About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2619

CBI U-Turn against its own chargesheet in the Sohrabuddin case, the caged parrot syndrome?

By
-
0


Illustration: Uday Mohite DNA

Mihir Desai, advocate for Sohrabuddin in Mumbai

In December, 2005 Rubabuddin Shaikh wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India complaining about the killing of his brother Sohrabuddin and the disappearance of his sister in law Kauser Bi at the hands of the Gujarat Police, the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Rajasthan Police.  The Court forwarded the letter to the Director General of Police for an enquiry. During the pendency of the enquiry Tulsiram Prajapati, a witness to the abduction of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauser Bi was, also  killed in an encounter (extra-judicial killing). Rubabuddin approached the Supreme Court seeking a CBI investigation.

The Supreme Court first asked the Gujarat Police to investigate the matter. Certain police officers (prominently, Vanzara), were arrested. Charge sheets were filed and eight Action Taken Reports were produced before the Supreme Court by the State of Gujarat. Unsatisfied, the Supreme Court in 2010 came to the following conclusion:

“From the above factual discrepancies appearing in the 8 Action Taken Reports and from the Charge Sheet we therefore feel that the Police Authorities of the State of Gujarat had failed to carry out fair and impartial investigation as we initially wanted them to do."

The Supreme Court directed the CBI to carry out the investigation including on the issue of a larger conspiracy. The CBI started investigating the case and, on the basis of call records of the police officials and other evidence, submitted a chargesheet on 23.7.2010 in which Amit Shah was named as a co-conspirator. The chargesheet states that Amit Shah was the lynchpin in the conspiracy. Amit Shah was arrested. On 29.10.2010 Amit Shah was granted bail by the Gujarat High Court, The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court against this order. The bail was not cancelled but Amit Shah was asked to not enter Gujarat.

In its charge sheet, the CBI claimed that Amit Shah presided over an extortion racket and that it was under his pressure and at his behest that the Gujarat police tried to cover up his involvement in the killings. Phone records of the police officials at the time of killings of Sohrabuddin, Kauser Bi and Tulsi Prajapati were used to show that these police officers were in constant touch with Amit Shah. The trial was transferred to Mumbai.

Subsequently, Amit Shah filed a Discharge Application in the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The evidence that the prosecution had (CBI) was damning. G.C Raigar, Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Home Guard, Gujarat who had the  Additional Charge of ADGP CID Crime, and was in charge of the  investigation into the case, had stated that Amit Shah personally told him not to involve high level police officials in the crime. Obviously if high level police officials were not involved, the link to Mr. Shah could not be established. The Patel brothers of Popular Builders, whose statements were also recorded, have stated that Amit Shah personally told them to give a false statement against Sohrabuddin and that they paid a large amount of money to a senior police officer for being paid to Mr. Shah so as to ensure that they are not falsely implicated in a crime.
There were also the call records between Amit Shah and the officers involved in the murder, during the killings. There were certain other allegations too against Mr. Shah.

It was the CBI’s investigation which led to his arrest and to the transfer of the case outside Gujarat…… Shockingly however, it chose not to challenge the order of the Sessions Court.

However, it was now 2014 and, by now the CBI had decided to do a U turn. The case was not effectively defended in the Sessions Court.  The Sessions Court discharged Amit Shah on 30.12.2014. According to me, there is sufficient material against Mr. Shah to put him on trial. It was the CBI’s investigation which led to his arrest and to the transfer of the case outside Gujarat. At the stage of discharge the Court is not required to weigh the evidence in detail. The Court is only required to see whether it is a fit case for proceeding on trial. CBI had found it a fit case to proceed on trial  by filing the charge sheet. In fact, ordinarily the CBI would have challenged the discharge order of the Sessions Court in the High Court – more so in a sensitive case like this where it had been appointed by the Supreme Court as the Investigating Agency and the trial had been transferred at the instance of the CBI due to the involvement of Amit Shah.

Shockingly however, it chose to not challenge the order of the Sessions Court. 

Rubabuddin,  Sohrabuddin’s brother challenged the order in the High Court.  He was the person who had brought the case to light 10 years ago by writing to the Supreme Court. He had diligently followed it up in the Supreme Court and in the Sessions Court for all these years. Suddenly, within months after filing against the discharge, he decided to withdraw the case from the High Court. I am reasonably certain that this was due to extreme pressure brought on him. I can never forget the terror in his eyes and the helplessness when he did it. The question still remains. Why did the CBI not adequately defend the case in the Sessions Court and why did it refuse to file an appeal. Is it the caged parrot syndrome?

SOHRABUDDIN CASE FILE

(The author  is a senior advocate in Mumbai)
 
References:

1. Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah called cops arrested for killing Tulsi Prajapati, http://www.tehelka.com/2010/07/gujarat-home-minister-amit-shah-called-cops-arrested-for-killing-tulsi-prajapati-2/
2. The Amit Shah Files, Charge, No Charge, February 16, 2015, Outlookindia http://www.outlookindia.com/article/the-amit-shah-files/293300
3. Sohrabuddin case: How Patel bros were ‘fleeced’ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-sohrabuddin-case-how-patel-bros-were-fleeced-1420791 
4. CATCH NEWS (Rubabuddin) October 10 2015 :I was threatened before I withdrew case against Amit Shah: Rubabuddin http://www.catchnews.com/india-news/yes-i-was-threatened-before-i-withdrew-the-case-sohrabuddin-s-brother-1445261071.html

Stop Killing Us: the Bhim Yatra of India’s Manual Scavengers tells the Indian government

By
-
0


 
No Justice Delivery, India’s forgotten Safai Karmacharis have started a protest yatra that is traversing 500 districts in 30 states

 
Does a Supreme Court judgement ensure that the fundamental rights of Indians who die while cleaning for a living will be protected? No say India’s Manual Scavengers who die in filth, cleaning our dirt, despite a judgement passed to ensure that a law enacted in 1991 (and revised and re-enacted in 2013) is actually implemented. Over 1327 persons lost their lives in the year since the Supreme Court judgement and less than three per cent received any compensation.
 
On March 27, 2014, the Supreme Court passed a judgement —  twelve years after a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by the Safai Karmachari Andolan— and issued specific directions to prevent and control this illegal practice as also to prosecute the offenders. The Judgement can be read here.

Despite the judgement of the Supreme Court that directs that such deaths in sewer holes and septic tanks should be stopped immediately,19 months after the judgement, deaths have continued to occur, with impunity, in sewer holes across the country.  The Safai Karamchari Andolan has reported 1327 sewer and septic tank deaths in the period since the judgement was passed in March 2014. Less than three percent have received compensation.
 
In December this year, faced with this reality, India’s safai karmacharis have been forced to resort to the streets to protest. A country wide yatra, the Bhim Yatra is a journey of pain and anguish, to tell the country and the government to ‘STOP KILLING US (the manual scavengers)’ in dry latrines, sewers and septic tanks. The Bhim Yatra will criss-cross across the country for 125 days passing through 500 districts in 30 states. It began its journey on International Human Rights day from Delhi on December 10, 2015 and will end back in the capital, on April 13, 2016. This is the eve of the 125th birth centenary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (April 14, 2016). 

Days after the Yatra began, tragic deaths of such workers, all migrants to Bengaluru, were reported. All three had died after descending into a sewage treatment plant in a residential apartment complex in Bengaluru’s Electronic City area. Ranjan (32) was from Odisha, Jagadish Kumar (28) from KR Nagar in Mysuru, and Mahesh (30) from Nepal (December 16, 2015). On October 25, 2013, two workers from Bihar died in the Peenya industrial area in Bengalaru.[1] Tamil Nadu reported 150 deaths due to this practice [2]. The Madras High Court is now reportedly monitoring the implementation of manual scavenging laws in the state. "In our view, it is necessary to take expeditious steps to implement the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, coupled with the directions of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit promptly," the Court has said on a petition filed PIL filed by Change India director A Narayanan in June 2015.

According to the report in Indiaspend.org, “While the (railway) ministry denies employing manual scavengers officially, the affidavits it has submitted in the court in the past nine years suggest that barring a few trains, the railways does not employ any technology to keep its 80,000 toilets and 115,000 kilometres of tracks clean,” according to Down To Earth magazine.
 
On November 18, 2015, Indiaspend.org reported how the state in India was the biggest offender. The report said that “Maharashtra has more than 63,000 households dependent on manual scavenging, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tripura and Karnataka, according to a question answered by Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Vijay Sampla in the Lok Sabha.” [3]  In September 2015, the Delhi High court ordered a survey in the capital to determine the extent of manual scavenging. The Ministry of Railways told the court that manual scavenging cannot be completely eradicated until stations get washable aprons and sealed toilet systems. According to the report in Indiaspend.org, “While the (railway) ministry denies employing manual scavengers officially, the affidavits it has submitted in the court in the past nine years suggest that barring a few trains, the railways does not employ any technology to keep its 80,000 toilets and 115,000 kilometres of tracks clean,” according to Down To Earth magazine.
 
Hence the Bhim Yatra
 
Since 1982, there has been a strong movement against this violence and discrimination. The movement was a demand for the demolition of the dry latrines that are the visible structures of an inhuman caste system and its link with this de-humanising occupation.
 
In 1993 the Indian Parliament passed the “The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (prohibition) Act 1993, with imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of Rs 2,000. This law has never been effectively implemented and no convictions have taken place under this law during the first 20 years it was in force. The government has given many false assurances but not in any way worked actively to stop this practice.
 
It was the Safai karmachari Andolan that consistently exposed the hypocrisy of the government surveys and schemes. In year 2000 when the government counted only 679,000 manual scavengers, the movement came out with documented figures of 1.3 million, that too from a survey randomly conducted in states and districts. There is a long list of dates when India’s Prime Minister (s) and chief ministers (of various states) have made token statements of setting deadlines to end this illegal and de-humansing practice : 1995, then 2000, then 2003, then 2005, then 2010, and then 2012. But, nothing has changed.
 
Finally, in 2003, the Safar Karmachari Andolan filed the Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court. There was an ironic pattern to the government responses before the Court. First, a total denial of existence of manual scavenging, next a partial admission when the petitioners produced photographic evidence and finally, faking a compliance by dubiously destroying (dry latrines) only in those places, presented by the petitioners in their evidence in Court. 

It was in 2007, with the solidarity and support of many citizens groups and public leaders, that the Andolan launched the Action 2010 campaign to end manual scavenging by December 2010. Still, nothing moved. So the Andolan started out on the historical bus yatra in October 2010. This Samajik Parivartan Yatra which was the first of its kind, and journeyed through the entire country. Many Women and men were able to come free from this practice of manual scavenging. The women in the yatra had taken to the stage and their powerful speeches had shaken the conscience of the country, somewhat.
 
Then there were a series of more protests and actions. The demands included the implementation of the 1993 Act and a rehabilitation package. The National Advisory Council (NAC) of the last government passed a resolution on 23 October 2010, vowing to end manual scavenging by March 31, 2012.  Following further mobilisations with the central government, the Ministry of Social justice and Empowerment convened the national consultation on January 24-25, 2011 which resulted in the setting up of four task forces – to review the act, conduct a national survey, revise the rehabilitation package and sanitation solutions. The President of India in her speech to the Parliament at the start of the budget session, in March 2012 announced the draft for a new bill for prohibition of manual scavenging. The Government of India finally passed the new ‘Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013’ in September 2013 and issued Government notification in December 2013.
 
It was after 12 long years, the Supreme Court passed the Judgment order on March 27, 2014 on the writ petition (civil) no. 583 of 2003, Safai Karamchari Andolan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors., directing all the State Governments and the Union Territories to

  1. fully implement and take appropriate action for non-implementation as well as violation of the provisions contained in the 2013 Act,
  2. to prevent deaths in sewer holes and septic tanks and make the manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks a crime even in emergency situations and
  3. to give compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to families of all persons who have died in manholes and septic tanks since 1993. 

 
The government has been negligent in implementing the Prohibition of Employment of Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013 and in following, and implementing, the Supreme Court order. It is the experience of the protesting groups that, when deaths do occur, FIRs (First Information Reports of the crime) are rarely ever filed. Only after heavy pressure and agitation, if FIRs are filed, deaths are recorded “due to negligence” and never under the Manual Scavenging Prohibition Act and SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (which have severe punitive measures). This blatant violation of the law is sucking away at the lives of the safai karamcharis, who die in sewers and septic tanks. It is extremely disturbing that these deaths which are not decreasing, possibly increasing, are treated with such callousness by the government.
 
Indian Parliament held a discussion on the country’s "Commitment to the Constitution" to mark the 125 birth centenary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. To give real meaning to this celebration would be to protect the Constitutional rights of the Manual Scavengers. The Bhim Yatra, say the organisers, "is a journey to protest this intolerance, this violence and discrimination against this forgotten section of our society. It is a cry for the Constitutional and Fundamental rights of Manual Scavengers." The Bhim Yatra will simultaneously spread Ambedkar’s ideas of social justice, liberty, equality and fraternity while proclaiming his war cry ‘educate, organise and agitate’.

 

[1] Manual Scavenging: Pushing manual scavengers into death holes, when will Bengaluru learn? http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/pushing-manual-scavengers-death-holes-when-will-bengaluru-learn-36843
[3] Jobs Outlawed, But State Main Employer Of Manual Scavengers http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/jobs-outlawed-but-state-main-employer-of-manual-scavengers-47324
 

Black Out – The West Bengal Police prevent screening of a film, Jai Shree Ram

By
-
0


 
Echoes of the deep schisms caused by and around the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, and the movement for building a temple in the name of Rama were felt on this December 6, 2015, 23 years later in West Bengal’s Behrampore. Jai Shree Ram, (Hail to Lord Ram) a film that was scheduled for a closed-door screening and at the hall that belongs to the Murshidabad People's Relief Committee was stopped as the police suddenly stepped in and prevented the event from going ahead.
 
A young film maker, Jul Mukherjee's 'Jai Shree Ram', is a full length feature film made over 24 months of hard work and individual contributions sourced through crowd funding. Why was this screening suddenly stopped by the West Bengal Police? The state’s chief minister, Mamta Banerjee has been quick to come out in support of Aamir Khan when he was targeted by rabid followers of Hindutvawaadi supremacist thought, recently.
 
There are four clips available on the film on You-Tube. Three are short trailers and the fourth is a fascinating discussion by the team behind the film titled, “Jai Shree Ram: Stories and Ideas behind the making of the film.”


 
One of the major protagonists for the film is a young Muslim, an atheist who is suddenly confronting an identity that is being thrust upon him “Are you a Bengali or a Muslim?” is a question that sums up the tragic-irony of the times. One of Jul’s team said he experienced every day what has been scripted in the film. The other major protagonist is a “Bahurupi Hanuman” who becomes a fundamentalist (read supremacist tool) of the masters behind the (Ramjanmabhoomi) movement.
 
Jul Mukherjee was 10-11 years old that Sunday in 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished. He recalls with chilling horror the conversations within his home, at Howrah, that had suddenly (following through the trajectory of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement)legitimised hatred against Indian Muslims.  Jul remembers being very scared that day, Sunday December 6. “Those B…they have arms,” he overheard his father telling his mother that afternoon, referring to a Muslim locality not far from where they lived.
 
The childhood of most urban Indians that day was shadowed by this discourse of othering and hatred. So the Rabindrasangeet sung by Ezaz Ahmed became for Jul, and his team, a rallying point even as Bengalis, fully showcasing that the Muslims (a significant percentage of West Bengal’s population) among them had always been wholehearted participants in the cherished Durga Pooja. Never mind that the amnesia generated by the Ramjanmabhoomi hysteria had Jul’s mother wondering how an Ezaz could sing this traditional Bengali song so well?
 
The team behind this innovative and courageous venture will go to the censor board for a certificate. The film maker feels that there are two scenes in the film that might have made the ruling party in Bengal uncomfortable with its screening. One is where the protagonist says he is the son of the Prophet. The other is a slaughter scene whom some have called gory.
 
Though made out mistakenly to be a documentary, Jai Shree Ram, is an independent full length feature film, shot over a period of two years with the financial help and contribution of innumerable persons. Post production took another year.
 
“Social” media trolls belonging to the Hindutvawaadi camp have been violently trashing the film and threatening its director and team. “We are a Hindu state” and such a film cannot be shown, is their claim.  
 
The creative team behind this venture however is committed to screening it all over the country. “If nothing else, “says Jul talking to us, “by just projecting it on a white wall, breaking all the code of "CINEMA".
 
The link of English subtitled trailers of the film are available on You-Tube:

First trailer
 

Second trailer 
 

 

Third trailer
 

 
Bibliography:
Bahurupi: The term Bahurupi is came from the Sanskrit Bahu means many and Rupa means form. Bahurupis in Bengal are a group of folk performers who enact and depict different characters.
Hanuman: Signifying devotion and humility to a superior God, this form of the Monkey God is worshipped and also seen as leading the ‘army’ of Lord Ram in some dominant versions of Hinduism
Sree Ram: One of the revered Hindu Gods; also one of the re-born forms of Lord Vishnu, the Hindu Triumverate and in recent times (over three decades) both the focal and rallying point of a highly militarised and supremacist Hinduism
Hindutvawaadi: Derivative from Hindutva, the doctrine of a Hindu theocratic state (those who believe in the Hindu theocratic state)
Rabindrsangeet: Tagore Songs, written and composed by Rabindrnath Tagore; these renderings have distinctive charecteristics in the music of Bengal and are popular in both India and Bangladesh

Its time for a Bahujan rethink

By
-
0


Image Courtesy: Hindustan Times
 
Understand the political and social construct

Bahujan politics is not new to India. Based on the reality of caste and social backwardness a (political) strategy (for organisation) appears to have been developed, based on crucial factors. While the fundamental issue behind the mobilisation was the opposition to the upper castes, the goal set included earning a share in political power. The kindling of caste identities among followers of Bahujan formations was also important.
 
(Over the past decades), this Bahujan politics has been getting considerable support. A process has been evident: the coming together of various backward castes on a strong identity and sentiment, entering the electoral fray, and thereafter, also splitting on similar grounds;  leading to the inevitable political splintering. The sense of identity of respective castes or sub-castes works as the common factor in forging unity and (causing) disunity, cohesion and dispersal.
 
The splintering of the Republican Party of India in Maharashtra is a case in point. The sub-groups within the Mahar caste are considered to be the reasons or basis behind this splintering. Dr. Ambedkar was himself defeated in the elections to the Bhandara  Loksabha constituency in Vidarbha! One main reason for this is purported to be the difference between Dr. Ambedkar’s sub-caste and that of the bulk of the voters there.
 
History
 
If we are to understand a concept properly, we need to understand its history; we should know the changes in it and the causes behind those changes. We should be able to separate circumstantial causes from subjective causes. We should be able to separate the right tendencies from the wrong ones and point to a further advancement.  To develop this kind of understanding, we need to go back to Mahatma Phule.
 
The concept of Bahujan becomes amply clear even if we map it in terms of inclusion, exclusion and opposition. Phule advanced three pivotal points (axis’) for his definition – the shudra, the atishudra and women. He opposed what he called “Shethji and Bhatji”, the  moneyed class and the Brahmin priest.
 
Phule used the language of those whom he wanted to organise. Therefore we need to understand the meaning of the words he used and update them from the present time and context.
 
Shahu, the people’s king, advanced his own concept, which is evident in his 1902 ordinance giving 50 per cent reservation in his state to backward castes. He defined the Bahujan in this ordinance as ‘all those excluding Brahmins, Prabhus and Shenvis’. The followers of Mahatma Phule established the first Non-Brahmin Party in Maharashtra and began organising non-Brahmin castes. Shahu was the leader of this movement. The formation was based on the opposition to Brahmin caste and unity of all the remaining castes.
 
Vitthal Ramji Shinde was against the division along this axis of ‘Brahmin – non-Brahmin’. We need to discuss this in detail.
 
Dr. Ambedkar founded different political parties at different times To further different objectives. His concept of the Bahujan becomes clear from the names he gave to those parties – the Independent Labour Party, Scheduled Castes Federation and the Republican Party.
 
Speaking to G. I. P. Railway Workers at Manmad in 1938 he said, “Brahminism and Capitalism are our two enemies”. One recalls Phule’s terms – Shetji and Bhatji. We must not forget that Dr. Ambedkar used Brahminism and not just Brahmins. Similarly, Phule’s terms point at the professions of those castes or classes. Shetji suggests the profession of money lending and Bhatji suggests the ‘priestly’ profession (not Brahmins, the people/individuals).
 
The first manifesto of the Dalit Panther Party takes Dr. Ambedkar’s definition further to clarify concretely his concept of Brahminism and Capitalism.
 
Kanshiram–Mayavati’s concept becomes clear from a slogan Kanshiram developed before he founded the Bahujan Samaj Party. The slogan was: Baman, Baniya, Thakur Chor; Baki sab DS4. DS4 meant Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti. Although the name of the organisation contains the word Shoshit, the exploited, the meaning of the slogan is very clear. There are no exploited, shoshit, among the Baman-baniya-Thakur castes, and if at all there are exploited among them we are not concerned with them. Everybody among the castes belonging to Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishyavarnas are exploiters; none of them is exploited. If at all there are any, we are not bothered; such is this position.
 
Basing the strategy of uniting Bakward Castes (BC’s) and Other Backward Castes  (OBC’s) and opposing the rest, Kanshiram founded the Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP) on April 14, 1984. The BSP is a distinct political party, especially in electoral politics. Since it uses the word, its intention of widening its base and scope becomes evident.
 
Congress, Socialists, Communists and other parties have been claiming to further politics of the downtrodden, even for the emancipation of the Dalits. They have been raising their (Dalit) issues and fighting for them. But that is a different discussion. They do not base their politics on only ‘caste’ as a unit and have never been confined to doing politics of raising the issues of the backward castes alone.
 
Vitthal Ramji Shinde’s concept of the Bahujan
 
V. R. Shinde published the manifesto of the Bahujan Samaj Paksha on September 1,  1920. In it he has defined very clearly the scope, organisation, objective etc. of this party.
 
It is necessary to explain the background of the foundation of this party. The programme of elections to the provincial assembly, which had limited powers,  had been declared. The electoral roll of the voters too was very limited. Members to general and reserved seats were to be elected. The reserved seats included a group consisting of ‘Maratha and similar castes’. There were seven seats reserved for this group in Bombay Province. There were also reserved seats for other categories.
 
There is an interesting anecdote. The elections to the Provincial Assembly were in the November of 1920. A meeting of various groups from the Maratha community was held at Jedhe Mansion in Pune. V. R. Shinde firmly declared at the meeting that “I will not contest on the reserved seat since I am against the caste system”. Actually, Shinde was Maratha by caste. But he was opposed to contest on the seat reserved for the Maratha caste. Another leader, N. C. Kelkar, a follower of Tilak, was Brahmin, but he was the editor of the journal Maratha. He claimed that since he ran a paper called Maratha he should be selected for that seat. This is an example of the typically Poona-ite logic.
 
On the other hand, Shahu’s reaction to Kelkar’s claim is typically Kolhapuri. He wrote a letter to Shinde in which he made fun of Kelkar. Shahu writes, “(I can answer Kelkar’s logic.) Suppose I name my bullock ‘Britannia’, my favourite horse ‘Turkish Flag’ and my cow ‘Japanica’ would it be proper for me to claim the leadership of Japan or Turkey?”
 
Shahu tried to persuade Shinde to contest from the reserved seat. But Shinde stood his ground, inspite of Shahu’s insistence. He contested from the general seat and was defeated. Shahu supported another candidate, one Gupte, and got him elected. This action on part of Shinde indicates his concept of Bahujan. This was already clearly defined in his manifesto of the Bahujan Party and it left no scope for ambiguity.

The concept of Bahujan becomes amply clear even if we map it in terms of inclusion, exclusion and opposition. Phule advanced three pivotal points (axis’) for his definition – the shudra, the ati-shudra and women. He opposed what he called “Shethji and Bhatji”, the moneyed class and the Brahmin priest.

Shinde founded the Bahujan Party against the background of these elections. His manifesto is actually an exposition of various ‘interests’. He pointed out that the parties and organisations founded on the basis of castes and sub-castes orient their practice towards ‘sentiments’ (identity, in contemporary parlance). Their practice was not based on their social and economic interests. The castes brought together by these parties have their respective interests, and also within the castes there are various separate interests. Yet, they unite as castes. There are sections within castes outside them which have identical interests with the sections in another caste. But there was a general tendency of ignoring these identical interests dispersed in various castes.
 
That is why Shinde wrote in his manifesto, “the Bahujan Party does not stand merely on vacuous sense of identity but on solid interests. The Party undertakes to unselfishly support and encourage those interests. . . . Our colleagues may be Brahmins or non-Brahmins, they could be moderates or extremists, and they could be even Indians or foreigners . . . as long as they honestly and strongly support these interests we would cooperate with them. Otherwise we will bid adieu to them.”
 
The breadth of vision of his Party is evident when he identifies the sections he wants to organise: “Indian populace can be divided politically in two parts. One class advanced in knowledge, wealth and authority; and the other class backward in all these respects, or, Bahujan samaj.”
 
Shinde’s division is very clear. It is not based on the varna or caste distinction alone. It is based on the possession of three powers – knowledge, wealth and authority. It is obvious that the so-called advanced castes also have sections within them which do not possess these powers of knowledge, wealth and authority. These sections also become part of Shinde’s definition of the Bahujan. This is important. Some sections within the backward castes are also acquiring the powers of knowledge, wealth and authority. These cannot be included in Shinde’s concept of Bahujan. This is the reason why he firmly rejected to be called Brahminetar – Non-Brahmin.
 
Concepts like non-Brahmin, non-Maratha are once again being advanced in Maharashtra. These words are being used to indicate castes determined by birth. As the use of caste words/descriptions have become problematic owing to the constitutional provisions, political parties are wary of using them in in their names. They try to circumvent constitutional constraints. The fact is that there are separate political parties and organisations in Maharashtra championing the sectarian interests of various castes, both advanced and backward. Once the veil is thrown open, the caste concealed within is laid bare.
 
Shinde included eight classes (varga is Shinde’s word) within the ambit of his Bahujan Party. They were:
 

1. Peasantry: This did not include landlords and feudal lords at all;
2. Soldiers: This excluded officers, sardars;
3. Teachers: Brahmin priests were not part of this;
4. Entrepreneurs: Carpenters, goldsmiths, weavers, tailors, gardeners, oil extractors, street entertainers, folk-singers, soothsayers, balladeers, mendicants etc.
5. Traders: Moneylenders are excluded;
6. Labourers: This includes, along with menial class, intellectual workers like lawyers and doctors who can become leaders of the Bahujan society because of their education and wealth. Although workers in principle, they are not backward. But Shinde stresses that they are not exploiters and opponents of the Bahujans.
7. Untouchables: Shinde writes, “It is the most holy task of this Party to assimilate this section in the Bahujan society giving them equal status completely abolishing  untouchability and their helplessness without advancing any excuses, true or false, relating to custom or tradition.”
8. The Maratha leaders who are now trying to organise the Marathas should take note of these words of Shinde, himself born in Maratha caste. The Dalits should not be treated as tools in terms of their numerical strength to be used in the struggle against Brahmins.
9. Women: Shinde appears to emulate Phule who had combined Together shudra, atishudra and women. He writes, “The class of women is our cradle! If they are ignored, the cradle itself will turn into our rocking grave. We are quite aware of this.”

 
We have noted how Shinde excluded the powerful and dominant sections among these categories from his concept of Bahujan.
 
The task ahead
 
Various parties basing on caste identities are trying to test their electoral strength even today. They are dividing society on the basis of caste and religious identities instead of uniting them around common ‘interests’. They use the names of Phule and Ambedkar. Let them do so. But they should seriously take into account Vitthal Ramji Shinde’s concept of Bahujan. If they do not find it useful, they are free to reject it. But they should reject it after serious consideration. They should reject it on empirical evidence; if it is possible to do so. My only appeal is Vitthal Ramji Shinde should not be ignored. It will not be in the interests of the Bahujans. Many do not include Shinde’s name along with Phule–Shahu –Ambedkar. This is being unjust to him.
 
(Translated from Marathi by Dr. Uday Narkar; excerpted from The Republic of Reason published by SAHMAT, New Delhi and released on November 1, 2015; we have edited the copy)

Bibliiography:
Bahujan: the majority of the people
Brahmin: priestly “upper” caste with a powerful hold on all fairs of society and state including access to education, resources and mobility
Prabhus and Shenvis:  caste names
Shetji and Bhatji : Moneyed and Priestly class
Baman, Baniya, Thakur: Caste terms for the powerful castes, the Brahmins, the Trader and the Militrary class
DS4: Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti

Sohrabuddin Case File

By
-
0

 

  • On 25.07.2010, Amit Shah, then minister of state for home in Gujarrat (accused number 16 in the case) was arrested by the CBI. He was holding the charge of Minister of State (Home Affairs) in the Government of Gujarat till the time of his arrest.
  • By its order dated 08.04.2013, the Supreme Court of India has clubbed the case of Sorabuddin and Tulsi Prajapati murder. Amit Shah was also the accused in the case of killing of Tulsi Prajapati.
  • On 29.10.2010 the Gujarat High Court released Amit Shah on bail.

According to the original Charge sheet filed by the CBI in the Sohrabuddin case, the following facts are pertinent:

  • On 26.11.2005 Sohrabuddin Shaikh was murdered and shown as if he was Laskar-e-Toiba terrorist killed in an encounter. Kauserbi, wife of Sohrabuddin was murdered on 29/30.11.2005 and her body was disposed off.
  • Tulsiram Prajapati was a significant eye witness to the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kauserbi by the accused policemen of Gujarat Police.
  • On 27.12.2006 Tulsi Prajapati who was in custody and was being escorted from Ahmedabad to Udaipur, was alleged to have escaped from the custody of the escort party.
  • On 28.12.2006 Tulsiram Prajapati who was secretly and wrongfully confined by two unknown persons was brought to the scene of crime in a handcuffed position in a white colouredMaruti car, and after Tulsiram Prajapati was made to alight from the said car, accused Aashis Pandya murdered him in cold blood by firing twice at him from his service revolver.

The CBI first filed the charge sheet against the accused No. 16, Amit Shah under the sections 120-B r/w 302,201,218,167,365,506 Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1B-a) Arms Act, 1959. Amit Shah, named as accused number 16 then sought discharge from this case.
In October 2015 Sohrabuddin first told the Bombay High Court that he did not wish to go ahead with his petition challenging the discharge. Before this, in the special Sessions Court itself,  his lawyers had filed detailed written  arguments laying down why Amit Shah’s application for discharge ought to be rejected. The crucial points in the written arguments placed before the Court were:

A.        There is enough prima facie material in the charge sheet against the Accused No. 16 regarding his (Amit Shah’s) involvement in the killing of Sohrabuddin, Tulsi Prajapati and then destruction of evidence to protect himself and the top police officers involved in the killing.

B.        The charge sheet of the CBI mentions of the call detail records of Amit Shah which, according to the records of the case show that Amit Shah is making calls or receiving calls from the co-accused involved in the killing of Sohrabuddin, Kauserbi and Tulsiram Prajapati. Several calls are to 
           be seen to exchanged between the Amit Shah around the time of those killings.

C.        Even after the killing of Sohrabuddin whenever the key eye witness to the abduction Tulsiram Prajapati was being brought to Ahmedabad from Udaipur, the CDR shows that several calls are being exchanged between the co-accused and the Amit Shah.

D.        The phone records and the cell details by itself show a pattern and makes out a prima facie case indicating that accused No. 16, Amit Shah, was part of the conspiracy in the killing of Sohrabuddin, Kauserbi and Tulsiram Prajapati.

E.        The argument of the Amit Shah, that by virtue of his being a Minister of State for Home, he needed to speak to the police officers does not hold much ground. The minister of state for home has argued that the entire call details of his (Shah) have not been produced. If produced, these
           would show that the minister was speaking to the accused police officer on a regular basis. Sohrabuddin’s legal team argued that this defence could be put during trial but could not preclude law taking its own course and the powerful accused being put to trial.

F.         All the following statements (excerpted) of the witnesses clearly establish that the accused number 16, MOS Home, Gujarat, Ami Shah was involved in the conspiracy and hence is liable to stand the trial.

(i)    Rajendra Valjibhai Aharya: In his statement dated 7.8.2010 he has stated that, he was a typist with the Gujarat Police. He had joined CID Crime, Gandhinagar in September 2006. He states in his statement that a meeting was held between Mrs. Geeta Johri, Mr. Raigar and Mr. P C Pandey. After the meeting he saw Mrs. Geeta Johri perturbed and on enquiring she informed him that Mr. Amit Shah had directed her to change the case papers of Sohrabuddin case and had also directed her to call Mr. V.L. Solanki and get the case papers in Sohrabuddin case changed.

(ii)   Statement of Mr. G. Raiger : He was DGP, Home Guard in January 2006 and also had the additional charge of CID, Crime. G.C Raiger has given consistent statements of 26.07.2010, 6.07.2011 and 20.07.2012.
Mr. G. Raiger in his statement dated 26.07.2010 has clearly stated that he was pressurized to follow illegal instructions from the then Home Minister in the case of Sohrabuddin encounter which he did not follow.
In his statement dated 6.07.2011 he has clearly stated that, in the second last week of December 2006 there was meeting with Mr. Amit Shah where along with him Mrs. Geeta Johri and Mr. P C Pande were present wherein Amit Shah sharply reprimanded them for not taming DPI Sollanki and they were also told to wrap up the matter by Amit Shah.

(III)    Mr. V.L. Solanki who was the initial investigating officer has also given his statement in which he has clearly stated that he was told by Mrs. Geeta Johri that Mr. Amit Shah was upset with the investigation in the Sohrabuddin encounter case and also that changes were to be made to the enquiry report in view of the instructions given by Mr. Amit Shah.

(iv)   Statements of Mr. Ramanbhai Patel and Dashrath Patel (also builders in Ahmedabad) that also clearly show how Amit Shah was involved in the conspiracy regarding the killing of Sohrabuddin and TulsiramPrajapati.

In his discharge application, Amit Shah has argued that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. It is clear from the various statements that the witnesses are consistent in narrating the facts regarding the role of the minister, argued Sohrabuddin’s legal team. If at all there is any discrepancy in the statements of witnesses, it’s a matter of trial and cannot be a ground of discharge at this stage. The discrepancies if at all in the statement of the witnesses can be brought out only through the cross-examination of the witnesses at the stage of trial.

G.        The following are the decisions of the Supreme Court of India which were relied upon at the time of arguments on behalf of the Original Complainant.

(i)         Ramdas s/o KachruWadkar and another V/s State of Maharashtra and Anr 2006 Cri LJ 1156
(ii)        State of Bihar V/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39
(iii)       Suresh alias PappuBhudarmalKalani V/s State of Maharashtra (2001) 3 SCC 703
(iv)       Sajjan Kumar V/s CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368
(v)        Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Vs. State of Maharashtra (1965) 1 Cri LJ 608
(vi)       Mohd Khalid V/s State of W.B. (2002) 7 SCC 334
(vii)      Major E.G. Barsay V/s State of Bombay (1961) 2 Cri LJ 828
 
H.        Reliance was also placed on the case of Rubabuddin Sheikh V/s State of Gujarat (2010) 2 SCC 200 and Narmada Bai V/s State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79. Both these cases are part of the charge sheet filed against the Amit Shah, accused number 16.

(Arguments in writing made in the Sessions Court, Mumbai in SC No 177/2013,
178/2013, 577/2013 and 312/2013)
 
 

More homilies, this time for the Christians, Mr Rajnath Singh?

By
-
0


Image Courtesy: Sajjad Hussain/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
 
According to a report in The Indian Express (December 18, 2015) Rajnath Singh, home minister in the Narendra Modi cabinet, while joining a Christmas dinner hosted by the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) at New Delhi told the gathering that "I will not let injustice happen to you". On this occasion he was gracious enough to share the fact that “While I was at the meeting of council of ministers, he [PM Modi] reminded me that I should go and attend this”. He also added that “Indian traditions and Christians have many things in common” and India being "an inclusive society, the BJP government is committed to protect it".

In any ordinary situation these words of India's home minister, who has taken the oath to uphold a democratic-secular Constitution, would have been more than sufficient guarantee to ensure safety and tranquility to the besieged Christian community of India. What critical times the small Christian community is passing through can be gauged from a signed article [The Indian Express April 2, 2015] by Julio Ribeiro, a highly decorated retired  IPS officer, former Mumbai  police commissioner, DGP Gujarat and DGP Punjab, and former Indian ambassador to Romania. He wrote:

" As a Christian, suddenly I am a stranger in my own country…I am not an Indian anymore, at least in the eyes of the proponents of the Hindu Rashtra. Is it coincidence or a well-thought-out plan that the systematic targeting of a small and peaceful community should begin only after the BJP government of Narendra Modi came to power last May? 'Ghar wapsi', the declaration of Christmas as 'Good Governance Day', the attack on Christian churches and schools in Delhi, all added to a sense of siege that now afflicts these peaceful people."
 

It is natural to be skeptical about Rajnath Singh's assurance to Christians given what the wider political family (Sangh Parivar) has espoused. In sharp contradiction to Rajnath Singh, a fellow-swayamsevak, Rajeshwar Singh who as leader of the prominent organization closely affiliated to the RSS, the Dharm Jagran Samiti (involved in 'ghar wapsi' or conversion of Muslims and Christianity to Hinduism) vowed the day after Singh’s statement, that is, on December 19, 2014:
 

"Our target is to make India a Hindu Rashtra by 2021. The Muslims and Christians don't have any right to stay here. So they would either be converted to Hinduism or forced to run away from here."
 
Our Home Minister has, of course, not yet condemned this statement of Rajeshwar Singh made a year ago. It is not likely that he will.  He was similarly silent when, in his (physical) presence, a leading and senior RSS swayamsevak, Ashok Singhal had declared, on July 18, 2015 India "will be Hindu Rashtra by 2020” and the world ‘a Hindu world by 2030".

Golwalkar's hatred for Muslims and Christians had no limits. He believed and propagated that conversion to Islam and Christianity automatically turned the converts into anti-nationals as they are not true to their salt.

The real problem with our home minister's pious yet unconvincing declarations is that he too, proudly claims to be an RSS swayamsevak. For him, the most important ideologue is Guru Golwalkar who has been described by noted historian Ramchandra Guha as the 'guru of hate.' Even while occupying the Constitutional position of the Indian home minister, Rajnath Singh has openly admitted, many a time that he idolizes Guru Golwalkar and believes in his goal of a Hindu state. Shockingly, this state, which is the unchallenged ideal of the RSS and every person continuing to owe allegiance to its ideology, claims that Muslims are the “internal threat Number One” and Christians are the “internal threat number two”. [1]

Golwalkar, while treating Christians as the ‘Internal Threat Number Two’, wrote that "Their activities are not only irreligious, they are also anti-national". Elaborating further he said:"Such is the role of the Christian gentlemen residing in our land today, out to demolish not only the religious and social fabric of our life but also to establish political domination in various pockets and if possible all over the land."[2]
 
Golwalkar's hatred for Muslims and Christians had no limits. He believed and propagated that conversion to Islam and Christianity automatically turned the converts into anti-nationals as they are not true to their salt. According to him:

"They are born in this land, no doubt. But are they true to their salt? Are they grateful to this land which brought them up? Do they feel they are the children of this land and its traditions, and that to serve it is their great good fortune? Do they feel it a duty to serve her? No! Together with the change in their faiths, gone is the spirit of love and devotion for the nation. Nor does it end there. They have also developed a feeling of identification with the enemies of this land. They look to some foreign lands as their holy places…So we see that it is not merely a case of change of faith, but a change even in national identity. What else is it, if not treason, to join the camp of the enemy leaving their mother-nation in the lurch?"[3]
 
He continued spitting venom against Indian Muslims and Christians. India for Golwalkar was an exclusive Hindu rashtra or nation and Muslims and Christians remained as non-Indians.

"The conclusion that we arrive at is that all those communities which are staying in this land and yet are not true to their salt, have not imbibed its culture, do not lead the life which this land has been unfolding for so many centuries, do not believe in its philosophy, in its national heroes and in all that this land has been standing for, are, to put it briefly, foreign to our national life. And the only real, abiding and glorious national life in this holy land of Bharat has been of the Hindu People." [4]
 
Our Home Minister, just like the Prime Minister, Modi is a seasoned and senior RSS swayamsevak groomed by gurus like Golwalkar. His faith in the politics of Hindutva is unquestioned as is his inherent discomfort and non-compatability with a democratic-secular India. Importantly, the RSS English organ Organizer in its issue on the very eve of Independence (14 August, 1947) rejected the whole concept of a composite nation (under the editorial title ‘Whither’):

"Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations”.

Unfortunately, the august guests present at the Christmas dinner, which included leading clergy, laity and politicians unfamiliar (?) with the Hindutva game plan of cleansing India of minorities like Muslims and Christians, did not question the Honourable Home Minister. If they had known some basic facts about RSS, it would have been relevant to ask Rajnath Singh—"Whom do we believe Sir, your pious words spoken here today or the views held by the RSS and your guru?” It is high time we realise that minorities in India today are not dealing with just any normal political trend but the politics of Hindutva which has an undying, and on-negotiable foundational belief in casteism, totalitarianism and racism.

Like all such or similar organizations the world over, present and past, it (RSS and its fraternal ourfits) thrive on double-speak. To overlook this will be at our own peril.
 
References:

  1. Won’t let injustice happen to you, Rajnath Singh tells Christians http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/wont-let-injustice-happen-to-you-rajnath-singh-tells-christians/
  2. I am a swayamsevak, so is PM Narendra Modi: Rajnath Singh http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/pm-modi-an-rss-worker-no-one-should-have-a-problem-with-it-rajnath-singh/ 

 
(The author taught political science at the University of Delhi. He is a well known writer and columnist)

 

[1] M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 'Internal Threats' {Chapter 16}, Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu 1996, p. 193
[2] M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 'Internal Threats' {Chapter 16}, Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu 1996, p. 193
[3] M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu 1996, p 125-126
[4] M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 'Internal Threats' {Chapter 16}, Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu 1996, p. 154

India’s Sixth of December

By
-
0

The sixth of December is a day that is remembered by very large numbers of people all over our country for very different reasons and in very different ways.  There are those, mostly poor and oppressed, who mourn the sixth of December as the death anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, his ‘Nirvan Diwas’.  The word ‘Nirvan’ was earlier associated with the passing away of the Buddha and is now used to honour the passing away of Dr. Ambedkar soon after his historic conversion to Buddhism, along with several of his followers. 

During a recent session of Parliament, held to commemorate the Constitution and pay homage to Dr. Ambedkar; and again, during the Parliamentary debate on ‘Growing Intolerance’, Babasaheb’s name was mentioned repeatedly.  It was recognized by all that he had made the greatest contribution to enshrine the principles of Democracy, Equality and Fraternity in the Constitution and fulsome praise and accolades were bestowed upon him, speciallyby members of the NDA II (read BJP) Government.  No one, however, except for Sitaram Yechury (CPIM, General Secretary) referred to his conversion to Buddhism or the reasons for this.

Despite the enormous and significant role he played in drafting the Constitution, Babasaheb had to, eventually abandon the religion of his forefathers.  Throughout his life he made untiring and valiant efforts to bring about a change in the attitude and thinking of high caste Hindus through argument, writings, historical research and continuous appeals to reason, humanity and compassion. The drafting of the Constitution and Hindu Code Bill were, of course, the most important of these efforts. 

Unfortunately, the bill did not bring about any real change of heart, mind and outlook.  Every one of his efforts had aroused the most vicious opposition and calumny.  Every promise that the Constitution made to bring about equality between all citizens was opposed tooth and nail during the Constituent Assembly debates by conservative elements determined to thwart all efforts to legislate equality into the existing unequal social hierarchies that they were determined to preserve.

The Hindu Code Bill was met by such howls of protest both inside the Constituent Assembly and outside on the streets that it had to be abandoned. Babasaheb resigned as Law Minister saying in protest that, “The Hindu Code was the greatest social reform measure ever undertaken by the legislature in this country. No law passed by the Indian Legislature in the past or likely to be passed in the future can be compared to it in point of its significance.

To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex, which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap.  This is the significance I attached to the Hindu Code.” (quoted from Dr. Ambedkar’s speech when he resigned from the first Indian cabinet of ministers).

The failure of his repeated and untiring efforts to bring about a change in the hearts and minds of his opponents was not unforeseen as far as Dr. Ambedkar was concerned.  As early as 1935, he had announced to his followers that although he had been born a Hindu he would not die as one because he was determined to abandon a belief system that refused to accept the principle of equality.  Finally, on the October 2, 1956, he embraced Buddhism along with many hundreds of thousands.  Tragically, within two months, on December 6, l956, he was no more.

On the same day, 36 years later, the Babri Masjid was destroyed by members of the Sangh Parivar.  This event is also commemorated, across the country, by some as “Shaurya (Valour) Diwas” and by others as a day of mourning.

There are also those, however, who feel that the choice of the date for the destruction of the mosque was no co-incidence.  They believe that it was Dr. Ambedkar’s Constitution that was the real target of the attack by the Sangh.  This is based not only on the choice of date but on the fact that the Sangh Parivar members who destroyed the mosque owed allegiance to the same RSS that had been in the forefront of the opposition to both the Constitution and the Hindu Code Bill.

The most uncompromising opposition both to the Constitution and the Hindu Code Bill came from Shri Golwalkar, head of the RSS.  Along with his supporters, he held fast to the view even after the Constitution was passed, that it was the Laws of Manu, the Manusmriti, alone that could be accepted as Law by Hindus.

As far as the Hindu Code Bill is concerned, Golwalkar castigated it by saying that it would reduce Hindu men to puny weaklings.  His views have never been repudiated by the Sangh Parivar. Today, Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s speech in Parliament is significant because while he heaped praise on the Constitution and Dr. Ambedkar, he also sharply criticized the later inclusion of the work ‘secular’ to describe the Republic that brought the Constitution into existence.

The reasons he gave for this criticism should be examined seriously by all Indian citizens.  He said “‘Secularism’ is the most misused word in the country… India’s religion itself is dharma nirpeksh. ..”Does the Constitution permit India to have a religion?  If India has a religion then can it continue to abide by its Constitution? Is it a co-incidence that the Home Minister who has now made known his commitment to a Religious State or a Hindu Rashtra was present at the site of the demolition of the mosque (Babri Masjid) on December 6, 1992?

Even at the time of its passage, Dr. Ambedkar feared for the future of the Constitution because he did not believe that the soil of India which had given birth to the worst forms of inequality would readily accept the seeds of democracy and fraternity.  Those who had opposed him then have given notice, time and again, that they continue to challenge the writ of this foundational doctrine.
 

The Evils of Caste

By
-
0

 

We reproduce below excerpts from the work of one of the oldest authorities on the Marathas, historian Jadunath Sarkar. In two books on the issue, the historian has dealt with the ticklish issue of caste which affected Shivaji’s acceptance as a formal ruler.

A deep study of Maratha society, indeed of society throughout India, reveals some facts which it is considered patriotism to ignore. We realise that the greatest obstacles to Shivaji’s success were not Mughals or Adil Shahis, Siddis or Feringis, but his own countrymen. First, we cannot be blind to the truth that the dominant factor in Indian life — even today, no less than in the seventeenth century — is caste, and neither religion nor country. By caste must not be understood the four broad divisions of the Hindus which exist only in the textbooks and the airy philosophical generalisations delivered from platforms. The caste that really counts, the division that is a living force, is the sub–division and sub–sub–division into innumerable small groups called shakhas or branches (more correctly twigs or I should say, leaves, they are so many!) into which each caste is split up and within which alone marrying and giving in marriage, eating and drinking together take place…
 
And each of these smallest sub–divisions of the Brahman caste is separated from the other sub–divisions as completely as it is from an altogether different caste like the Vaishya or Shudra, e.g., the Kanyakubja and Sarayupari Brahmans of northern India, the Konkanastha and Deshastha of Maharashtra.
Personal Jealousy Hindering Shivaji

Shivaji was not contented with all his conquests of territory and vaults full of looted treasure, so long as he was not recognised as a Kshatriya entitled to wear the sacred thread and to have the Vedic hymns chanted at his domestic rites. The Brahmans alone could give him such recognition, and though they swallowed the sacred thread they boggled at the Vedokta! The result was a rupture… Whichever side had the rights of the case, one thing is certain, namely, that this internally torn community had not the sine qua non of a nation. 
Nor did Maharashtra acquire that sine qua non ever after. The Peshwas were Brahmans from Konkan, and the Brahmans of the upland (Desh) despised them as less pure in blood. The result was that the state policy of Maharashtra under the Peshwas, instead of being directed to national ends, was now degraded into upholding the prestige of one family or social sub–division.

Shivaji had, besides, almost to the end of his days, to struggle against the jealousy, scorn, indifference and even opposition of certain Maratha families, his equals in caste sub-division and once in fortune and social position, whom he had now outdistanced. The Bhonsle Savants of Vadi, the Jadavs of Sindhkhed, the Mores of Javli, and (to a lesser extent) the Nimbalkars, despised and kept aloof from the upstart grandson of that Maloji whom some old men still living remembered to have seen tilling his fields like a Kunbi! Shivaji’s own brother Vyankoji fought against him during the Mughal invasion of Bijapur in 1666.

Shivaji’s religious toleration and equal treatment of all subjects
He stands on a lofty pedestal in the hall of the worthies of history, not because he was a Hindu champion, but because he was an ideal householder, an ideal king, and an unrivalled nation-builder. He was devoted to his mother, loving to his children, true to his wives, and scrupulously pure in his relations with other women. Even the most beautiful female captive of war was addressed by him as his mother. Free from all vices and indolence in his private life, he displayed the highest genius as a king and as an organizer. In that age of religious bigotry, he followed a policy of the most liberal toleration for all creeds.

The letter which he wrote to Aurangzeb, protesting against the imposition of the poll–tax on the Hindus, is a masterpiece of clear logic, calm persuasion, and political wisdom. Though he was himself a devout Hindu, he could recognise true sanctity in a Musalman, and therefore he endowed a Muhammadan holy man named Baba Yaqut with land and money and installed him at Keleshi. All creeds had equal opportunities in his service and he employed a Muslim secretary named Qazi Haidar, who, after Shivaji’s death, went over to Delhi and rose to be chief justice of the Mughal Empire.

There were many Muhammadan captains in Shivaji’s army and his chief admiral was an Abyssinian named Siddi Misri. His Maratha soldiers had strict orders not to molest any woman or rob any Muhammadan saint’s tomb or hermitage. Copies of the Quran which were seized in the course of their campaigns were ordered to be carefully preserved and then handed over respectfully to some Muhammadan.”
(From Jadunath Sarkar’s book, ‘House of Shivaji’).

The Coronation of Shivaji And After (1674-1676)

Why Shivaji wanted to be crowned

Shivaji and his ministers had long felt the practical disadvantages of his not being a crowned king. True, he had conquered many lands and gathered much wealth: he had a strong army and navy and exercised powers of life and death over men, like an independent sovereign. But theoretically his position was that of a subject; to the Mughal Emperor, he was a mere zamindar. He could not claim equality of political status with any king.

Then again, so long as he was a mere private subject, he could not, with all his real power, claim the loyalty and devotion of the people over whom he ruled. His promises could not have the sanctity and continuity of the public engagements of the head of a State. He could sign no treaty, grant no land with legal validity and an assurance of permanence. The territories conquered by his sword could not become his lawful property, however undisturbed his possession over them might be in practice. The people living under his sway or serving under his banners could not renounce their allegiance to the former sovereign of the land, nor be sure that they were exempt from the charge of treason for their obedience to him. The permanence of his political creation required that it should be validated as the act of a sovereign.

Shivaji recognized by Gaga Bhatta as a Kshatriya
But there was one curious hindrance to the realization of this ideal. According to the ancient Hindu scriptures, only a member of the Kshatriya caste can be legally crowned as king and claim the homage of Hindu subjects. The Bhonsles were popularly known to be neither Kshatriyas, nor of any other twice-born caste, but mere tillers of the soil, as Shivaji’s great–grandfather was still remembered to have been. How could an upstart sprung from such a Shudra (plebeian) stock aspire to the rights and honours due to a Kshatriya? The Brahmans of all parts of India would attend and bless the coronation of Shivaji, only if he could be authoritatively declared a Kshatriya.

It was, therefore, necessary first to secure the support of a pandit, whose reputation for scholarship would silence all opposition to the views he might propound. Such a man was found in Vishweshwar, nicknamed Gaga Bhatta, of Benares, the greatest Sanskrit theologian and controversialist then alive, a master of the four Vedas, the six philosophies, and all the scriptures of the Hindus, and popularly known as the Brahma–deva and Vyas of the age. 

After holding out for some time, he became compliant, accepted the Bhonsle pedigree as fabricated by the clever secretary Balaji Avji and other agents of Shiva, and declared that Rajah was a Kshatriya of the purest breed, descended in unbroken line from the Maharanas of Udaipur, the sole representatives of the solar line of the mythical hero-god Ramchandra. His audacious but courtierly ethnological theory was rewarded with a huge fee, and he was entreated to visit Maharashtra and officiate as high priest at the coronation of Shiva. He agreed, and on his arrival was welcomed like a crowned head, Shiva and all his officers advancing many miles from Satara to receive him on the way.

(From ‘Shivaji And His Times’ by Jadunath Sarkar).
 
(Archived from the October 2001 issue of Communalism Combat)
 

1...2,6182,6192,620...2,697Page 2,619 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