste system)." He adds, "Society was conceived of in the image of an all-powerful god, of four aspects, who was to be worshipped by different people in their own ways as determined by their different capabilities. The Brahmin was considered great because he was the purveyor of knowledge. The Kshatriya was considered equally great because he destroyed the enemies. The Vaishya was no less important than others because through agriculture and commerce he fulfilled a social need. The Sudra too was important for he served society through his workmanship." Here it is very shrewdly being asserted that through his workmanship the Sudra is fulfilling an important social need. But Chanakya’s Arthashastra, from which Guruji takes his inspiration, clearly states that it is the religious duty of the Sudras to serve the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. In a clever subterfuge, Guruji replaces service of the upper castes with "service of society".

The fourth issue on which we differ is that of language. We are in favour of promoting the languages of the people. All regional languages, after all, are indigenous. But what does Guruji have to say on this? Guruji says that for now Hindi should be made the common language for all while the ultimate objective should be to make Sanskrit the national language. He says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "For convenience, Hindi should be given primacy as our link language until such time as Sanskrit is adopted as our national language." Thus Hindi is merely for convenience, the ultimate link language is to be Sanskrit.

In other words, Guruji wanted to see millions of Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted all their citizenship rights taken away. Incidentally, these ideas of his were not newly formulated. From the time we were in college (in the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined to follow Hitlerian ideals. In their view, Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be treated the same way that Hitler treated Jews in Germany.

We have had differences over this right from the start. Like Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, we too have always been in favour of the regional languages. We do not wish to impose Hindi on anyone. We would like to see Tamil as the prevalent language in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in Andhra Pradesh, Marathi in Maharashtra and Bengali in West Bengal. If the non-Hindi speaking states wish to adopt English, it should be up to them. We have no differences with them on this. But Sanskrit is the language of a handful of people, the language of a particular caste. Making Sanskrit the national language means the supremacy of a handful of people over others, something we definitely do not want.

Fifth, the national movement for independence had accepted the idea of a federal state. In a confederation, the centre would definitely have certain powers on specific matters but all others would be a subject matter for the states. But following partition, in a bid to strengthen the centre, the Constitution stipulated a concurrent list. As per this list, several subjects were made concurrent, subjects over which both the centre and the states have equal jurisdiction. What was originally meant to be under the domain of different states was included in the concurrent list only to strengthen the centre. Thus the federal state came into existence.

But the RSS and its chief ideologue, Guru Golwalkar, have been consistently opposed to this basic constitutional provision. These people ridicule the very concept of ‘a union of states’ and maintain that this Constitution, which envisages a confederation of states, should be abolished. Guruji says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "The Constitution must be reviewed and the idea of a unitary state should be written into the new Constitution." Guruji wants a unitary or, in other words, a centralised state. He says that this system of states should be done away with. What he wants is one nation, one state, one legislature and one executive. In other words, he wants to abolish state legislatures and state ministries. That means they wish to see the rule of the stick. If they were to capture power, they would doubtless bring into existence a centralised state.

Another issue was the tricolour, the flag chosen by the national movement. Hundreds of Indians sacrificed their lives, thousands bore the brunt of lathis for the honour and glory of our chosen national flag. But surprisingly, the RSS has never accepted the tricolour as the national flag. It always swore by the saffron flag, asserting that the saffron flag has been the flag of Hindu Rashtra since time immemorial.

Just as Guruji rejected the concept of a federal state, similarly, he had no faith in a democratic system. He was of the firm view that democracy is a concept imported from the West and the system of parliamentary democracy did not jell with Indian thought and Indian civilisation. As for socialism, that for him was a totally alien idea. He repeatedly said that all isms, including socialism and democracy, were alien ideas which should be rejected, that Indian society should be founded on Indian culture. Speaking for ourselves, we believe in parliamentary democracy, in socialism, and we aspire to establish socialism consistent with Gandhian principles in India through peaceful means.

While we were engaged in a struggle against the Congress party’s autocratic rule, our leader, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, was of the opinion that we should join hands with all opposition forces to save the nation and dislodge from power the Congress party which was responsible for our humiliation at the hands of the Chinese. I had lengthy discussions with Doctorsaheb on the issue. This debate went on for two years. I kept insisting throughout that we cannot have any alliance with the RSS and the Jan Sangh. Ultimately, Doctorsaheb asked me, "Do you accept my leadership or not?" I replied, "Yes, I do." He said it wasn’t necessary for us to agree on every issue or for him to have to convince me on every issue. Let there be an issue or two on which we disagreed. And since he was only thinking of a political alliance to defeat a major enemy, I should cooperate with him, let his idea be given a "trial". Perhaps he would be proven right, he said, perhaps I would. I remained convinced however that a clash between the RSS and the Lohiaite ideologies was inevitable.

It is a fact that we formed an alliance with these people (RSS and Jan Sangh) when Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency, increasingly resorted to dictatorial methods, started promoting Sanjay Gandhi and the Maruti scandal surfaced. Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji believed that if the opposition did not unite under the banner of a single party it would be impossible to defeat Mrs Gandhi and dictatorship. Choudhary Charan Singh was also of the view that we should come together and form a united party. While we were in jail, we were all asked to give our opinions on the need to form such a party and contest elections. I recall sending a message that in my view we must contest elections. Millions of people would participate in elections. Elections are a dynamic process. As the electoral tempo builds up, the shackles of emergency are bound to snap and people are bound to exercise their democratic right. Therefore, I stressed, we must participate in elections.

Our second major difference with Guruji and the RSS has to do with the caste question. They are supporters of the caste system while a socialist like me is its greatest enemy. I consider myself to be the biggest enemy of brahminism and the caste system. I am of the firm view that there can be no economic and social equality in India until the caste system and the inequalities based on it are demolished.

Since Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain and other leaders were of the view that without coming together under the banner of one party we could not succeed, we (socialists) too gave it our consent. But I would like to stress that the understanding that was arrived at was between political parties – the Jan Sangh, the Socialist Party, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Loktantrik Dal (BLD) and some dissident Congress factions. We did not come to any arrangement with the RSS, nor did we accept any of its demands. What is more, through a letter by Manubhai Patel that was circulated among all of us in jail we learnt that on July 7, 1976 Choudhary Charan Singh had raised the issue of a possible clash of interests because of dual membership when members of the RSS also became members of the new party. In response, the then acting general secretary of the Jan Sangh, Om Prakash Tyagi had said that the proposed party should feel free to formulate whatever membership criteria it wanted. He even said that since the RSS, having faced many constraints, had been dissolved anyway, the question of RSS membership did not arise.

Later, when the constitution of the proposed Janata Party was being drawn up, the subcommittee appointed to draft the constitution proposed that members of any organisation whose aims, policies and programmes were in conflict with the aims, policies and programmes of the Janata Party should not be given membership to the new party. Given the self-evident meaning of such a membership criterion, there was no question of anyone opposing it. However, it is significant that the sole opposition to this came from Sunder Singh Bhandari (Jan Sangh). At a meeting convened in December 1976 to thrash out issues, reference was made to a letter written by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on behalf of the Jan Sangh and the RSS, stating that a section of leaders of the proposed party had agreed that the RSS issue could not be raised in connection with membership of the Janata Party. But several leaders told me that no such assurances were given because the RSS was nowhere in the picture at the time when the idea of a merger of opposition political parties was mooted. I want to clarify that I was in prison at the time and even if there was some secret understanding, I had no part in it.

I can categorically assert that the election manifesto of the Janata Party did not in any way reflect the concerns of the RSS. In fact, each point in the manifesto was clearly spelt out. Is it not a fact that the manifesto of the Janata Party spoke of a socialist society based on secular, democratic and Gandhian principles and in which there was no mention of Hindu Rashtra? The manifesto also assured the minorities equal citizenship rights and vowed to safeguard their rights. In contrast, Guruji wanted to deny equal citizenship rights to the minorities and wanted them to be subservient subjects in a Hindu Rashtra. The Janata Party was committed to decentralisation while Guruji was a hardcore proponent of centralisation. He wanted to abolish separate states, abolish state legislatures and ministries while the Janata Party emphasised the need for greater decentralisation. In other words, the Janata Party had no desire to snatch away the autonomy of states. The manifesto spoke of socialism, social justice and equality. Did the manifesto state that it upholds the caste system? Did it maintain that the Sudras’ duty was to devote their life in the service of others? On the contrary, the manifesto not only promised that the backward castes would have full opportunity to progress, it pledged special policies for them: 25-33 per cent reservation for them in government jobs.

Yes, it is true that members of the RSS did not genuinely accept the provisions of the party’s election manifesto. It was my contention and I had once even complained in writing to Kushabhau Thakre that during discussions you people (RSS, Jan Sangh) very readily agree on matters that you at heart totally disagree with. That is why your motives are suspect. I wrote this letter to him a long time ago and I have always had doubts about the RSS. I have had these doubts since Doctorsaheb’s time (Dr Ram Manohar Lohia died in 1967). But despite this, the fact remains that to fight dictatorship we entered into a political alliance with them.

Since it was Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji’s desire that all parties should merge for a united opposition to dictatorship and since the party manifesto did not make any compromises, I consented to our coming together. At the same time, I would like to say that from the beginning I was very clear in my mind that to emerge as a unified and a credible body the Janata Party would have to do two things. One, the RSS would have to change its ideology and accept the ideal of a secular democratic state. Two, the various organisations that are part of the sangh parivar, such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and the Vidyarthi Parishad, would have to dissolve themselves and merge with the secular-minded trade union and student wings of the Janata Party. I was very clear about this from the beginning and as the Janata Party had given me the responsibility to manage the affairs of its trade union and student wings, it was my consistent attempt throughout to ensure that the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ended their separate existence.

But these people started insisting on their autonomy. In fact, these organisations always function on the dictates of Nagpur (RSS headquarters), they believe in the one leader principle. Take, for example, Guruji himself. Guruji maintained that they create a mind-set which is totally disciplined and where people accept whatever they tell them. This organisation operates on a single principle: one leader. They do not believe in democracy, they have no faith in discussions and debate. They have no economic policy. For example, in his Bunch of Thoughts, Guruji expressed unhappiness over the abolition of the zamindari system in India. Guruji was deeply saddened, deeply disturbed by the abolition of the zamindari system. But he felt no compassion for the poor.

I told members of the RSS that you must abandon your ideal of organising Hindus alone and find a place for people of all religions within your organisation, that you must merge your different class-based organisations with those of the Janata Party. They responded by saying that this could not be done so soon, that there were very many difficulties involved but they did want to change, bit by bit. They continued to give such evasive replies.

From their behaviour I concluded that they had no intention of changing. Especially after the assembly elections of June 1977, when they managed to gain power in four states and one union territory, after which they began to think that with this newly acquired clout they had no need to change. Now that they had already captured four states, they would gradually also gain control of other states and finally even the centre. The leaders of other political parties in the Janata Party were older leaders who would not live long; and they would ensure that no younger (non-RSS, non-Jan Sangh) leader emerged at the top.

As is evident from the pages of the Organiser and Panchjanya (RSS mouthpieces in English and Hindi), they have not spared a single Janata Party leader who is not from their parivar. I, of course, was their special favourite, the target of special attention. They probably devoted more column space to abusing me than they did even for Mrs Indira Gandhi.

For a protracted period I persisted in dialogue with these people. I recall an occasion when Balasaheb Deoras (later RSS sarsanghchalak) visited me at my residence in Mumbai. Subsequently, I met him once again after the 1971 polls. I also had discussions with Madhavrao Mule once before the emergency. On the fourth occasion, I met Balasaheb Deoras and Madhavrao Mule together in May 1977. So no one can claim that I made no attempt to talk to them. But I finally reached the conclusion that they have closed minds in which no new idea can germinate.

On the contrary, the RSS specialises in casting young minds in a particular mould from a very young age. The first thing they do is ‘freeze’ the minds of children and of youth, making them impervious. After this they are rendered incapable of responding to other ideas.

Still, I tried. On one occasion I convened a meeting of all trade union leaders. The representatives of all constituents of the Janata Party attended but the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh boycotted the meeting. Not just that, they hurled abuses at me for no apparent reason. Similar efforts were made with the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Yuva Morcha but despite all attempts at a merger, they held aloof. This is only because of the RSS’ desire to function as a "super party".

Their aim is not only to enter into every aspect of people’s life but also to control it. In an article written for The Indian Express around that time, George Fernandes used the example of Dattopant Thengdi to make the same point. Thengdi responded by saying that the RSS intended to have all of society under its sway, it would leave no aspect of a person’s life untouched, it would establish its hegemony in every department of life. Thengdi, of course, was saying nothing new. Similar views have been repeatedly asserted by Guruji in his We or Our Nationhood Defined, as also in Bunch of Thoughts. No totalitarian organisation allows any space for freedom, its tentacles reach everywhere: art, music, economy, culture. This is the essence of any fascist organisation.

The fact is that the RSS wanted to capture the Janata Party and through it to take control of the state apparatus. For this they simultaneously dangled the carrot of the prime minister’s chair before several Janata Party leaders. On the one hand, they went on assuring Morarji Desai to the end that he was their choice for prime minister. Every now and then they would promise Choudhary Charan Singh that they would support his claim to be prime minister. Concurrently, they kept giving similar assurances to Chandra Shekhar, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes. Not once did they dare to make me a similar offer. When I once jokingly mentioned this to Vajpayee, he quipped, "Why you, Nanaji (Deshmukh) has never made me such a promise either. They want neither you nor me as prime minister." Anyway, they never made any such suggestion to me, knowing only too well that I would not deny others their due nor would I allow others to deny mine. Perhaps they think, you can’t fool this man so what’s the point of promising him anything – it will only make him (Limaye) even more cautious.

What these people (the RSS) do on the odd occasion is however of little importance. Has the RSS ever said that they have abandoned Guruji’s way of thinking? Only Atalji says that we should all accept the principles of composite nationalism, democracy, socialism, social justice, etc because we cannot move forward without them in today’s world. But Atalji is the only one who says this. I do not trust the other sanghis. These people pleaded for pardon while in prison, Balasaheb Deoras congratulated Indira Gandhi when the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in the Raj Narain case. So I have no faith in the utterances of these people. I am of the firm belief that I could only have trusted these people (erstwhile Jan Sangh leaders in the Janata Party) if they had ousted RSS leaders from the party, expelled them from the working committee, placed restrictions on RSS activities and, in particular, expelled people like Nanaji Deshmukh, Sunder Singh Bhandari and company from the party.

(Translated by Javed Anand.)

(May 1 marks the 31st anniversary of the united Janata Party and also the 86th birth anniversary of senior socialist leader, the late Madhu Limaye. The above piece, penned by Limaye soon after the split in the Janata Party, was published by the Hindi weekly, Ravivar, in 1979. Though dated, many of the issues he raises in the article are relevant even today.)

My songs are my protest: Sheetal Sathe

By
-
0

ABVP takes law into its own hands, tries to disrupt meet in Sholapur


 

Activists of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) tried to disrupt Dalit feminist protest singer, Sheetal Sathe’s programme at Sholapur on January 2, 2016 but had to retreat when organisers ensured the programme went ahead. However, the Maharashtra state joint secretary of the ABVP, Ram Satpute threatened on Maharashtra 1 television’s newshour programme on January 8, 2016 that “we will disrupt her programmes everywhere in the state.” The justification for the ABVP’s taking the law into its own hands is that she is ‘anti national.’

Sheetal was at pains to tell us that she is out on bail, fully observing the conditions of the court and to dub her ‘anti-national’ was a falsification of the case that is still on. “I respect the Court and its decision, who are these people to act this this?” she demands. She is determined to carry on with her programmes despite such blatantly unlawful threats.

Nikhil Wagle, senior journalist and Editor and head of the Maharashtra 1 television questioned the ABVP secretary on unlawful attempts to take law into his own hands on the newshour programme. “I have observed their work and heard her sing,” Wagle told Communalism Combatonline. “The court case is on but how can a vigilante group take the law into its own hands?” Wagle asks.
 

Sheetal and her group’s performances recorded first in Jai Bhim Comrade¸Anand Patwardhan’s award winning documentary on Dalit protest music have become iconic for the Dalit youth of Maharashtra. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7JRWE64CEw: Jai Bhim Comrade (Excerpt – Kabir Kala Manch) by Anand Patwardhan.mov). Mainstream Marathi television also now calls her troupe in for performances on historic occasions like the birth date of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar (December 5, 2015). See ABP Majha, Bhima Tujhe Navane: Shahir Shital Sathe & Team tributes to Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar.

Sheetal was released on bail on June 27, 2013 while eight months pregnant after being incarcerated for about two months. Three of her colleagues, including husband Sachin Mali, are still in jail. Sheetal is part of the cultural protest group Kabir Kala Manch (KKM). KKM was founded in 2002 as a response to the Godhra riots and the ensuing rise in communal tensions. “Ramesh (Gaichor) was one of the founding members, along with Yogendra Mane, Amarnath Chandaliya, Haroon Sheikh, and a few other people,” says Deepak Dengle, who joined the group in 2004. “They thought that after the Gujarat riots, something must be done to promote Hindu-Muslim unity.” 

The group did a number of shows around the city under the ‘Awaaz Do’ banner. But by the time Sathe and her cousin Gorkhe joined the group, new talent had come in who also focus on Dalit and workers’ rights.

Indian Policy victim of Upper Caste Bias, Unreason – Dilip Mandal

By
-
0
 
 
Dilip C Mandal Speech At Bamcef Convention 2016 

AWAAZ INDIA TV
Published on Jan 6, 2016

Save DU from the politics of hate and communal poison

By
-
0

Press Conference against holding of Ram Janambhoomi Seminar


 
A Joint Press Conference of several organizations affiliated to the left was organized at 2 pm today, January 8, 2016 to protest the Delhi University’s permission to host a seminar on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue on January 9. See https://sabrangindia.in/article/protests-against-colouring-du-saffron

The protests against the seminar by Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth ‘to mobilise public opinion for the Ram Janambhoomi temple’ is growing. Addressing the meet at the gate of the Arts Faculty, which is the chosen venue for the proposed seminar, students and teachers reiterated their demand that permission for such a seminar that actually seeks to spread the politics of division within the University and permission should be withdrawn.

Speakers included professors, Shaswati Mazumdar, Germanic and Romance Studies and President, DTF, Sunil Kumar, History Department, Ali Javed, Urdu Department, Najma Rehmani, Urdu Department, Rukmani Sen, President, Ambedkar University Delhi Faculty Association and Madhu Prasad, member, AIFRTE. The press conference was also addressed by representatives from students’ organisations including Chinglen Khumukcham (NEFIS),   Rahul Sarkar (AIDSO), Aman Nawaz (AISA), Prashant Mukherjee (SFI), Deepak Gupta (PACHHAS), Subhash (KYS), Amrita (AISF), Divya (Disha), Ayantika (DSU), Chaitanya (Nowruz) and Kuldeep (BSCEM).

Professor Sunil Kumar (Department of History) pointed out that in the last five years, the DU administration has done everything possible to suppress the culture of debate. The administration has been consistently denying space for teachers and students to hold meetings or discussions. The permission to the seminar on Ram Janambhoomi to the Peeth clearly shows that the administration is patronising a particular ideology. It was this same administration that forced the Department of History to remove Ramanujan's Three Hundred Ramayanas from the syllabus.

Professor Rukmani Sen from AUD said that it is time for academicians and students to come together from across the universities against this attack by the forces of majoritarianism and against the communalisation of educational institutions. She said that this seminar has to been seen as yet another way in which education is being reoriented to further VHP-RSS agenda.  

Professor Shaswati Mazumdar stressed the point that universities are places where students from various backgrounds come together in pursuit of meaningful education and that the communalisation of universities will lead to breakdown of liberal academic environment.

Professor Madhu Prasad pointed to the twin attack on public funded universities. While the Government has reduced funding to education and is going ahead with the agenda of offering Higher Education to WTO-GATs, seminars like this aim at communalising the environment of public funded universities.  

Other speakers criticized the position taken by the DU Administration in claiming that they did not know the content or the topic of the seminar at the time of booking. If that is the case, then the permission could now easily be withdrawn. The double speak by the University that anyone could hire the hall for holding any activity does not hold true as speakers pointed out how the hall had been denied in the past to other organisations and groups. Professor Ali Javed recounted how he was denied permission to hold seminar on the crisis facing Higher Education but this seminar was given permission so easily! Speakers also stressed how the seminar is clearly not an academic activity or even intended to be debate, borne out by statements by leaders of the VHP that the issue of the temple at Ram Janmabhoomi was “a matter of faith”. Statements that the blueprint for the construction of the temple would be prepared at the seminar also clearly indicate how the university campus is being sought to be polarized.

Students said that the major issues facing them like the access to quality education and employment opportunities are not being addressed while activities such as this seminar seek to divide the students on communal lines and divert the attention from the main issues before the youth and the country. They also condemned the university administration for not addressing the issues facing students and for denying spaces to them for various activities while giving permission for such dubious seminars.

Save Du will organize a cultural protest programme tomorrow from 10 am to 2 pm at Arts Faculty with the participation of writers, artists, cultural activists, lawyers and educators. Student participants in today’s programme and in tomorrow’s cultural protest spoke with determination of their resolve to not allow this destruction of the secular fabric of the university and the country. The need of the hour is to stand together in this fight against the politics of hate and to foist the plans of the Sangh Parivar to spread communal poison.

(Press release issued by the All India Democratic Students Organisation, All India Students Association, All India Students Federation, Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch, Common Teachers Forum, Disha, Democratic Students' Union, Democratic Teachers' Front,
Janwadi Shikshak Manch, Krantikari Yuva Sangathan, North-East Forum for International Solidarity Nowruz, Parivartankami Chhatra Sanghtan (PACHHAS) and the Students' Federation of India)

Risky and Life threatening, the battle for human rights

By
-
0

At least 156 HRDs from 25 countries lost their lives in 2015


 

One third of the human rights defenders who were killed in eleven months of 2015 were from the south Asian region of Asia. Fifty-two of the total of at least 156 human rights defenders from 25 countries across the globe (who were killed or died in detention between January to November 2015) were from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand reports Frontline Defenders. The annual report of the frontrunner rights organisation, Stop the Killings – Front Line Defenders Annual Report 2016 can be accessed at https://sabrangindia.in/reports/stop-killing-human-rights-defenders and https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/sites/default/files/report.pdf .
 
More than half of those killings, 87, took place in Latin America, with Colombia alone accounting for 54 killings. Outside the Americas one of the starkest figures was the total of 31 targeted killings of HRDs in the Philippines.
 
In Bangladesh, five secular bloggers campaigning against religious extremism were killed, and religious extremists issued death threats against several other HRDs.India has recorded the deaths of the following human rights defenders : Guru Prasad Shukla, Jawahar lal Tiwary, Kirpasindhu Sahu, Malleshappa M Kalburgi, Sandeep Kothari, Ruisoting Aimol, alias Mary and Jagendra Singh.
 
As of the end November 2015, there were reports of 52 HRDs killed in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand. Almost 70% of these killings were related to environmental, land or indigenous peoples’ rights.  The figure rises to over 90% in the Philippines, where 31 HRDs were killed. The situation was extremely serious in Mindanao as the government implemented its counterinsurgency operation,‘ Oplan Bayanihan’. In Thailand, land rights defender Chai Bunthonglek was shot dead in front of his family in February 2015. He was the fourth member of the Southern Peasant Federation of Thailand to be killed since 2010.
 
In Pakistan, Sabeen Mahmud was shot dead in April after hosting a discussion on human rights violations in the conflict-ridden Baluchistan province. In Myanmar, journalist Ko Par Gyi died in custody, after his arrest in September 2015 .The military claimed that he was killed when he “tried to seize a gun from a guard”; however, his body bore clear signs of torture.
 
Killings were reported in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey and Yemen, with over half of the killings occurring in Latin America.
 
Speaking at the launch of “Stop the Killings – Front Line Defenders Annual Report 2016”, the organisation's Executive Director, Mary Lawlor outlined how, “Human rights defenders (HRDs) face increasin­gly restrictive and brutal environments in every region of the globe. Extreme violence is being used more frequently and in more countries, while fabricated prosecutions and unfair trials have become the norm in many parts of the world. Those who target HRDs have stepped up their efforts to silence them, both within their borders and internationally”.

The figures for 2015 mark a general increase over the previous year, both in the number of killings and in the number of countries where they occurred. Killings were reported in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey and Yemen.

Overall, 45% of the killings were linked to the defence of environmental, land and indigenous peoples' rights. Other groups targeted included HRDs working on corruption and impunity as well as journalists and other HRDs using the media – including online and social media – to denounce abuses. Another area of concern is the targeting of women human rights defenders, who are exposed not only to risks related to their work, but also to gender-based violence, harassment and stigma.

Killings were reported in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey and Yemen, with over half of the killings occurring in Latin America.

Arbitrary detention and judicial harassment were by far the most common tactics used by African states against HRDs. Front Line Defenders documented such cases in Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, DRC, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Somaliland, Uganda and Zimbabwe. 2015 also saw the space for HRDs in Angola, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda shrink further, due to new laws and increased governmental interference with the work of independent human rights organisations or new laws.

Defending human rights in Latin America remained extremely dangerous and the criminalisation of the defence of human rights and peaceful protest movements persisted. The most worrying issue remained extreme violence. Most at risk were environmental, indigenous peoples' and land rights defenders; they were the victims of 41% of the killings in the region. Almost all of these cases were linked to opposition to so-called 'mega-projects', especially those conducted by mining companies. HRDs working on sexual orientation and gender identity were also a particular target. LGBTI rights defenders accounted for 15% of the killings reported in the region, making them the second-most targeted group.

Strategies employed by governments
HRDs in many countries in Asia continued to work in a hostile environment, and were targeted through surveillance, intimidation, threats and harassment, arbitrary detention, and torture. Judicial harassment intensified in Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand, and was reported in Cambodia, China, India, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. [1]Physical assaults by police, plain-clothed agents or unidentified thugs were on the increase, and occurred in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Maldives, Nepal and Vietnam. In Vietnam, according to local monitors, at least 60 activists and bloggers, including six women, were violently attacked in the first eleven months of 2015.

In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, NGOs are excluded from public life, deprived of visibility because of increased control over mainstream media, and depicted as foreign agents or as motivated by financial gain. Legislative restrictions were coupled with smear campaigns in Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

In May 2015, three years after its infamous 'Foreign Agent Law', the Russian Federation passed a law on 'undesirable organisations'. According to this vaguely formulated legislation, the General Prosecutor authority can declare foreign organisations undesirable if they are deemed to present a threat to Russia’s constitutional order, its defence or its security. This gives significant scope for arbitrary application. In particular, the law makes any cooperation by Russian citizens with 'undesirable organisations' an offence punishable with up to six years' imprisonment. Four international groups were included in the list at year's end, including the Open Society Foundation. Other donor organisations have closed their programmes in the country as a result of the law, thus depriving civil society groups of important support.

Use of State Security and Counter-Terrorism Laws
The use of state security and counter-terrorism laws against HRDs continued to be a common tactic of repression across all regions. The excuse of the 'fight against terrorism' since 9/11 has been recognised as one of the key drivers for closing civil society space worldwide. With the increase in security concerns following the wake of terror attacks in Ankara, Beirut, Bamako, Paris, Tunis and elsewhere in 2015, there is a real risk that HRDs may be affected further, both in relation to the situation in their own countries and vis-à-vis support from abroad. This is a particular concern, for example, in relation to visas for temporary relocation in cases of extreme danger. “It is of the utmost importance that legitimate police and security work against those who use terrorism and mass attacks against civilians does not undermine the protection available to and needed by HRDs”, said Ms Lawlor.

United Nations
2015 marked the 20th anniversary of the execution of nine Ogoni activists by the Nigerian government. Those executions marked a watershed moment for efforts worldwide to make companies accountable for the human rights impact of their business activities. While a lot has changed in relation to the discourse on business and human rights, the international community remains very far from having effective mechanisms to hold companies to account.
 
In a welcome recognition of how HRDs are affected when working on issues around business, a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in November referred explicitly to the responsibility of business toward HRDs, and called on businesses to engage in meaningful consultations with them. While the General Assembly resolution included new, positive language and reiterated strong concern at the targeting of HRDs, the opposition to it was even more strident than usual. The African Group tabled 39 amendments, some of which were of very serious concern as they aimed to water down states’ responsibility to protect HRDs and undermine the legitimacy of human rights work. The amendments were eventually withdrawn, but China and Russia called for a vote on the resolution. While the text passed with a strong majority, this was the first time that a resolution on HRDs was not passed by consensus, and marked a step up in the offensive against HRDs within the UN. China, the Russian Federation, Syria, Burundi, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, South Africa, Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan voted ‘no’. While it is no coincidence that in many countries which voted against or abstained HRDs are routinely targeted, it is worrying that the opposition included democracies such as Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa.[2]

Positive developments
On a positive note, Honduras passed a law in May establishing a new national system for the protection of HRDs, following in the footsteps of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. The law came as a response to numerous recommendations made by civil society and international bodies and hopefully will result in more effective protection of HRDs at risk in a country where extreme violence is rampant. The first challenge the government needs to address is to draft regulations to make the mechanism operational, rapid and effective. This must be done in consultation with HRDs. High-level political support, adequate resources, and implementation by an independent body, separate from government, are essential.
 
Points highlighted at the report release
Ms Lawlor also highlighted how “the environment for HRDs across the globe is increasingly restrictive and punitive and the offensive against them has reached new heights. Yet the international reaction to these deteriorating circumstances has remained weak. The Irish Government, other EU member states and those countries who believe in democracy, the rule of law and human rights must adopt an automatic policy of publicly condemning the killings of HRDs ”.

“Despite a continuing backlash against human rights defenders where HRDs have received sentences ranging from 6 to 8 and a half years for alleged economic crimes following unfair trials, it has been business as usual for the Council of Europe with a mealy mouthed response to this targeted repression”, she added. In conclusion Ms Lawlor said, “The EU is quite happy to raise the situation in Burundi or Belarus but when it comes to Ethiopia, China, Mexico or Azerbaijan it's a different story. Ireland and the EU must be as strong speaking up for human rights defenders in countries where they have political, economic and strategic interests as they are when it comes to the usual suspects”.
 
Names of the Defenders who lost their lives from other countries of the Asia Pacific
 
Afghanistan:  Angiza Shinwari, Shafee Nasiri, Umran Aziz
Bangladesh: Avijit Roy, Bijoy Das, Faisal Arefin Dipan, Niloy Neel, Washiqur Rahman
Indonesia: Indra Pelani, Salim (alias Kancil)
Myanmar: Johnny
Pakistan: Muhammad Zaman Mehsud, Sabeen Mahmud
Philippines: Dionel Campos, Emerito Samarca, Endric ‘Bayoto’ Calago, Florencio ‘Ka Bong’ Romano, Lito Abion, Datu Juvello Sinzo, Roger B. Vargas, Tata Baito, Teodoro ‘Ka Tudoy’ Escanilla, Teresito ‘Sito’ Mula Labastilla, Virgilio Leotorco, Lucila L. Vargas, Walter Ayuban
Joel Gulmatico, Rosalie Calago, Jose Alimboyogo, Mabini ‘Tata’ Beato, Songkok Asero
Frenie Landasan, Blemar Mondejar, Luis Carbajosa, Benilda Santos, Ruben Enlog, Oligario Quimbo, Felix Basig, Jel Ahing, Arnel Morada, Welmer Somina, Jobert Samia, Uldarico Camayudo. Menelao ‘Boy’ Barcia
Thailand: Chai Bunthonglek

 

[1] In India, HRDs Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand faced court proceedings on fabricated charges of embezzlement, misuse of funds and 'anti-national propaganda'.
[2] Within the United Nations, member states are arranged in geopolitical groups http://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups.shtml; 117 voted in favour, 40 abstained, 14 against. The following states abstained: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, CAR, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire,Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Fiji, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Mauritania,Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,Venezuela, Vietnam, and Yemen abstained.

The truth about Charlie: one year after the January 7 attacks

By
-
0

A year ago, on January 7, 2015 a brute attack on France’s rebel cartoonists took place. The anniversary of this attack needs to be commemorated; for the violence and horror that terror in the name of Islam has generated 

This article was first published on www.opendemocracy.net


A man reads the latest edition of French weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo with the title “One year on, the assassin still on the run” in a cafe in Nice, France, on Jan. 6. Photo by Eric Gaillard/Reuters

The Charlie Hebdo attack one year ago was part of a long tradition of fundamentalist assaults on artists.  Understanding this tragic event is critical to defeating Islamist terror today.

Two French Islamist gunmen of Algerian descent entered a newspaper office in Paris a year ago today and gunned down a generation of Europe’s greatest political cartoonists- – many from an anarchist, anti-racist tradition – along with their co-workers and those protecting them, who also included people of Algerian descent.  In case anyone is confused about the politics of this – it was a far right attack on the left. 

At first the world reacted with justified horror and a solidarity which is not always forthcoming for the frequently anonymous victims of Islamist slaughter, and which was not often experienced by the Charlie Hebdo staff in previous years when they endured threats and firebombs. However, the backlash began quickly.  The truth about Charlie was that many were shockingly equivocal in their reaction to these events. 

There was the “I am not Charlie” campaign, promoted by Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The meaning of that was clear enough.  Those whose ideology helped pave the way for such killings were publicly admitting their lack of solidarity with the victims. There were outright vilification campaigns suggesting that the cartoonists (or perhaps French people generally) were racists, “Islamophobic” or otherwise had it coming.  In California – which by year’s end became the site of another Islamist bloodbath – a number of people expressed such views to me, thinking that because I have a Muslim name I would agree.  Not long after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I spoke at a U.S. university event on freedom of expression along with a self-appointed young American spokesperson for “the Muslim community” from the Council on American Islamic Relations – whom I must say I never elected to speak for me.  She reviled the January 7 victims to the point where I felt compelled to ask if she understood that they were actually dead.  She did not know as I did that just before their murders, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were in a heated discussion about terrible socio-economic conditions in the Paris suburbs where much of the Muslim population lives – an injustice which mattered a great deal to them.

Another response was the more sophisticated “I am Ahmed” campaign named for the stalwart French policeman Ahmed Merabet also of Algerian descent who was killed by the Kouachi brothers as they fled the newspaper’s offices. Sadly, this was sometimes meant as a rebuttal rather than an amplification of “Je suis Charlie,” when in fact people like the murderous Kouachis have been killing Ahmeds around the world for years.  Very few have been paying attention to that body count.  When they depicted their version of the Prophet Mohamed crying over terrorism, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had the courage to take on those carrying out that slaughter while others looked away or were silent. 

That is committed anti-racism and solidarity, even if it comes in the shape of a merciless, sometimes disturbing French satirical tradition not always well understood elsewhere – like Mad Magazine with politics.

On this anniversary, we must remember that those who killed Charlie also killed Ahmed and that saying “I am Charlie” is also a way of saying “I am Ahmed,” and vice versa. Indeed, opposing the Kouachis of the world is essential to saving those countless people of Muslim heritage and their fellow citizens in the Global South who have been dying in the tens of thousands at the hands of Muslim fundamentalist killers in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya and beyond. Ahmed is a synonym for Charlie, not an antonym. That was why so many people of North African descent stood with the January 7 victims.


" The idiots killed me", cartoon by Dilem. Credit: @DilemAli.

For example, Ali Dilem, one of Algeria’s best political cartoonists joined the Charlie Hebdo team in February out of solidarity.  His bold cartoons have lampooned political figures and fundamentalist terrorists for years, earning him jail sentences and countless fatwas. On January 7, 2015, Dilem’s cartoon bore the heading: “God is Humour” (in French: “Dieu est humour,”a play on words derived from “Dieu est amour” – “God is Love”).  Another of Dilem’s cartoons after the January 7 attacks shows a dying figure writing in his own blood on a wall: “the idiots killed me”

l trying to escape the “Islamic State” offensive, and in front of the small club where 89 mainly young people lost their lives at the hands of another group of young Islamist assassins of North African descent.  I found my visit doubly poignant because I went with Samia Benkherroubi a former Algerian TV presenter whose own producer, the legendary Aziz Smati, had been shot in 1994 by the Armed Islamic Group, the forerunners of “Islamic State,” and is today a paraplegic, but continues his work from his wheelchair. Smati’s crime, like Charlie’s, was creativity.  He produced Algeria’s groundbreaking youth music TV show, Bled Music, showing the first Rai music videos on TV, which were also controversial at the time. 

Outside the bullet-riddled Bataclan, Samia and I laid flowers and mourned together, lamenting that the fundamentalists we have been battling for years are still so much stronger than their civil society opponents.  She had written to me after the November 13 attacks to say how deeply saddened she was to see the fundamentalist violence she fled in 1990s Algeria reproducing itself elsewhere.  What was especially mystifying to her, was the way in which some on the left tried to use the history of French colonialism as the excuse (or so-called “explanation”) for these attacks. The same thing happened after January 7. Samia wrote that “looking for explanations in colonial history is an injury to all victims of blind terrorism.” It also entirely overlooks that Algeria itself lost as many as 200,000 – including many veterans of the liberation struggle – to extremist terrorism in the 1990s, a fact often conveniently forgotten.

The same night that Samia and I paid our respects at the Bataclan, we visited the plaque by the Seine to the victims of the massacre of October 17, 1961 when several hundred Algerian nationalists were slain and thrown into the river by police during a peaceful protest.

We vowed by that memorial not to let their brave memory be misused to justify fundamentalist atrocities, even while keeping their memory alive like those of other victims.  For me, this is very personal. My Algerian grandfather Lakhdar Bennoune died defeating French colonialism.  His death is part of an historic injustice which still demands real accounting – but is no justification whatsoever for the lamentable Kouachis who would have said he was not a true martyr because he died fighting for a republic rather than an “Islamic State”.

All of this complexity seems to have been lost on the authors and signatories of the petition against the granting of the PEN Freedom of Expression Courage award to the Charlie Hebdo staff signed by a group of mainly Western intellectuals in the name of anti-racism.  They wanted to make clear that they were not Charlie.  They claimed solidarity with Ahmed.  They presumed to know what the Ahmeds of the world think (and that they think alike) while overlooking the contemporary politics of the Muslim majority regions of the world.  They regretted the killing, but clearly didn’t understand it. 

The petition’s authors presumed a) that French Muslims were mostly devout, and b) that this meant they could not stomach satirical drawings – two huge and highly inaccurate presumptions. This was a recurring theme after January 7 – that all Muslims and all people of Muslim heritage were offended by the publication of cartoons (whether they liked the cartoons or not). It is not at all clear how assuming that 1.5 billion people have no sense of humor (and no politics) is anything other than patronizing.

Meanwhile, the campaign to support the presentation of the PEN award to Charlie Hebdo was led by Salman Rushdie, who is of Muslim heritage, and whose name is derived from a great 12th century Andalusian Muslim philosopher  Ibn Rushd who likely would not have been terribly troubled by provocative cartoons, and whose own books on philosophy and theology were burned by Muslim fundamentalists while his Christian followers were slain by the Inquisition. 

There was the “I am not Charlie” campaign, promoted by Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The meaning of that was clear enough.  Those whose ideology helped pave the way for such killings were publicly admitting their lack of solidarity with the victims.

So, we must remember that January 7, 2015 was one in a long line of far right attacks on creativity, and part of a history of fundamentalist assaults against artists and intellectuals who have defied them.  And, sadly, it was only one of the first armed Islamist salvos of 2015 which will be remembered as the year of endless, expanding jihad. Charlies and Ahmeds, Ceciles and Samiras died in many regions of the world at the hands of those seeking a free ticket to paradise.

In 2015, Muslim fundamentalists would go on to target Pakistani arts promoters, Iraqi women lawyers and teachers and most of the country’s minorities, Syrian archaeologists, a Kosher grocery store in France, an event about freedom of expression in Denmark, Afghan airports, Tunisia’s national museum, countless Shiite mosques everywhere, minarets, a Beirut shopping district, a Sousse beach, Nigerian markets, a Kenyan University, and a Russian airplane carrying families home from vacation.  Grave crimes, crimes against humanity, war crimes, even genocide, in some cases.  Afterwards we were all assaulted verbally both by some on the left who tried to excuse the perpetrators or minimize their crimes in defiance of the facts, and some on the right who sought to lump all Muslims in with those perpetrators notwithstanding how many Muslims have died at their hands and how many have opposed them.

With all of this bloodletting and intolerance, why is it important to remember the Charlie Hebdo attack and its victims?  Algerians I have interviewed about the country’s “dark decade” of 1990s fundamentalist violence have often told me about the debates regarding the motives behind fundamentalist killings. In the beginning, people tried to explain away the targeting – “oh, he was a policeman, he we was an atheist, she was a communist,” until the terrorists began killing Every(wo)man and it seemed inexplicable.  Grassroots solidarity with less popular or controversial victims was crucial but sometimes harder to come by, something which their assassins knew only too well.  A muted response to what happened to the cops and the communists only emboldened the so-called Warriors of God to attack others. 

So, a year later, remembering the Charlie Hebdo attack, and paying tribute to its victims, are critical aspects of the ongoing struggle against Muslim fundamentalist terrorism.  Likewise, remembering that many Muslims and people of Muslim heritage have spoken up in defence of Charlie Hebdo and against fundamentalist violence (and have died in that violence) is a key way of fighting the racism and discrimination against Muslims which also burgeoned in 2015.  The truth about Charlie is that in the year since the attacks we have often forgotten all of these things.

So today, in memory of Charb, Cabu, Wolinksi, Tignous, Bernard Maris, Honoré, Elsa Cayat, Mustapha Ourad, Frédéric Boisseau, Michel Renaud, and the police officers Franck Brinsolaro and Ahmed Merabet who were killed exactly a year ago, and all those who died at the hands of Islamist terrorists in 2015, I say simply, “I am still Charlie.”  It is a battle cry in the ongoing campaign against fundamentalist violence and the ideas that motivate it, which is one of the defining human rights struggles of 2016.  That is perhaps the most important truth about Charlie.

(The writer, an academic of repute also won the 2014 Dayton Literary Peace Prize for her book, Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism)
 

Hindutva’s Poison: Prosecute the Hate-Mongers

By
-
0


Image Courtesy: indiatvnews.com

Sadhvi Prachi a mendicant from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) fold, nominated by the BJP to a reserved seat, who fought elections (and lost) from the Purkazi (SC seat) in the 2012 Uttar Pradesh state elections has done it again. Notorious now for a string of remarks that would, if law enforcement were to be fair and un-biased, attract sections 153a, 153b, 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 295 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) she has. late yesterday excelled herself. Will she escape the long hands of the law once again?

On January 6, 2016 the web portal www.upuklive.com reported a statement made by her that makes her earlier brazen accounts at hate speech (for which she has just not been prosecuted) pale into insignificance. Dateline Lucknow and the news report in Hindi says that “all Muslim officers in the Indian Army should be investigated.” [1] This is after the Pathankot terror attack.

Through all of 2015, she has made a spate of hate-filled remarks while representing the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Originally from the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), she has just once drawn “censure” from the organisation she now represents, the BJP, in February 2015 when she made a comment felt to be derisive of Muslims. The BJP president of the state, Laxmikant Bajpayi was reported as having stated that the comment was “uncalled for”.[2]  He had elaborated stating that “Sadhvi Prachi Prachi cannot behave like a Vishwa Hindu Parishad worker while being in the Bharatiya Janata Party. “The BJP does not support such statements. It would be better that Sadhvi Prachi realises that she cannot give a statement on the lines of VHP while being a BJP leader.” Prachi had however remained adamant and defiant.

That the official rap given at the UP-level was not echoed nationally is a matter of record. Since February 2015, Prachi’s hate machinations have gone further, reported extensively by the media. Yet the national leadership of the BJP is silent as the BJP-RSS-VHP combine reap in the ‘obvious’ benefits of the communal stridency. Since the mid-1980s when the Ramjanmabhoomi (read break down Babri Masjid) movement mushroomed and grew, the VHP-RSS public movements have preceded the BJP(‘s), step by step. In and out of the Indian Parliament and state assemblies (UP and Gujarat being the notable states), prominent office bearers of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have, interchangeably been in official and electoral positions of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Communalism Combatonline (www.sabrangindia.in) believes it is time for an informed and consistent campaign against this kind of hate speech. When it is spouted from the mouths of representatives of the ruling party it has more serious consequences, socially, politically and legally. There appears to be a deafening paralysis in law enforcement against any action against it.

We bring you a string of the Sadhvi’s rants to establish the point behind the campaign:
Shah Rukh Khan, Indian Bollywood star earned the Sadhvi’s hate. “By talking about returning the awards, he has committed treason. He should be punished for this. Not only Shah Rukh Khan but all those who have returned awards should be tried for treason. (November 2015)[3] She was obviously on a hate-filled high through the past year: In October 2015, she declared that the “Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) are the dens for the SIMI and Pakistan (agents)” (sic). [4]

Since the mid-1980s when the Ramjanmabhoomi (read break down Babri Masjid) movement mushroomed and grew, the VHP-RSS public movements have preceded the BJP(‘s), step by step. In and out of the Indian Parliament and state assemblies (UP and Gujarat being the notable states), prominent office bearers of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have, interchangeably been in official and electoral positions of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

When the country was jolted after the lynching, to death of Mohammad Akhlaq at Dadri, Uttar Pradesh barely 45 kilometres from the capital, New Delhi, this is what Sadhvi Prachi a BJP leader had to say, “Those who consume beef deserve such actions against them (Dadri lynching, Statement reported on October 4, 2015)[5]

She earned the ire of Indian Parliamentarians in August 2015 when she spouted, “Sadhvi Prachi courts controversy yet again, says there are terrorists in Parliament.” (reported on August 6, 2015).[6] The complaint by Parliamentarians was referred by Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, Hamid Ansari to the Privileges Panel. But what of hate speech against Indian citizens?

In July 2015, she was at it again. “Why are Hindu devotees always under threat during pilgrimages, be it in Amarnath, Vaishno Devi or Puri’s Jagannath Temple? If such attacks happen, I tell you, the Haj yatris will face consequences,” she yelped. (Reported on July 3, 2015)[7]

 It is possible that in the long summer months of 2015 that also coincided with the first anniversary of the Modi government in power, there are few reported mis-utterances. Or it is possible that this is the season for the Sadhvi’s meditation.
Unwind back to April 2015 and she is spewing the special brand of Sadhvi poison again:

 
Then she joined in with calling Mahatma Gandhi a British agent[11] In December 2013, three months after the communal carnage in four districts of western Uttar Pradesh (Shamli, Baghpat, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar) Sadhvi Prachi was arrested for making inflammatory speeches. She was then released on bail.[12]

In her affidavit filed before the Election Commission she has proffered an elaborate list of educational qualifications. She states on oath that she graduated from high school, Uttar Pradesh board in 1989, passed the Intermediate, UP Board examinations, 1992; then obtained another qualification from an institute VH Charan Singh Institute Meerut, 1995 and a Sanskrit degree from the same institute (no year mentioned). She states that she is a post graduate with an MA which she obtained in 2002 from Gurukul Kangri, Hardwar. (Horror of horrors), she also holds a Bachelors of Education degree which she obtained in year 2000 from the Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. She is also a Doctorate (Phd) which she obtained in 2004 from the same institute, Gurukul Kangri, Hardwar.
( http://muzaffarnagar.nic.in/affidavit_GE2012/affidevit/AC013/02_PRACHIARYAA_CR.PDF)

 

[1] पठानकोट हमले के बाद साध्वी प्राची ने कहा- सेना में बैठे मुस्लिम अफसरों की हो जांच, http://www.upuklive.com/2016/01/sadhvi-prachi-controversial-statement.html
[2] BJP chides Sadhvi for anti-Muslim statement, http://www.abplive.in/india-news/bjp-chides-sadhvi-for-anti-muslim-statement-152102
[3] साध्वी प्राची ने कहा-पाकिस्तान के एजेंट हैं शाहरुख खान, वहीं चले जाएं http://www.bhaskar.com/news-ht/UP-LUCK-shah-rukh-khan-is-pakistani-agent-says-sadhvi-prachi-5158418-PHO.html
लखनऊ. देश में इन्टॉलरेंस बढ़ने की शिकायत करने वाले शाहरुख खान पर भगवा ब्रिगेड ने करारा हमला किया है। साध्वी प्राची ने बॉलीवुड एक्टर को पाकिस्तानी एजेंट बताया है। वहीं, हिंदू महासभा ने शाहरुख को देश छोड़ने की नसीहत दे दी है। प्राची ने कहा, 'शाहरुख खान पाकिस्तानी एजेंट है। उसे पाकिस्तान ही चले जाना चाहिए। अवॉर्ड लौटाने की बात कहकर उसने राष्ट्रद्रोह किया है। इसकी सजा मिलनी चाहिए। सिर्फ शाहरुख खान ही नहीं, बल्कि अवॉर्ड लौटाने वाले सभी लोगों पर राष्ट्रद्रोह का मुकदमा दर्ज हो।'
[4] http://www.amarujala.com/feature/samachar/national/again-sadhvi-prachi-gave-hate-speech-in-aligarh-hindi-news-sy/'एएमयू सिमी का अड्डा, पाकिस्तान से जुड़े तार': अपने तल्ख बयानों को लेकर सुर्खियों में रहने वाली साध्वी प्राची ने जम्मू-कश्मीर में बीफ पार्टी देने वाले निर्दलीय विधायक इंजीनियर रशीद की पिटाई को उचित बताया है। उन्होंने रशीद की पिटाई करने वाले भाजपा विधायकों को उत्तर प्रदेश में बुलाकर सम्मानित करने का भी एलान किया है। रविवार को एक कार्यक्रम के सिलसिले में अलीगढ़ पहुंचीं साध्वी प्राची ने जम्मू-कश्मीर विधान सभा में राशिद की पिटाई प्रकरण का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा कि गौ माता की हत्या करने वाले लोगों को फांसी की सजा दी जानी चाहिए। उन्होंने कहा कि वे जम्मू-कश्मीर जाकर पिटाई करने वाले भाजपा विधायकों से मिलेंगी। अखिल भारत हिंदू महासभा की राष्ट्रीय सचिव डॉ. पूजा शकुन पांडे के आवास पर साध्वी प्राची ने भाजपा विधायक संगीत सोम प्रकरण पर कहा कि यह शर्म की बात है कि विधायक संगीत सोम मीट फैक्ट्री चलाने में शामिल थे। नेताओं का दोगला चेहरा समाज में नहीं होना चाहिए।
दादरी के बिसाहड़ा प्रकरण पर उन्होंने कहा कि मृतक इकलाख पाकिस्तान में रहकर आया था और उसके घर में गौ मांस व सिर मिले थे। उन्होंने कहा कि शासन ने उनके बिसाहड़ा जाने पर इसलिए प्रतिबंध लगा दिया ताकि सच्चाई न सामने आ जाए। उन्होंने कहा कि गौ रक्षा में जान गंवाने वालों की आंसू पोछने प्रदेश सरकार नहीं जाती है।
[8] VHP leader links Nepal earthquake to ‘beef eating’ http://thenortheasttoday.com/vhp-leader-links-nepal-earthquake-to-beef-eating/; HARIDWAR: Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Sadhvi Prachi kicked up yet another controversy when she came up with her logic on the recent earthquake that devastated Nepal.Commenting the most unreasonable statement that could come at this tragic time, controversial BJP functionaries, Sakshi Maharaj and Sadhvi Prachi have linked the earthquake in Nepal to Rahul Gandhi’s Kedarnath visit. Speaking to media persons in Haridwar, Sakshi Maharaj said, “Rahul Gandhi eats beef and goes to the holy shrine without purifying himself, the earthquake was bound to happen.”
[9] http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/latest-sadhvi-prachi-hindus-boycott-films-khans-rahul-marry-indian-girl-2130615.html
After backing the 'Hindu women should have four children theory' earlier, BJP leader Sadhvi Prachi sparked yet another controversy when she on Sunday said that Hindus should boycott movies by the three Khans of Bollywood because they promote 'love jihad'. "Our children do not get right samskars from the movies of the Khans. They promote love jihad," Hindustan Timesquoted Sadhvi Prachi as saying.Prachi, at a VHP event in Dehradun, also said that Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi should marry an Indian girl and re-iterated BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj's remark that Hindus needed to have more children, according to IBNLive.The BJP leader had received a lot of criticism earlier when she had backed Sakshi Maharaj's remark that every Hindu woman should bear four children. She had reacted to the criticism and had said that she had asked Hindus to have four children, not 40 puppies.
[10].http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sadhvi-prachi-says-chant-vande-mataram-or-leave-india-controversy/1/424362.html; http://www.firstpost.com/politics/asked-people-to-have-4-kids-not-40-puppies-bjps-sadhvi-prachi-stokes-new-controversy-2075563.html Asked people to have 4 kids, not 40 puppies: BJP's Sadhvi Prachi stokes new controversy Badaun (UP): VHP leader Sadhvi Prachi has stoked fresh controversy by making inflammatory remarks on the issue of 'love jihad' and defending her statement that Hindu women should have four children.
"They are trapping our daughters through 'love jihad'. These people who give birth to 35-40…. are spreading love jihad… They are trying to make Hindustan into Darul Islam," she said. Ibnlive quoted her as saying, "I asked people to have 4 kids, not 40 puppies."
[12]Muzaffarnagar riots: BJP leader Sadhvi Prachi gets bail,  http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-03/news/44710438_1_muzaffarnagar-riots-bjp-ticket-communal-violence
 

Protests against colouring DU saffron

By
-
0


 
A seminar on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue by a VHP-sponsored outfit has no space on the Delhi University (DU) campus, where spaces should be open for inclusive and secular education

 
An all out bid to communalise the temperature on the Delhi University campus appeared afoot as “unidentified persons” climbed onto the Vivekananda statute situated in the midst of the Delhi University Campus and started painting it saffron! The incident, late on Wednesday (January 6, 2016) comes on the eve of a controversial ‘seminar’ on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue being hosted by the university’s Arts Faculty and conducted by an outfit linked to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
 
Meanwhile in a strongly worded statement, as many as 15 organisations affiliated to the Left have come together to protest the two day seminar ‘to mobilize public opinion for the Ram Janambhoomi temple’ which is being organized by Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth in Arts Faculty, Delhi University starting on January 9, 2016.
 
The text of the protest statement:
It is very clear that the seminar is not an academic activity, as it is not organised by any department of the university but by an organisation that has a clear design and preconceived ideas about the outcome of such an exercise. This seminar must also be seen in connection with other recent reports from Ayodhya suggesting that truckloads of bricks have arrived there for the building of the temple. By holding this seminar in a premier central university, the RSS-VHP clearly intends to polarise the youth and create a divisive atmosphere.

Universities are supposed to be institutions that bring young people from all backgrounds, including all faiths, together in the common endeavour of the pursuit of knowledge. Universities should be spaces for secular education. The holding of a seminar on such a nationally divisive issue is a blatant misuse of the University. We may recall the recent controversies around moves to hold programmes in JNU and Allahabad University with Ramdev and Yogi Adityanath as participants. Both moves were successfully resisted by students and the University as a space open to all was defended.

It is shameful that the DU administration has given permission to hold such a programme. The same administration continuously denied university spaces to the democratically elected bodies to organize meetings and programmes. In allowing this divisive and communal programme, the University administration has shown disrespect to the academic environment of the University. The DU administration is bending backwards to please the BJP-led Government.

It is deplorable that the Government is imposing academic dilution on the public funded universities through hurriedly imposed programmes like CBCS and starving them through fund cuts on one hand and on the other damaging the academic environment in universities by pushing their divisive agenda. We demand that permission for the conduct of this programme be withdrawn forthwith. We also call upon the university community and citizens to resist the attempts by the RSS-VHP to spread communal disharmony through such programmes.

The statement has been signed by All India Democratic Students Organisation
All India Students Association, All India Students Federation, Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch, Common Teachers Forum, Disha, Democratic Students' Union, Democratic Teachers' Front, Janwadi Shikshak Manch, Krantikari Yuva Sangathan, North-East Forum for International Solidarity, Nowruz, Parivartankami Chhatra Sanghtan (PACHHAS) and the Students' Federation of India.
 
Incidentally the outfit that has been permitted by the Arts faculty to organise the seminar, Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth, is a research organisation founded by late VHP leader Ashok Singhal of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The attempt at painting saffron Vivekananda comes two days before. DCP (north) Madhur Verma told sections of the media that, “..the  patrolling staff spotted some students painting the statue. They immediately apprehended those persons and informed the university faculty. The proctors and senior security staff of DU arrived and the students were handed over to them. Since no complaint was given by the university administration, no action has been taken against them”
 
According to eyewitnesses, the incident took place at about 8.30 pm. Five persons climbed on top of the black statue with the help of ladders, with paint cans and brushes in hand, and began painting the statue in saffron colour.

1...2,6142,6152,616...2,697Page 2,615 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