What happened in the eastern Uttar Pradesh town was not a conflict but violence unleashed by MP Yogi Adityanath and his henchmen 

If one tries to understand the developments in Gorakhpur and its neighbouring areas of eastern Uttar Pradesh (Poorvanchal) from January 26 to 31, 2007 through the eyes of the print and electronic media, one moves further away from the truth. It is a sordid story of a highly communalised media conjuring up a riot, collaborating with BJP MP Yogi Adityanath, a Bal Thackeray clone and heir to the Gorakhnath Peeth operating from the Gorakhnath temple. Adityanath is a BJP MP for ‘technical’ reasons and cares a damn for the niceties of party discipline because he knows that the party cannot dissociate itself from him. Though he mocked the party by holding a Vishwa Hindu Maha Sammelan at the same time as the BJP’s National Council meet in Lucknow, the party did not mind. It had earlier swallowed the defeat of its candidate in the Assembly election by Adityanath’s candidate. One should know that he is a Thakur; and a Thakur heads the BJP now. The Thakur spread across party lines ensures that Adityanath is allowed to have his own way in his fiefdom, i.e. Poorvanchal. He makes it a point to give calls for a Gorakhpur bandh whenever the chief minister visits the town.

Also read: “Kill 10 Muslims for Murder of Every Hindu” – Among CM Yogi Adityanath’s Choicest Words

'Poorvanchal mein rahan hai to Yogi-Yogi kahna hoga' (You have to chant Yogi’s name if you want to live in Poorvanchal) is a slogan popularised by his gang. But how true is the claim of his hold on Gorakhpur, leave alone Poorvanchal? He has lost all local elections held recently in and around Gorakhpur, and could only manage to lure the relatively respected Samajwadi Party (SP) member and mayoral candidate Anju Chaudhary to his side.

Apparently, Chaudhary fell a victim to the myth spun around him during the last 15 years. Adityanath has been called the Yuvak Hindu Samrat, Narendra Modi of Poorvanchal, the premier of the Hindu Rashtra of Poorvanchal. He has used the wealth of the Gorakhnath Temple to sustain his army of lumpen youth. Adityanath has followed the RSS methodology in creating organisations with different names that he calls cultural bodies. Among these are Hindu Yuva Vahini, Sri Ram Shakti Prakoshtha, Gorakhnath Purvanchal Vikas Manch, Hindu Mahasabha and Vishwa Hindu Mahasangh. Adityanath himself is the main functionary of these unregistered outfits. He also controls much of the functioning of the Bajrang Dal and the Hindu Jagran Manch. He holds his durbar in his temple that is attended by local police and officials.

Adityanath has perfected his technique of manufacturing riots. An insignificant incident like a Hindu’s clothes getting stained accidentally by the paan spat by a Muslim is turned into an act of humiliation of Hindus. A rape in which the victim is dalit and the perpetrator Muslim is used to substantiate the allegation that “Muslims rape our women” and all hell is let loose on the Muslims. The last 11 years are witness to several such acts. No criminal case has been registered against him except once in 1999 when a case was registered against him in Maharajganj after the killing of the official gunman accompanying sp leader Talat Aziz. The police and administration have remained mute spectators with the political leadership looking the other way. All this has given him an air of invincibility. Muslims have been given to understand that neither the Bahujan Samaj Party, nor the sp is willing to rein him in. Perhaps the SP is seeking to counter Mayawati’s Brahmin card with its own Thakur card by indulging him. The Congress is nowhere and also lacks a will to take him on. All this leaves the Muslims here with no option but to resign themselves to their fate.

This time, however, his plans went awry. On the night of January 26-27, Pankaj Rai, a history-sheeter, and his gang chased a dance party performing at a marriage. They mingled with a Muharram procession and the processionists thought that they were being attacked. Suddenly a gunshot was heard, which the then administration thinks was Rai’s act. As panic set in, more people — both Hindu and Muslim — were beaten up and a young man, Raj Kumar Agrahari, was badly injured and hospitalised. The District Magistrate (DM) was informed at 1.30am and he told officials to brief Adityanath that he should not visit the site. Initially, the MP agreed. But as Agrahari died, Adityanath declared that now he would go to the spot and seek revenge for the killing of a Hindu by Muslims. He reached the spot with his lumpen who destroyed a mazhar. He declared his resolve to ensure justice for the Hindus, swords were flashed before the dm and senior police officers. Short of policemen, the administration tried to persuade the MP to vacate the place but he didn’t budge.

When the now-determined dm took the dagger away from a goon, they charged towards him and demanded the dagger back. Upon this, the dm ordered the police to disperse them by force. Suddenly the MP found himself facing a situation that was not in the script. Afraid that the lathis might find Adityanath, his well-wishers cried out for compromise. The MP demanded that curfew be imposed and withdrew. Though the dm didn’t think a curfew was required as the violence was designed to disrupt Muharram, he agreed to the MP’s demand.

Later, however, Adityanath announced a torchlight procession. The administration succeeded in preventing it from moving but it was captured on camera and a non-procession was turned into one by the willing media. Emboldened, he announced a Shraddhanjali Sabha the next day at the town’s busiest crossroad. By this time, the dm had resolved not to allow it any further as the police reinforcements were in. He issued orders that no meeting was to be allowed and that any violator was to be arrested. With unambiguous orders, the police moved. Adityanath dismissed the warning as a hollow threat but landed in an unforeseen situation.

He and his ‘followers’ were taken to the police line. Soon, a police van arrived and the detained people were asked to board the jail-bound vehicle. Adityanath jumped into the bus, declaring that he cannot leave his followers. To their surprise, the bus started moving and they realised that they were in trouble. The three-km journey to the jail took more than 90 minutes as his goons pelted stones and every other means to block the van but to no avail. For the first time in his life, Adityanath is jailed under Section 151A of the crpc only to find later that he has also been booked under Sections 146, 147, 279, 506 of the Indian Penal Code for leading the attack on the mazaar (grave). On the strength of this fir, Adityanath is remanded to 14-day judicial custody.

On January 29, his followers assembled at Gorakhnath Temple that falls in an area where more than 50 percent of the population is Muslim. They start throwing stones and burning tyres in the direction of the Muslim locality and on the road. But there is no retaliation from the other side.

Dr Hari Om, the then dm in-charge, wishes to put it on record that not a single incident of slogan-shouting or stone-pelting was resorted to by Muslims. He wants the world to know that although much grieved by the decision to impose curfew as it hampered Muharram, the Muslims, led by the venerable Miyan saheb, assured the administration of all cooperation as peace was more important and kept their word. Meanwhile, the media kept screaming that Gorakhpur was burning, the walls of the Gorakhnath Temple were demolished. Which, of course, was a naked lie.

And all of a sudden, the district magistrate was informed that he’s been shunted along with the superintendent of police. As he moved away, Rashid, a Muslim youth, was killed. It is a matter of discussion in Gorakhpur that it was done by a Hindu Yuva Vahini man who injured himself to use it as a cover. Newspapers flashed the pictures of the Yuva Vahini man’s bandaged leg, obliterating the killing of Rashid altogether.

So where was the riot, as imagined by the interested media, asks Hari Om. From January 27 to 29, Adityanath and his goons laid siege to Gorakhpur without any provocation from Muslims. A mazhar was gutted, masjids and shops of Muslims destroyed, government properties damaged by the gangs, stone pelting on the police by his goons: do these make a perfect riot? A riot involves some degree of involvement of two warring groups. How is it that areas with substantial Muslim population did not experience any untoward incident barring the planned attacks of Adityanath’s gangs? Why did cm Mulayam Singh Yadav remove the officers who jailed the BJP MP who was hell-bent on destroying peace? Why did the officers’ successors go straight to Adityanath for forgiveness? Why did the media fail to report the facts as facts?

Hari Om has one regret — that he had assured Muslims that by giving a reprieve of 7-8 hours in the curfew on January 29, he would ensure that the Muharram tradition was not disturbed. However, the moment he was removed, Rashid was killed to celebrate it as Adityanath’s victory and the curfew was extended. Tazias remained where they were. The Muslims kept their word, he did not. This young officer has just one question for his country: can a community feel at home where it is prevented from even mourning by all kinds of machination? Can a community celebrate its existence in a country where law-keepers look over their shoulders when it is attacked? Such is the sad story of Uttar Pradesh, the truth of one of the many riots that were not.

• First published in Tehelka.com, Feb 17, 2007
• https://communalism.blogspot.in/2007/02/riot-manufactured-in-gorakhpur.html

The post A leaf from the illustrious life of the CM of Uttar Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pathologically communal or back to basics? More apt descriptors of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comments at Sunday’s election rally in Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh, cannot be found. But let’s be clear: The statements he made are the default setting of the party he leads with his friend Amit Shah.

At the rally, Modi pleaded in the name of non-discrimination that a cremation ground should also be constructed in a village that has a burial ground, and that electricity should be distributed equally between Hindu and Muslim communities, especially during their festivals.

Modi said:

“Gaon me kabristan banta hai to shamshaan bhi bananaa chahiye. Ramzan me bijli aati hai to Diwali me bhi aani chahiye…Agar Holi mein bijli milti hai, to Eid par bhi bijli milni chahiye. 
“[If a graveyard is made in a village, it should also have a cremation ground. If a village gets electricity during Ramzan, it should also get the same during Diwali…If there is electricity during Holi, there should be electricity during Eid too.]”
 

He added:

“There shouldn’t be any discrimination. It is the duty of a government to be unbiased. Injustice shouldn’t be done to anybody…it should never be on the basis of religion or caste or class.”
 

Graveyards have been a sensitive issue in the villages of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for a long time now. In the year preceding the 2015 Assembly election in Bihar, more than a dozen incidents of encroachment and small-scale violence related to graveyards were reported from that state.

The BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have always tried to keep this issue alive. Muslims have legitimately demanded boundary walls around their burial grounds as sometimes idols are put there in a bit to encroach, or attempts are made to carve out a thoroughfare through these grounds on the pretext of creating shortcuts. The boundary walls offend some Hindus as the land is officially made out of bounds for them. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has played on this feeling of deprivation successfully.

Therefore, the constituency of the BJP is clear about which community is being discriminated against. The myth that Hindus are made to suffer, and Muslims benefit at their cost, has been nurtured in our minds since our childhood. If I recall my childhood days in Bihar correctly, there was a perception at that time that Hindus did not get an adequate supply of water on Holi, the spring festival of colours, and they had to suffer electricity cuts even on Diwali, the festival of lights, whereas Muslims received an uninterrupted supply of water and electricity on Eid and Bakr-Eid. This perception was totally unfounded, but Hindus believed it then, and still do.
 

Hindu vs Muslim

While making his comments on Sunday, the prime minister perhaps took his cue from Union Power Minister Piyush Goyal, who, two days before the first phase of voting in Uttar Pradesh, alleged that electricity wires bypassed Hindu homes.
Reporting on Goyal’s February 9 press conference, the National Herald quoted the minister as saying:
 

“BJP MP Sarvesh Kumar had lodged a complaint with Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) about discrimination in distribution of power connections on the basis of religion in Moradabad. After inquiry these charges were found to be correct.”
 

The National Herald later talked to AN Mishra, a top official in the Uttar Pradesh electricity department. Mishra dismissed Goyal’s allegations, saying:
 

“There is no hop, skip and jump when electricity flows through conductors. There is no mechanism by which you can give electricity to Muslims and deny the same to Hindus.”
 

The issue of compensation

In the same press conference, Goyal also referred, rather crassly, to the issue of compensation. He alleged:
 

“The BJP has always been saying that SP [Samajwadi Party] thrives on appeasement of Muslims. It gave different compensation to Hindus and Muslims – the Muslims got more money while Hindus did not even get half of it. This is on record and anyone can verify it.”
 

Compensation after a mishap or tragedy is another sensitive issue with Hindus. In violence-hit areas in Bihar and western Uttar Pradesh, Hindus often complain that Muslims have been treated royally by the respective state governments while they have been left high and dry. Those who enquire further are also told that if a Muslim police officer dies, his relatives get jobs, and crores as compensation, whereas the families of slain Hindu officers are left to languish without any monetary compensation.

It is not surprising therefore that Modi is consistent. It works through a ritual of repetition, and Modi does not seem to lose heart from the fact that his narrative has not clicked with voters on certain occasions.

Let us compare the prime minister’s Fatehpur speech with his speeches from the Bihar elections to see that they have been consistent. In Fatehpur, apart from demanding a cremation ground for each graveyard, Modi hinted that Muslims are the main beneficiaries of state schemes. He said:
 

“Ask a Dalit in Uttar Pradesh and he will tell you that he is not getting his rights because these are given only to the OBCs [Other Backward Classes]. Ask an OBC and he will say that Yadavs are enjoying all the benefits. A Yadav says the family members of the Samajwadi leaders are hogging the advantages [government-sponsored benefits], and the rest goes to the Muslims.”
 

In Bihar, Modi used similar language to accuse the Nitish Kumar government of favouring Muslims, of taking away from Hindus to give to Muslims. It was not borne out by facts, but Modi repeated it unabashedly. He reiterated it even when there was an uproar, and figures disproving his claims were brought to his attention.

At a rally in Buxar, Bihar, on October 26, 2015, Modi alleged:
 

“These leaders [Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad] are making a devious plan. They are conspiring to take away five per cent reservation of Dalits, Mahadalits, backwards and extremely backwards and give it to a particular community…I come from an extremely backward class and understand the pain of having been born to a poor woman. I will not allow this to happen. I pledge to protect the rights of Dalits, mahadalits and backwards.”
 

Calling this a sinful plan – “paap ki yojana” – Modi said: “Nobody will be allowed to take away your reservation and give it to any other community in pursuit of their vote bank politics.”

In his Fatehpur speech, Modi also referred to a case in which Arun Verma, the Samajwadi Party MLA from Sultanpur, had been booked for the murder of a woman who had accused him of rape.

Modi said:
 

“Kya maa-betiyon ki ijjat lootne ke liye SP ki sarkar banai thi…maa-betiyon ki hatya karne ke liye SP ki sarkar banai thi? 
“[Was the SP government elected to rape and kill our mothers and daughters.]”
 

If you put Modi’s comments together with Amit Shah’s pledge in Kaptanganj on Monday to shut down all slaughter houses in Uttar Pradesh if the BJP was voted to power and convert “a river of blood of cows, oxen and buffaloes in Uttar Pradesh” into a river “in which ghee and milk flow”, and to form anti-Romeo squads to punish “a particular kind of motorcycle riders” (read Muslims) who harass women, the Modi-Shah strategy becomes very stark.
 

Inherent ideology

The communal strategy deployed by Modi and his party failed miserably in Bihar in 2015. Then why are Modi-Shah still speaking this tired language?

Those who think in narrow instrumentalist ways believe that only success drives one’s instinct. But there is also something called ideology, which one inculcates, which one is trained in, which one believes in, which is one’s world view and which makes each person who they are.

Social psychologist Ashis Nandy understood the psychological make up of Narendra Modi long ago, when nobody would have dared to suggest that Modi would one day rule India. After interviewing Modi, who was a worker with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh at that time, Nandy told his colleague, Achyut Yagnik, that he had just met a textbook fascist.

After Modi took over as prime minister of India in 2014, and everybody was dying to believe that he had changed, that he had been swept into power on an inclusive plank of development, Nandy was interviewed. The interviewer asked Nandy if he would like to comment on his earlier understanding and description of Modi. Nandy said, his voice unwavering, that he stood by his professional conclusion.

Thus, it is not desperation that has driven the prime minister towards communalism.

However, at elite gatherings, one argument put forward to defend Modi’s communal statements goes thus: “What can the poor man do if the idiots do not understand his appeal for development, he has to speak in language they understand.” The people who say this would like us to believe that Modi, and the BJP, is all for development but they need power for this noble mission. Since power comes only through elections, and since the so-called casteist and secular parties have practised only the language of caste and religion for decades, BJP and its leaders have no option but to resort to this communalist communication strategy.

The argument goes on to say: “Everything is fine and no one is discriminated against once the BJP comes to power. Look at Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan – absolute peace and high speed development! Are Muslims not getting a part of this?”

It is this logic that keeps the backers of Modi and the BJP from even raising their eyebrows at the communal statements made by Modi and his party men, often at election rallies. Additionally, the prime minister gets no notices from the Election Commission.

Meanwhile, the anti-minority communal statements are repeated in a loop. These statements accumulate in our minds, their roots going deeper and deeper into our social psyche.

Apoorvanand is a professor of Hindi at the University of Delhi.

This article was first published on Scroll.in

The post The BJP’s communal strategy failed in Bihar. So why are Modi and Shah repeating it in Uttar Pradesh? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Senior journalist Shekhar Gupta was right when he lambasted those opposing space for the right wingers. When you do so, he argued, it is the liberal space that gets shrunk. It was none other than the much-hated, anti-right-wing Prime Minister Nehru who rejected a suggestion by the editor of the weekly Blitz, RK Karanjia, to proscribe the RSS as it was opposed to the constitutional values of India. Banning ideological groups would only drove them underground where they could assume a dangerously subversive power, Nehru felt. Even a majoritarian ideology like that of the RSS needs to be fought out in the open.

Moreover, now it is not the prerogative of the liberal or the left to have a dialogue with the right. It is in fact the right-wing, which now has the authority to decide whether the obsolete beings known as liberals or leftists would be allowed in public spaces or not. Even those who earlier championed liberal democratic values seem to have started to examine what they say, keeping in view the sensitivity of the right-wing masters of the day.

We see it being done in the universities where your position should depend upon the recognition of your work by your peers in academia. But increasingly we find heads of academic institutions performing a balancing act by constantly creating occasions to give platform to the so-called “intellectuals” of the RSS. So, one should not be surprised or upset that the JLF is inviting such intellectuals belonging to the RSS.

Of course, the right wing voices should not be shunned. They need to be made part of a civil dialogue or conversation. One is only struck by the timing of this realisation by the organisers of the JLF. The RSS was always there but for the last 10 years of its existence, it didn’t qualify as a potential participant of the JLF. But a little reflection should show that the real problem is not the presence of the RSS ideologues at the event but the main sponsor of the JLF, whose name is prefixed to that of the festival. Perhaps some of the finest minds from India and abroad who are attending the event should be reminded that they would be hosted by those very people who were instrumental in vehemently mobilising and instigating lynch mobs against some of their peers.

Murderous campaigns
Let us not forget the murderous campaign last January against young student activists of Jawaharlal Nehru University. So effective was the vilification that the then president of the university students union, Kanahaiya Kumar, was almost killed in an attack on him by a group of lawyers in Delhi. In fact, so pervasive were the hate-campaigns, led by the very television news channel whose name is prefixed to the JLF, that they have made Kanhaiya Kumar and other student leaders permanently vulnerable to attack by people who have been persuaded by the propaganda that these young students are “anti-national”.

It didn’t stop there. Nivedita Menon, a respected professor and feminist writer, was targeted by the same news channel, inciting violence against her. Gauhar Raza, an Urdu poet and scientist at the government-funded Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, was declared a member of “Afzal-lover gang”, a reference to Afzal Guru, the convict hanged for his role in the 2001 Parliament attacks. These were not isolated attacks, as the tirade against these writers and scholars continued on the channel for many days .

People who have not thus been targeted would perhaps say that such attacks need not be taken seriously. They fail to realise that for those whose faces have been displayed on television prominently for days, and described as friends of terrorists or anti-nationals, it is matter of life and death. They are under mortal threat.

That we should leave our peers and young out in the cold and enjoy the company of hate-mongers is heartbreaking. It is nobody’s argument that merely by attending the event, those doing so become advocates of hate-ideology. But they do turn into their legitimisers.

Besides, it is not only about the insecurity of our own, those we meet in seminars and book readings. There is another section of our society, made friendless in India by the RSS. The channel, which would be hosting our writers and intellectuals in Jaipur, has been at the forefront of a propaganda war against Muslims. Its blatantly false reporting about Kairana in Western Utter Pradesh is only one such example. It has portrayed Muslims as a threatening presence for Hindus in Kairana and in Dhulagargh in West Bengal.

Or consider how this channel handled the 2015 case in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, when 50-year-old Mohammed Akhlaq was lynched by a mob because it was rumoured that his family had been eating beef. Writers, artists and scientists protested the killing and the rise of intolerance, which embarrassed the government and the party in power. But these very writers were attacked as being anti-national by the channel which is the patron of the celebration of creativity in Jaipur.

Unfreedom and fear
The organisers of the JLF were urged to come out of the patronage of the Muslim haters and propagandists of hate. It has been reported that they did try to look for alternative sponsors but failed to find them. It is being argued that the JLF, having evolved into a unique institution, could not have afforded discontinuity. It is important to continue and sustain it and therefore one should understand the compulsion of the organisers who, it is claimed, want to build a literary culture in this country where literature is not celebrated publicly.

We are asked to be considerate to the organisers who have dedicated to the task of building a literary culture in India and abroad. If you want to do things on this scale, you need to make some compromises.But do we need such a massive celebration? It is the gigantic scale that necessitates the participation of corporations, the head of one of India’s top management institutions told this writer. The ethical universe of these corporations, he said, is defined by a very old and simple word: profit. They cannot be expected to be proponents of freedom and democracy. The Indian corporate lords have not an exemplary record in this regard.

The last two and half years have been torturous for the minorities for whom this country has turned into an open prison. We, in universities and elsewhere, too have lived with a feeling of unfreedom and fear. This feeling has brought us closer to understanding what the minorities face. Our normal existence has been interrupted. It is a zombie-culture we are made part of. Therefore, it is not surprising to see – in fact, it is difficult to miss – the strategic mind behind the theme of the JLF, which is Bhakti.

The selection of the theme brings to mind something Bertolt Brecht wrote: “Times of extreme oppression are usually times when there is much talk about high and lofty matters. At such times it takes courage to write of low and ignoble matters.”
In India 2017, we need this courage as badly as oxygen.

(First published in Scroll on 18.01.2017)

The post Dining With The Cultured Hate Mongers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

आरम्भ लेकिन षष्ठी से हो, ऐसा नहीं. बचपन से ही महालया की प्रतीक्षा व्यग्रता से होती थी. इस बार भूल ही गया. पिता ने, जो फेसबुक-संसार के सहज नागरिक हैं, महालया के दिन आगाह किया:
“देवी पक्ष के प्रारम्भ होने की सूचना हो गई है। देवघर में हमारी चेतना में यह बात रही है कि दुर्गापूजा के अवसर पर उमा एक साल बाद कैलास से अपने मायके चार दिनों के लिए आती हैँ। सप्तमी को उनका आगमन और दशमी को विदाई होती है। आगमनी गीत बेटी के लिए माँ की व्यथा की मार्मिक प्रस्तुति हैं।

प्रान्तर में सफेद कास एवम् शिउली फूलों एवम् आसमान में सफेद मेघ से शरत काल के आगमन की सूचना होते ही कैलास में गिरिराज की पत्नी मयना का मन अपनी पुत्री उमा के लिए व्याकुल हो उठता है। वे गिरिराज से निवेदन करती हैं, “एक साल बीत गया। उमा का कोई समाचार नहीं है। श्मशान में भूत-प्रेत के बीच भिखमंगे महादेव के साथ मेरी बेटी किस तरह रह रही है, मन व्याकुल रहता है। अब उसे वापस नहीं जाने दूँगी। भोलानाथ को घरजमाई बनाकर स्थापित कर लूँगी। तुम कैसे पिता हो? अभी कैलास जाकर उमा को लिवा लाओ।“ 

गिरिराज के कैलास के लिए रवाना होने के बाद मयना की प्रतीक्षा प्रारम्भ होती है। वे नगरवासियों का आह्वान करती हैं, “नगरवासियो, उमा आ रही है। तोरणद्वार सजाओ, मंगलघट स्थापित करो। उमा आ रही है.”

फिर सप्तमी तिथि को उमा आती है, माँ बेटी को देखकर विह्वल हो जाती हैं। उमा को “ओमा, ओमा” कहते कहते आनन्द विभोर होती रहती हैं। नगरवासी मिलकर मंगलगीत गाते हैं। पूरा नगर उत्सव में डूब जाता है। 

अष्टमी तिथि उल्लास से भरी होती है. कहीं कोई अभाव नहीं है, कोई विषाद नहीं है।। मां आई है, सारा परिवेश उत्सव मुखरित है। गीत-संगीत वातावरण में गूँज रहे हैं। 

अष्टमी की रात के बीतने की सूचना होते ही नवमी की दस्तक सुनाई पड़ती है। मयना आशंका से आतंकित हो जाती है, “ कल उमा चली जाएगी! काल देवता से प्रार्थना करती हैं, नवमी की रात तुम नहीं बीतना।” 

फिर दशमी की ध्वनि सुनाई पड़ती है। मयना को दूर से आती हुई डमरु की आवाज सुनाई पड़ती है। प्रहरियों को पुकार कर कहने लगती हैं. “ गौरी को लिवा जाने के लिए भोलानाथ आ रहे हैं, डमरू  की आवाज निकट से निकटतर होती जा रही है। जाओ, तुम लोग उन्हें रोक दो, मैं उमा को नहीं जाने दूँगी। तीन दिन तो रुकी है मेरे पास । अब वह मेरे ही पास रहेगी। “

गौरी माँ को सँभालती है। कहती हैं, “बेटी को तो पतिगृह में ही रहना होता है। तुम अपनी ओर भी देखो। तुम भी तो किसीकी बेटी हो। मैं तो फिर भी साल में एक बार आती हूँ , तीन दिन तुमलोगों के साथ रहती भी हूँ.”
बेटी की बातें सुनकर माँ और नगरवासी अभिमान से भर उठते हैं, “ उसकी भर्त्सना करते हुए दुर ग्गा, दुर् ग्गा कहते हैं।“

अन्ततोगत्वा मान अभिमान का दौर थमता है, बेटी फिर से उमा हो जाती है, “ओ मा ,उमा” से वातावरण मुखरित हो जाता है। नगरवासी मयना के साथ अश्रुपूरित नेत्रों से विदा करते हैं. … आबार एशो”अगले साल फिर आना, माँ!”

बाबूजी ने कथा संक्षेप में ही कही है. जितना बंगाल के लोग इससे परिचित हैं, उतना ही नचारी के देश मिथिलावाले भी. प्रत्येक वर्ष ही दुहराई जाती है. उतनी ही तन्मयता से इसे सुना भी जाता है. कथा आखिरकार बेटी के आने की उत्सुकता और उसके फिर से पति-गृह चले जाने के निश्चित होने के बावजूद किसी तरह उसे रोके रखने की माँ की इच्छा की है. मेना बोलती हैं, पिता हिमालय खामोश ही रहते हैं लेकिन आखिर वे क्या सोचते हैं, जानने का कोई उपाय नहीं .

महालया को सुबह-सुबह रेडियो पर कलकत्ता स्टेशन लगाया जाता था. रेडियो की सुई को ठीक ठीक जमा देना कि वह सही फ्रीक्वेंसी पर जा टिके. बांग्ला देश के निर्माण के बाद बांगला देश रेडियो से भी आगमनी का प्रसारण शुरू हो गया था. लेकिन कलकत्ता से आने वाली बीरेंद्र कृष्ण भद्र की मंद्र-गभीर   स्वर-ध्वनि से शारदीय अन्धकार का झंकृत होना रोमांचकारी लगा करता था.

पूजा के समय देवघर जाता था. अपने दादा को नियमित घर के पूजा गृह में पाठ करते देखता था. शहर भर में पंडाल सज जाते थे. प्रत्येक की अपनी ख्याति थी. कहाँ की दुर्गा कैसी होंगी, क्या इस वर्ष भी वे पिछले वर्ष जैसी ही हैं या इस बार कारीगर ने कुछ और कमाल किया है! पंडालों का अभिमान उनके कारीगरों की ख्याति के साथ जुड़ा था.इस कुतूहल के साथ हम बच्चे एक पंडाल से दूसरे पंडाल  का चक्कर लगाते रहते थे. पूजा की व्यस्तता का कहना ही क्या था! एक-एक दुर्गा को देख कर उसके रूप की विवेचना करना भी तो एक बड़ा काम था!

हर दुर्गा दूसरे से भिन्न होंगी ही, इसमें कोई शक न था. कोई सौम्यरूपा थीं तो कोई रौद्ररूपा. उदात्त और कोमल का संयोग निराला और बाद में मुक्तिबोध में देखा, लेकिन उसके पहले इस मेल की संवेदना का बीजारोपण इन पंडालों में हुआ होगा. पंडाल में उठता और गहराता हुई धूप का धुआँ, जिससे आँखें कड़ुआती थीं अवश्य लेकिन वहां से टलने का मन न होता था. वह धुआँ आहिस्ता आहिस्ता शरीर में जज्ब हो जाता था. एक रहस्यमय भाव का उदय होता था. धीरे-धीरे जैसे  ढाक-ध्वनि और उस ध्वनि के साथ देवी की प्रतिमा के आगे दोनों हाथों में धूपाधार लेकर नृत्य करते भक्त एक कलात्मक वातावरण रच देते थे. भक्ति सुंदर ही होती है और अनिवार्यतः कलात्मक, यह बात पूजा में साल-दर साल भद्र महाशय को सुनते हुए और देवघर के पंडालों में घूमते हुए मन में बैठ गई.

भीतरपड़ा और बंगलापर की दुर्गा पुरानी थीं.प्रतिष्ठा उनकी थी. लेकिन वे देवघर के बाशिंदा पंडा-घरों का आयोजन था. वैद्यनाथ मंदिर में भीतरखंड की दुर्गा का रहस्य और रुआब कुछ और था. ये मंदिर के अंदर प्रतिष्ठित थीं . नवमी के दिन हर जगह बलि पड़ती थी. भीतरखंड  में भैंसे की बलि होती है, सुना था. देख कभी नहीं नहीं पाया. लेकिन नवमी को बलि के रक्त के देवघर की अधिकांश भूमि लाल हो उठती थी. प्रत्येक घर की अपनी बलि होती थी. उस बलि के प्रसाद की प्रतीक्षा क्या सिर्फ बच्चे ही करते थे? वैसे, देवघर में मांस को आमतौर पर प्रसाद ही कहते हैं. शायद ही कोई पंडा घर हो, जो मांसाहारी न हो. आखिर माँ के प्रसाद को ठुकराया कैसे जा सकता है!

पंडालों में कुछ ऐसे होते थे जो कोने में बैठे हुए पाठ करते रहते थे. किंचित विस्मय के साथ हम स्वर में पाठ करते सुनते थे जो अष्टमी और नवमी को अश्रु से कम्पित हो उठता था. लेकिन हममें से भी किसी को संदेह न था कि षष्ठी और सप्तमी की देवी का मुख प्रसन्न रहता है, अष्टमी से वह मुरझाना शुरू होता है और नवमी को वह मायके से वापसी का समय आ गया, जानकर विषण्ण हो उठता है. अपने भाव को ही प्रतिमा पर आरोपित करके भक्त हृदय संतोष लाभ करता है, समझने की उम्र बाद में आई.

दशमी को लेकिन माँ की विदाई के आयोजन में अपने दुःख को भुलाकर नाचते गाते नगरवासी उसे पति-गृह को रवाना करते हैं. इस समय कोई रुलाई नहीं. विविधरूपा दुर्गा को उसके मायकेवाले अलग अलग नाम से पुकारते हुए उसके साथ चलते हैं. एक टुकड़ा मन में अटका रह गया है और दशमी को कहीं भी रहूँ, बज उठता है:”ओ,माँ दिगंबरी नाचो,गो!

दुर्गा को क्या महिषमर्दिनी के रूप में आराध्य माना जाए या उसे सार्वभौम पुत्री के रूप में पुनःप्रतिष्ठित किया जा सकता है? बेटी भी वह बेटी नहीं है, मायके की मायने भी बदल गए हैं,पति गृह अब उतना ही स्त्री का घर है: तो क्या यह स्मृति अब अर्थहीन हो गई है?
मैं जो भक्ति की इस सम्वेदना से वंचित रह गया, यह सब सोचता हूँ. दुर्गा से जुड़े भावों की तीव्रता और सांद्रता के सच को मैं जानता हूँ .लेकिन आज जो वह क्षुद्र होता दीख रहा है, उस समय इसे कैसे याद करूँ?

यह भक्ति और स्मृति टकराती है एक और याद से: जो स्वयं को महिषासुर के वंशज मानते हैं, उनके इन दस दिनों के शोक की याद से. वे दुर्गा का मुख भी नहीं देखते. इस बार सुना, सुषमा असुर उद्घाटन करेंगी कोलकाता की फूलबागान सार्बजनीन दुर्गा पूजा समिति के पंडाल का. उसके दस दिन पहले नंदिनी सुन्दर ने बताया, छत्तीसगढ़ के नेता मनीष गुंजाम पर किसी ने मुकदमा कर दिया है क्योंकि उन्होंने महिषासुर को मारे जाने की कथा का दूसरी व्याख्या प्रसारित कर दी थी. फिर दुर्गा सार्वजनीन तो नहीं ही रह गईं .

“शक्ति की करो मौलिक कल्पना”: यह चुनौती निराला के राम को मिली थी. आज हम सबके सामने यह चुनौती है. पुरखों ने जो कल्पना की उसकी स्मृति को रखते हुए, उन्हें इसका श्रेय देते हुए हम अपने बाद की सोचें: हमारे बाद आनेवाली पीढ़ियाँ क्या हमारी किसी भक्ति और शक्ति की कल्पना की याद करके हमारे प्रति कृतज्ञता का अनुभव करेंगी? या हम मात्र माध्यम रह जाएँगे: जो मिला उसे वैसे ही आगे पहुँचा दिया? हमने कौन सी छवि गढ़ी?

( First published by SATYAGRAH on 8 October, 2016)
 

The post दुर्गा दुर्मतिनाशिनी appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Universities are supposed to be places where we learn to put everything to the test. So the first thing we are taught is to have courage in the face of authority of all kinds. How are our universities doing on this front?

Image: Sh Rakesh Meena

It could be said that the university leadership is failing the university and betraying its cause while a handful of teachers and students struggle to keep it alive. The most recent case is that of the Central University of Haryana. Here, the teachers of the Department of English are facing nationalist wrath manufactured though a series of deceptive acts by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

What is encouraging, however, is that despite feeling unsure and being isolated, these teachers have refused to be browbeaten by threats that sedition charges will be filed against them. On the other hand, the university authorities have decided to distance themselves from their teachers.

Staging a classic
 

The post Academics VS Nationalist Militia appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 23, 1929, some members of the Hindustan Republican Socialist Army and Association attempted to blow up a train carrying the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, just outside Delhi. Though the train was derailed, Irwin escaped unscathed. However, the action drew the wrath of Mahatma Gandhi who thanked god for saving the life of the British official and lambasted the young revolutionaries.Their act, he said in an essay titled The Cult of The Bomb, was “a most outrageous crime”.

A few weeks later, in January 1930, a young member of the HRSA, Bhagawati Charan Vohra, in consultation with his colleague Bhagat Singh, wrote a response to Gandhi’s critique of their tactics. It was titled The Philosophy of the Bomb.
“The revolutionaries see the advent of the revolution in the restlessness of youth, in its desire to break free from the mental bondage and religious superstitions that hold them,” Vohra declared. As young people get more saturated with the “psychology of revolution”, he suggested, they will come to have a clearer realisation of national bondage, the desire for freedom will grow and, “in their righteous anger, the infuriated youth will begin to kill the oppressors”.

He wrote:

“Thus has terrorism been born in the country. It is a phase, a necessary, an inevitable phase of the revolution. Terrorism is not the complete revolution and the revolution is not complete without terrorism. This thesis can be supported by an analysis of any and every revolution in history. Terrorism instills fear in the hearts of the oppressors, it brings hopes of revenge and redemption to the oppressed masses, it gives courage and self-confidence to the wavering, it shatters the spell of the superiority of the ruling class and raises the status of the subject race in the eyes of the world, because it is the most convincing proof of a nation’s hunger for freedom.”

It is very clear from this extract that the revolutionaries considered terror as a legitimate means, a necessary stage in the scheme of revolutionary struggle. While reading the text, it is important to remember that these people were well aware of the difference between terror, violence and armed struggle. All these words are used appropriately, with the exactness of intention.

Creating fear
Terrorist actions are part of armed struggle. There is a distinctiveness to them: they are random, generally unannounced, intended more to surprise the enemy and the general population and strike awe in them.

A terrorist act is mainly aimed at creating fear in the hearts of the adversary. An act of terror creates an impact that is hugely disproportionate to the scale of the action. It challenges the claim of military superiority of the enemy.

Terrorist acts are also aimed at converting sceptics into followers by assuring them that the revolutionaries hold the real power. As Vohra declared in the essay: “It gives courage and self-confidence to the wavering.”

The writings of Bhagat Singh make it apparent that even when he justified the use of violence and terror, he did not make a fetish of them. If one wants to describe this, it has to be called “revolutionary terror”: terror for the sake of revolution. Terror then is a technique. (It is also used by the state. When the police burns down entire villages, it is resorting to terror.)

One also needs to remember that Singh and his friends were deeply inspired by Russian revolutionaries, who used the method of terror in their struggle against the Tsar.

It’s clear that historian Bipan Chandra was not making a value judgment when he described Bhagat Singh and his comrades as “revolutionary terrorists” in India’s Struggle for Independence, the book he co-authored in 1988 with some of India’s most respected historians. More than two decades later, the book, which has long been a part of Delhi University’s curriculum, drew objections from members of the Rajya Sabha for describing Bhagat Singh and his comrades as terrorists.
On Thursday, the Deputy Speaker of the Rajya Sabha PJ Kurien thought it fit to intervene in a scholarly debate using his privilege and Delhi University backed down, stopping the sale and distribution of the book. Human Resources Minister Smiti Irani also weighed in, describing the text as an “academic murder of sacrifices of individuals”.

But anyone who has studied the period knows, Bipin Chandra was merely fixing a description to Bhagat and his comrades, trying to remain faithful to the way they saw themselves at one point of their revolutionary life.

Accomplished authors
Bipan Chandra is no pamphleteer, neither are his co-authors, who include KN Pannikar and Mridula Mukherjee. They are professional historians who are in the business of language, they use their words with care. If there is some discomfort with some words, ideally it should be debated by Bipan Chandra’s academic peers and not the public or their representatives, who are not trained in the discipline.

MPs or MLAs should not use the power and privilege that they enjoy and claim in the name of being the representatives of the people to judge matters that are better left to professionals. It will be a death blow to the very culture of professionalism.
It is also sad that a university that seeks a seat among the top universities of the world does not have the courage to stand up to this bullying and assert its scholarly right.

By preventing students from reading the book, which describes Bhagat Singh and his comrades as “revolutionary terrorists”, we deprive them of an opportunity to understand and appreciate the journey of words like “terror”, to think why at one point of time it was used with pride and how its meaning has changed.

Article first published on Scroll.in

The post Smriti Irani’s ire is baseless: Bhagat Singh’s friends saw themselves as ‘revolutionary terrorists’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The enterprise of intellection is in peril in India. Lest it be read as an alarmist, rhetorical rant from a confirmed anti-RSS pseudo secular, it would be useful to know what is happening in places away from the eyes of the metro media. The most recent incident is being reported from Mohanlal Sukhadia University of Udaipur. Effigies of professors of Philosophy are being burnt there. The minister who looks after education in the state of Rajasthan has issued orders to lodge an FIR against the professors. What has enraged the defenders of Hindutva is ironically a lecture in defence of Hinduism by professor Ashok Vohra, who is a well known scholar of Philosophy and has recently retired from Delhi University after having taught for more than four decades.
 
The latest news is that the dean of the university, Farida Shah, has herself lodged a complaint against Sudha Chaudhary and Ashok Vohra for having ‘hurt religious sentiments’. Meetings are being held demanding the arrest of Chaudhary and Vohra. The RSS and its different wings like the ABVP, Durga Vahini, Bajrang Dal are aggressively active.
 
What was poor Professor Vohra trying to do?  He explains, in a letter to the Prime Minister of India, after he learnt of the real threat of a criminal case filed against him: “I had, quoting influential scholars like Wendy Doniger, Paul Courtright et al, shown how these scholars are misinterpreting and making false, maligning, derogatory and misleading propaganda in the name of scientific and objective study about Hindu gods and goddesses. I had argued in my lecture that these scholars without understanding the context – culture, values and form of life, misunderstood completely the narratives in the Hindu texts. I had shown that the all-inclusive character of Hinduism and its total neglect of the zeal for conversion is an enigma for the Westerners. They have to be educated about this distinctive characteristic. Not challenging these scholars is like being a pigeon who closes his eyes and thinks that the cat has disappeared and the danger is over. To evaluate the theories supported by these scholars one has to use their vocabulary, their descriptions and their interpretations. I had just done that and established my thesis that the claim of these scholars to being objective, psychoanalytic and scientific is a pseudo claim. Their claim is the outcome of their prejudices and misunderstanding.”
 
Now, this is something many of us may find problematic. But our reservation is not relevant here. Professor Vohra was delivering a lecture on the need and possibility of a dialogue on religion. He was speaking in the specific context of Hinduism. He was trying to understand why some scholars or observers from other traditions failed to initiate such a dialogue, which, he says is imminently necessary. According to him, such scholars, and he names some of them, instead of objectively observing and analyzing rituals and protocols attached with what is known as Hinduism, use the lens of their own traditions. It prevents them from comprehending the significance of the symbolism of Hindu traditions.
 
Professor Vohra uses the categories of “Antarik” (Insider) and “Bahya” (Outsider) for two different kinds of observers or scholars. He says that Hinduism is unique precisely because it does not treat anybody as “Bahya”. It is all-inclusive. Even the Charvakas and Meemansaks were not consider non-Hindu.

Professor Vohra was delivering a lecture on the need and possibility of a dialogue on religion. He was speaking in the specific context of Hinduism. He was trying to understand why some scholars or observers from other traditions failed to initiate such a dialogue, which, he says is imminently necessary
 
And yet, there is an outside of or to Hinduism. For example, it cannot claim Islamic or Christian traditions as its own. It is a different matter, as Prof Vohra argues in his lecture, that Hinduism is not interested in drawing people from other traditions to its fold or is indifferent to them. But for scholarship to start you do need to have an ‘ other’ or  an outsider. Who would this ‘other’ be? Is this ‘other’ denied the right to discuss something he or she does not belong to? There are ‘others’ and there are ‘others’. Who are those ‘others’ who help us further our understanding of our own traditions, including religious ones?
 
To  build his argument, Professor Vohra quotes a French traveller Baptiste Tavernier, who had visited India in the 17^th century. He records his observation of the rituals attached with the ‘Puja’ being offered at the Bindu Madhav temple of Varanasi. It is a dispassionate description without any adjective attached to the rituals or idols of Gods and Goddesses. Vohra calls it an academically valid observation by an outsider. He is observing and recording his experience dispassionately without imposing  his own understanding of what is truly religious or spiritual. What is most important is that he is non-judgmental.  
 
Vohra contrasts this with the observations of other ‘outsiders’. They also observe and record the Hindu religious protocols and rituals but rarely  without using adjectives like ‘demonic’, ‘grotesque’ – or a milder qualifier – ‘funny’. Vohra says graver than this is the problem which arises when they use analytical categories derived from their own traditions. To strengthen his contention he quotes from these scholars. It is obvious even to a person of modest intelligence that Professor Vohra is presenting their views only to demolish them. However, this is what went against him and his host Dr. Sudha Chaudhary. It is being alleged that Vohra used references which are derogatory to Hindu Gods and Goddesses and Dr. Chaudhary committed the crime of giving him a platform for his blasphemous act.
 
The defenders of Hinduism expressed their outrage by burning the effigies of Vohra and Chaudhary. This is a privilege mostly politicians enjoy. Academics would surely not like to join this club. Local newspapers chose to play along with the vandalisers. The minister of Human Resource Development of Rajasthan promptly asked the police to file an FIR against the offender- professors. One of the deans of the university said that such lectures could not be allowed on the campus. The university succumbed and ordered an inquiry into the whole affair. The committee appointed to “inquire” into the whole affair has not inspired too much confidence, however.
 
Professor Vohra is protesting. He says that he was using the truly Indian way of polemics. In this method you have to faithfully present the viewpoint of the “Poorva paksh”. Only after that are you allowed to dispute or refute it. This is the minimum one expects from academics.
The defenders of Hindutva would have none of it. They want to blunt our hearing. One must say that they have succeeded in their mission to a dangerous extent. Otherwise, how is it that a sharp ear like Karan Thapar failed to appreciate the rhetorical device used by Amir Khan to drive home the insecurity that is gradually engulfing not only the Muslim and Christian minorities but also other liberal and independent minded people? Thapar went on to sagaciously advise Khan to stay on and fight the irrational forces in India.
 
Was the fear of Kiran Rao, partner of Amir Khan misplaced? Should we ignore her as if the issue only concerns Muslims? As we can see from the attack on Sudha Chaudhary and Ashok Vohra in Udaipur, the seemingly innocent act of scholarship is now under threat. When scholars like Vohra are forced to seek protection from the high office of the Prime Minister, are we to understand that scholarship is no longer a ‘normal’ business in India? Would scholars be unpatriotic if they chose foreign universities for their pursuit of knowledge? For, is it not that the land of knowledge is where scholars live?  Would they be advised by our ministers that they should face criminal charges bravely staying in India or they would be declared anti-nationals? Should all researchers and teachers secure anticipatory bail before publishing their work or attending seminars or even before entering classrooms?

(The author teaches Hindi at Delhi University)
 
 

The post Intellectualism in Peril appeared first on SabrangIndia.