Thereafter, English-language newspapers published the news, reporting, articles and editorials about him with great enthusiasm. The reactions of many leaders and parties on this sudden decision of the government also became a subject of speculation in the media. In all this, the government’s “politics” behind the decision to award Bharat Ratna to Thakur was also mentioned and discussed. Commentators opined that the union government has used the Bharat Ratna to blunt the opposition’s caste-based census card. That is, the feat of immersing mandal into brimming kamandal with the construction and inauguration of Ram Temple has been accomplished by awarding Bharat Ratna to Thakur! The RSS/BJP has tried to prove through this award that there is no conflict between ‘Hindutva’ and social justice. By conferring the same award on LK Advani is in line with its well thought out plan.

However, it is worth noting that the union government did not commemorate Karpoori Thakur in Bihar or any other state during the entire birth centenary year, which ends on January 24, 2024. Despite being awarded the Bharat Ratna, it does not seem that the government will have any serious concern with Karpoori Thakur even in future. Actually, this is just an election manoeuvre of the government.

The politics of Bharat Ratna has also engulfed the Grand Alliance government of Bihar. There was a tussle between the claimants to the inheritance of Thakur. Nitish Kumar, an ‘engineer’ of Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs), while commenting on the award, took a dig at RJD’s dynastic politics by saying that Thakur never indulged in dynastic politics. He, in fact, declared himself the real heir of Thakur by saying that he himself too never took his family forward in politics. In order to further strengthen his claim he also stated that he made Thakur’s son Ramnath Thakur a member of the Rajya Sabha, who is also his follower. He has tried to convey a message to the BJP that he alone has the patent on EBC votes in Bihar. That is, the benefit of giving Bharat Ratna to Thakur passes through the corridor of his rightful heir!

There has been an ongoing tussle between the JDU and RJD for some time. Apart from this, Nitish was upset that despite being a “tallest leader” in the opposition camp, the INDIA alliance did not declare him as the prime ministerial candidate. He was not even made the president of the alliance. Even before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, he expected that the Congress would go ahead accepting him as the Prime Ministerial candidate of the combined opposition. When this did not happen, he left the Grand Alliance and went back with the BJP. He again returned to BJP-led NDA, picking up the bale of legacy of Thakur. The interesting thing is that Thakur, who suddenly came into limelight after the announcement of Bharat Ratna, has been side-lined, and Nitish Kumar has gained centre-stage. Editorials and articles in newspapers are now throwing light on mandal-kamandal politics and its various variations. Thakur and his persona, politics and ideology are no more topics of interest. Political analysts seem to have accepted that the future of social justice politics lies not with the socialist ideology of Thakur, but with the politics of ‘Hindutva’, which carries their cherished agenda of “development” and “good governance”.

In such a situation, it would be appropriate to ask the question whether the Bharat-Ratna, that came out of the womb of power-greedy politics of communalism, casteism, individualism and vanshvad (dynasty rule) while sitting in the lap of corporate houses, to Thakur enhances his honour or diminishes his dignity posthumously. In fact, this episode once again explains that in the era of corporate-communal nexus in politics the national icons are being humiliated by being used in undignified power-politics.

A little discussion of Thakur, the politician, would not be out of place here. He has been a leader of great versatility. As much as he was involved in politics and socialist ideology, he was equally learned in literature, art and culture. People in academia and literature often noted that he always used to travel with a heavy bag of books. He had his own ideological and political training in socialist thoughts and the movement. However, he used to imbibe all the transformative ideas coming from various sources including the ideas of Phule, Ambedkar and Periyar. He had a deep commitment towards basic modern values like democracy, secularism, civil liberties and human rights.  His simplicity and his insistence on not taking the slightest advantage of his political position for the benefit of his family and friends was a clear indication of his link with the Gandhian-Socialist stream. Thakur belonged to an extremely backward and small in numbers the barber caste.  Despite such a background, he could develop an independent political personality of himself.

Thakur was actually a child of the freedom movement and the socialist movement. He started his political innings by leaving college and participating in the Quit India Movement. He was elected member of Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1952 elections. From then till his death, he always won the assembly elections continuously. He won the Lok Sabha election from Samastipur in 1977. In his entire political career, he lost only the 1984 Lok Sabha elections. He played the role of Leader of Opposition in Bihar Assembly for a long time. He became the Chief Minister of Bihar twice – from 22 December 1970 to 2 June 1971, and from 24 June 1977 to 21 April 1979. He had a deep knowledge of parliamentary rules and processes, and was sincerely adhered to them.

He had made a provision of 8, 12, 3, 3 percent reservation for extremely backward classes, other backward classes, women and economically poor of general category respectively. This is known as Karpoori Formula, for which he had to face even abusive language from people with upper caste feudal mind-set, especially the Jan Sangh cadres. Not only did southern leader Devraj Urs take a dig at Thakur’s reservation policy, it also became a subject of controversy among socialists. Some people say that the provision of sub-quota within the quota had the consent and inspiration of JP, whereas some hold the opposite opinion. Both Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar, who claim to be Thakur’s heirs, have proven to be leaders who only settle the electoral calculations of castes. They have not been moved by Thakur’s commitment to socialism and social harmony.

Being a committed socialist, he always tried to bring marginalised groups forward, but considered himself mainly as a representative of the people of Bihar. Many obstacles came in his way, not to forget his ‘low’ caste, but he overcame them all with his political and ideological commitment. Never in his life did he resort to communal casteism and casteist ‘identityism’. He emerged as a leader of the people – jannayak, not a leader of any caste. This particular merit of his personality can be viewed through a poem titled ‘Bheed Se Ghira Adami’ (A man surrounded by the crowds) by Jabir Husain. 

This poem, the best among many poems written on him, shows that the personality of Thakur was not bound by region, caste and religion. He used to call himself a casteless person. Even his commitment to the country was only that it should be freed from colonial subjugation so that a society of equality can be established by transforming the multi-layered feudal-hegemonic system. The poem also suggests that his personality is not meant to evoke worship but to be an inspiration for struggle. During the freedom struggle Karpoori Thakur himself composed a famous poem titled ‘Hum Soe Watan Ko Jagane Chale Hain’ (We walk to stir the nation awake): We walk to stir the nation awake/ breathe life into the dead/to through the gauntlet at the powerful/who ignore the helpless ill-fed/don’t push us further o tyrant/lest we burn it all to ground/ unbent, headlong we rush/to raise the listless from the ground/we walk to stir the nation awake. This poem too suggests that he was a leader of the underprivileged-exploited masses with a deep ideological understanding.

Dr. Lohia’s thesis – “Class is mobile caste. Caste is immobile class” – is about Thakur’s understanding of caste and class question at a practical level. When the leaders who openly play dynasty politics in a feudal style claim themselves as the heirs of the legacy of Thakur, they simply devalue him.  Lohia’s offer to bring Dalits, Adivasis, backward castes, women and poor Muslims ahead in politics was an epoch-making idea to transform the socio-economic-political-cultural structures of the country forever. Lohia hoped for de-brahmanisation and de-colonization of the minds of these marginalized communities because this ‘mind’ had been largely free from the clutches of old brahmanical and the new colonial value systems. In this way, that ‘mind’ could have been a permanent deterrent to communal fascism and capitalist imperialism. But this idea of Lohia, full of possibilities of epoch-changing, was turned into a blatant casteism by the leaders playing politics of social justice. They, in fact, put the same in the service of communal fascism and capitalist imperialism.

Among the Backward/Dalit leaders, Thakur was the only one who fulfilled Lohia’s hope through his political work. This is the most important dimension of his relevance today. It is to be hoped that this dimension of his relevance will not be allowed to disappear in the politics of Bharat Ratna.

(The author associated with the socialist movement is a former teacher of Delhi University and a former fellow of Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla)

The post Bharat Ratna to Karpoori Thakur: Appropriating icons for political end appeared first on SabrangIndia.

March 23 is the birth anniversary of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia. At the events organised to mark this occasion, demands are often made to the government for posthumous conferment of India’s highest civilian honour i.e. Bharat Ratna upon Dr. Lohia. I anticipate that this year will be no different.

In a brief commentary I authored in May 2018, a reference was made to this trend when Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar placed this demand before President Ram Nath Kovind at an event where President Kovind delivered Lohia memorial lecture at a private university. Only three comrades Raj Kishore (late), Qurban Ali and Pushkaraj affirmed my opinion saying it would be an injustice to Lohia and his legacy if the government/ruling class would confer Bharat Ratna upon him.

In this piece written on Lohia’s 111th Jayanti, I would like to submit the following reasons in support of my opinion.

First: Lohia was a strong advocate of rights and civil liberties and he considered civil liberties/rights as the foundation for fostering and strengthening democracy in the country and the world. He had this belief about civil liberties/rights from the very beginning of his political life. At the same time, the issue of civil liberties/rights for him was not merely theoretical; much of his political activism was spent in holding/joining protest movements related to civil and democratic rights/demands of common people, and in going to jail. Lohia was incarcerated more in independent India than under the British rule. It was but natural that the colonial government would make false accusations on a freedom conscious person like Lohia and torture him to the maximum extent in jails, but even the top leaders of the government of independent India, police and courts showed no restraint in making false, baseless allegations/cases and displaying indecent behaviour against Lohia.

He was arrested more than 25 times, including the freedom movement, the Goa Liberation Movement, the Democratic Movement of Nepal. In 1964, during his visit to America, he was arrested by the police for protesting racial discrimination at public places. Prof. Chandan Gowda has given a sincere analysis of the incident in his piece titled ‘An Episode in Civil Disobedience’ (Bangalore Mirror, April 11, 2016).

For Lohia, the meaning of freedom of the individual was not limited to the personal freedom of any leader or activist. His goal was to make the value of individual freedom meaningful at the level of the whole of humanity. He considered freedom from colonial slavery as the democratic right of every Indian. Lohia was lodged in Lahore Fort Jail after his arrest during the Quit India Movement. The British government allowed him to be released on parole to attend the funeral of his father. He did not accept release on parole because as an Indian and a human being he considered his arrest and punishment unjustifiable. His father’s funeral took place in his absence. Lohia was the only child of his parents.

Lohia wrote a pamphlet titled ‘The Concept of Civil Liberties’ for the Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU), established by the Congress in 1936, headed by Rabindranath Tagore and acting president Sarojini Naidu. Dr. Kamal Nayan Choubey has delineated the content of this important pamphlet in his article ‘Nagrik Swatantrta, Rajya-Daman Aur Dr. Lohia’ (‘Yuva Samvad’, Lohia Visheshank, March 2011). However, after independence, the Congress itself was not committed to the expectations and pledges mentioned in that pamphlet. Lohia was adamant during Gandhi’s struggle for independence, and in independent India to Gandhi’s designated non-violent practice (civil disobedience), and accepted it as the greatest revolution of human civilization ever. Only during Quit India Movement or August Revolution he (along with Jayaprakash Narayan) make little improvisation to this policy.

It was not Lohia’s way to become democratic by keeping the option of violence in reserve. He also accepted no alternative to transparency in a peaceful resistance. His idea of socialist revolution and the way of struggle in that direction had been moulded into the blast furnace of democracy. Therefore, Lohia believed that if the struggle for civil liberties/rights is an art of strengthening the spirit and institutions of democracy, then it is an essential condition to have faith in the democratic setup. Because the socio-political activists who struggle on this way keep connected to the life of the people, which is the touch-stone of democracy. Lohia was against the dictatorship imposed on the people, and also against the indirect dictatorship in the name of the people.

Lohia was not opposed to the revolutionary movement in the freedom struggle of India, because the revolutionaries believed the same path right and were ready to sacrifice their lives for it. But Lohia was not an advocate of ‘veers‘ like VD Savarkar, whose character was allegedly a set of cowardice, treachery, and conspiracy. In the face of oppression or temptation of power, who would grovel like sheep hidden in the skin of a lion. March 23 is Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom day. That is why Lohia did not formally celebrate his birthday. His decision not to celebrate the birthday signifies deep respect for the revolutionary stream.

It is a distinct feature of Lohia that he was equally supportive of the freedom of the individual along with constitutional civil liberties. Lohia did not accept suppression of individual freedom – whether the freedom of the individual was constrained under the feudal structure or under any modern ideology/system. He believed that the human mind is always on the path of quest. Therefore, no ideology/party can be perfect. He was against stagnation/indisposition, gang-captivity and surveillance based on ideologies and political parties. He has included the value of individual freedom in his concept of “Sapta-Kranti”.

In his contemplations Lohia made a special emphasis on the freedom of women in all aspects. In the concept of “Sapta-Kranti”, he has put the goal of gender equality at the top. In this way, Lohia envisaged and advocated for a modern nation-state and democratic socialist system which provide an opportunity for the entire potential of men and women, in both human and civil forms, to flourish. The concept of “Chaukhambha Raj” (four pillar state) propagated by him also contained the idea of freedom of diverse locations/identities vis-a-vis centralist hegemony.

From the time of independence there were some British laws and some new laws that violate civil liberties/rights. Since the introduction of the New Economic Policies in 1991, the enactment and use of such laws in the country has increased rapidly. During the tenure of the current Modi government, not only has there been an unprecedented boom in the enactment/amendment and use of laws that violate civil liberties/rights, it seems that the government has launched a campaign taking repressive actions against the organizations/peoples struggling for or under civil liberties/rights. It has become a common practice to arrest people and file sedition cases against them. The data of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that after 2014, sedition cases against citizens and organisations have increased significantly. Of greatest concern is that the high-ranking political leadership is directly involved in suppression of democratic resistance.

For a person like Lohia, who had demanded the resignation of his party’s government in Kerala over an incident of firing on protesters in 1954 (see my article ‘India Towards a Police State’, countercurrents.org, 7 August 2020) the demand for the Bharat-Ratna from the current government; or the government’s decision to confer the highest civilian award to him would be a blatant contempt to Lohia’s entire political thoughts and deeds.

Second: It is an era of corporate politics. This politics, from running a political party to contesting elections, thrives on the donations given by the super-rich class of businessmen – Dhanna Seths. Even the need to submit the accounts of donations has been legally abolished. Everyone knows that this wealth of donations comes from the immense profits that business houses have made from the purchase of national assets/resources/public sector undertakings sold by the governments at throwaway prices, and from the government policies that serve their profit-making interests. The charisma of corporate politics is worth noting that even the Prime Minister of the country feels pomp in the companionship of cronies and in using facilities offered by them. The government advocates the private sector openly in Parliament at the expense of the public sector, and is trying hard to make the private sector as strong as possible at the earliest.

Lohia could not have imagined this form the politics would take in independent India. He did not have a bank account. His party did not take money from foreign governments/institutions in the name of socialist revolution or movements. Lohia propounded the new idea of socialism vis-a-vis capitalism and communism. The present political setup has taken a plunge into corporate capitalism. Needless to say, that the Bharat Ratna to such a leader will be a huge dishonour and injustice.

Actually, there is no justification for giving Lohia the Bharat Ratna by any government other than the present one. If we have a look at the contemporary scenario of the resistance demonstrations all over India, we can find the images of certain icons such as Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar etc. placed at the venues or carried by the protesters. But we never find an image of Lohia among these diverse icons. In this context I would like to mention one episode.

I went to Thiruvananthapuram to attend the national convention of the Socialist Party (India) in November 2016. I reached Cochin after the convention and saw hoardings of multi-coloured pictures of many famous and not-so-famous national-international leaders/thinkers all around. These were put as an advertisement for an upcoming event of Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI). There was hardly any leader or thinker left in that colourful fair filled with expensive pictures. I travelled to Alappuzha and looked at all those pictures carefully. Two prominent leaders of the freedom movement were missing – Acharya Narendra Dev and Lohia. One can also notice that Lohia does not find any mention in the speeches/slogans at the resistance venues/marches.

This trend shows that the civil society activists/political parties/organizations that hold the resistance demonstrations for civil liberties/rights do not consider Lohia’s ideas and perspective on the subject to be relevant. It is not that they reject Lohias ‘over revolutionary’ ways. The ruling class wants to oust him from the network of power, whether it is knowledge or politics, reason being that the ruling class neither want to wage a decisive war against feudalism-Brahminism, nor against capitalism.

A pertinent question can also be asked while summing up this discussion. Will an appropriate/deserving government ever be possible which could give Bharat Ratna to Lohia? That is, a government which would accept Lohia’s views and perspective about civil liberties/rights at least to a large extent. Lohia’s own Socialist Party merged with the Janata Party in 1977 after four decades of upheavals. In 2011, the half-hearted attempt to reinstate the Socialist Party in Hyderabad had not been much successful. By that time, corporate politics had not only put its feet firmly in the public life of India, it had also sharpened its teeth into the entire polity. Most socialists had become part of corporate politics by then. In view of all this, it can be safely said that Lohia is an unfit icon for the Bharat Ratna in any government, not just the existing one.

*The author teaches Hindi at the Delhi University

Related:

Can raising the right questions ever be dubbed ‘anti-national’?

India’s youth to honour the farmers’ protest on March 23

The post No Bharat Ratna for Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, Please! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the mid-seventies, when I came to Delhi University (DU) from a small village in Haryana, the deployment of police or private security guards either in the college or the university campus was unheard of. There used to be university watchmen at the gates of colleges, hostels and faculty, who were generally befriended by the students. In the entire north campus, only one man from the intelligence used to be seen from time to time. That sociable police officer was often recognized by the students, who took part in student politics, debate, literary and cultural activities. Of course, back then, there used to be protests, elections of students’ and teachers’ organizations, big fairs and festivals; a wave of new ‘bad elements’ used to come in year after year; there was a race among certain colleges to be on the top as a ‘terror’ college; there were many kinds of fights in between, even knives were used, … but generally there was no need to call the police before or after the incidents. The college and university administrations used to manage everything on their own. Police intervention was allowed only on the permission and deliberations of college and university officials. This had no effect on the lives of the students, who were enjoying their studies and pursuing other interests. What it meant was that a large university, whose symbol is elephant, used to run only with its own arrangement, despite the fact that the campus is an open campus which can easily be accessed from all directions. The situation was more or less the same in all central and state universities and colleges. Obviously, this was possible due to a mutual understanding and a sense of responsibility among the teaching and non-teaching staff, students and, of course, the vice-chancellors and the principals.

As the influence or pressure of neo-liberalism increased in politics, society, religion and culture through country’s economy, the education system could not remain untouched by it. According to the Indian Constitution, education is the responsibility of the state. However, it was opened to the private sector under neoliberal policies. Due to the privatization of education, a large world of private educational institutions has come into existence. The pressure of privatization has also been put on the already existing public sector educational institutions. Under the earlier administrative setup, all employees from peons, chowkidars, daftaris, gardeners, scavengers, butlers, lab assistants, library assistants etc. to clerks happened to be permanent employees of the university. There was new recruitment after the retirement of a person. But that practice was stopped 20-25 years ago. Instead of making permanent recruitments, appointment on contractual basis became the trend. One contractual employee was made to accomplish the work of three-four employees and made to work for more than the prescribed hours of duty. The teachers, also, could not escape this trend. About 5000 teachers are ad-hoc or guests in the Delhi University, at present. Such vice chancellors and principals were appointed by the governments, who blindly implemented the policies of privatization in governmental educational institutions.

Meanwhile, the character of student politics also changed. The patent on ‘goondaism’ in student politics did not remain with the National Student Union of India (NSUI) alone. It was taken up by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the students’ wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and further, by the students’ fronts of regional satraps, which came to power in the states due to the politics of social justice, and by the communist students’ organizations in West Bengal and Kerala. Simplicity, healthy debate, common student interests did not remain the concerns of student politics. Student politics has become an endless series of confrontations, with opponents invoking their leaders, icons, slogans, parties, ideologies etc. The students from marginalized societies who, due to constitutional provisions, join the arena of higher education, have envisaged their own mobilization in student politics. So, this clash among student groupings is multi-cornered, which the RSS and the communists operate with a strategy of showing it as between themselves. This phenomenon of student politics is not one-sided or single-folded. Student politics of the neo-liberal era is a shadow of the corporate politics prevalent in the country in the present times. This is also true for teachers’ politics to a large extent. It has lost the strength to oppose privatization of education by securing higher pay scales and other facilities under neo-liberal policies. They are not ready to concede that the communalization of education cannot be stopped without abrogating privatization.

Wealthy students get relief by getting admission and campus postings in private educational institutions. Most candidates, who seek admissions and jobs in public sector colleges and universities, live in constant uncertainty. Government education is no longer as cheap and affordable as it used to be before. The pressure of an all-round consumerist culture also plays its role. They are constantly told by the political elites that the country is progressing very fast. When they try to find their place in that progress, then disappointment is often felt. Various kinds of debates, discourses and NGOs are waved in front of them. They join them and experience the significance of their being for some time. No solution seems to be coming out of this ‘touch revolution’ and the age goes on increasing. They live in a state of constant restlessness. The way the entire education system is being uprooted from the axis of the Constitution without proper thought and planning, and mounted on the pivot of privatization of a clumsy kind, there is no dearth of protest issues in front of them. Events at national and international level also agitate student groups. So, there is one or the other protest every day on the campuses. The student leaders, who see student politics as a means of making a place in party politics or have other vested interests, take advantage of this situation. Big and small leaders, media, civil society activists are ever ready to play their roles. Hence, there is a need to look into this background while discussing the private security arrangements and the presence and role of the police/paramilitary forces on the campuses.

If there is restlessness and uncertainty in the minds of students, then there will be protests. In the absence of trust towards students and teachers, university officials will continue to resort to the police again and again. ‘The police answers to those in power’ – this practice has been going on in India since colonial times. The police will defend those student organizations and leaders which have affiliation with the government in power and will suppress the opponents. It will also defend the anti-social and violent elements working for the ruling party. When the top leaders of the country do politics by making communal divide its basis, then the police will also practice communal behavior. In the last few decades, the presence of police on campuses and incidents of interference have increased very rapidly. Rather, the demand for permanent deployment of paramilitary forces on the campus by the vice chancellors has gained momentum. Last year, on the demand of the vice chancellor of the Vishva Bharati University (Shanti Niketan), the central government decided to permanently deploy the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on the campus. This is the first time that this has happened in the university system. Earlier in 2017, the vice chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) had asked the government for permanent deployment of paramilitary forces on the campus. At that time, the government had not given permission because the vice chancellor had to go on long leave due to certain allegations. In November last year, the vice-chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) called the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on the campus to deal with the students’ agitation.

The increasing dependence on the police by the university officials, even in minor disputes, is converting campuses into cantonments. That day is not far when the police will enter the premises even without their orders. Recently, this has happened in Jamia Millia Islamia. In the absence of the police, a large number of private guards and barriers give the campus the look of a cantonment. The south campus of the Delhi University is small and compact. It has only six small buildings, including a library. There is a police checkpoint at the main gate. Despite this, there is a plethora of private guards. A person coming to meet a teacher cannot reach him/her easily. Not at all, if he/she is a media person.

In fact, all this is done to enslave the young minds so that they subordinate themselves to the system. It is the responsibility of university officials, teachers, students and administrative staff to not allow a campus to be transformed into a cantonment. Parents and guardians can also play an important role in this. They should insist that the primary responsibility of the university authorities is to create a safe, fear-free and creative environment on the campus, and not to obey this or that government’s order.

RELETED ARTICLES:

1. Raghuram Rajan condemns JNU violence, praises student protests

2. JNU violence must be investigated by a judicial commission

3. ABVP loses top posts in Varanasi’s Sanskrit University student union elections

4. JU professor assaulted by BJP supporters upon objecting to anti-Muslim insults

5. The powerful must listen: India’s youth has spoken against divisive politics

The post University Campus or Cantonment? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The commentariat, intellectuals, leaders, even from opposition parties including the Congress, are trifurcated on this contentious issue: The first group comprises of supporters, who can very well be seen as being swept away in the tide of emotions and are not ready to hear anything countering the decision of government. In the second category come people who consider the verdict right but the manner in which it has been adopted as problematic. The third category is of those who consider both, the decision and the method, as wrong. In this article, some thoughts have been expressed keeping this category in mind. The people of this category have rightly condemned the government’s move on the basis of the Constitution of India and its democracy. But while doing so, they do not accept the fact that the Constitution and the democracy are in a shambles due to the neo-liberal policies of the last 30 years.
 
The BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP) has had an agenda of abolishing Article 370, implementing Universal Civil Code, and building Ram Temple in place of Babri Masjid ever since the time of its inception as Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), founded in 1951. But due to the strength of the Constitution and the democracy, the party could not do it. In 1991, the Congress itself began to weaken the Constitution by introducing liberalization in the name of New Economic Policies. (Already, the work of dilution of the Constitutional provisions with respect to Jammu and Kashmir had been done by the Congress, for which more or less there was a national consensus. The spirit of the Instrument of Accession, a core document regarding the accession of J&K to India, had been violated by several Orders issued by the President of India since 1954. The qualities of democracy that emerged in the rest of India, could not flourish in Jammu and Kashmir. There was no Karunanidhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mayawati etc.,who was allowed to emerge.) As a result, market nationalism (bazarwadirashtrawad), based on market economy, replaced Indian nationalism, containing the values of the freedom movement and the Constitution of India. Simultaneously, the democracy, too, was diverted to the path of the market. Under the impact of neo-liberalism, politics in India, including that of the Congress and the identity based parties,was put on the path of swift degeneration. Senior Communist leader,JyotiBasu declared that capitalism is the only path to development. Amit Shah, while speaking in the LokSabha, stated the truth about the degeneration of the opposition, “… have faith in the NarendraModi government. Nothing negative will happen. All these (Opposition) people are telling you lies for their own politics. Don’t listen to them.” This message was addressed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
 
A dire need was felt to create a new alternative politics, after almost complete decline of the Congress and other political parties, including the players of identity politics. A serious contemplation and struggle all over India had been started for the same. But, particularly, progressive intellectuals did not allow that stream of alternative politics vis-a-vis neo-liberalism to flourish. They queued up behind Anna Hazare and ArvindKejriwal, who had come from the NGO world and were calling out for the elimination of corruption. It is a proven fact that the NGOs are an integral part of the neo-liberal regime, created to act as safety valves. Prakash Karat’s ‘Lenin’ Kejriwal came out promptly in total support of the government’s decision on Jammu and Kashmir. Such an atmosphere of political opportunism proved to be most suitable for the RSS/BJP. It collected all the remnants of degenerated politics and plunged into neo-liberalism by throwing away the so-called robe of tenacity, sacrifice, sacraments, high character etc. The RSS/BJP had to remove the Article 370 after getting the second consecutive term to power with a full majority. One could understand this truth by going through the various resolutions/manifestos passed by the RSS/BJP from time to time.
 
Opponents of the new law on J&K are rightly talking about a frightening future. However, the people of J&K are experiencing a part of that frightening future right now, getting imprisoned in their homes being one of its many manifestations. The seeds of the present were sowed in 1991. It would not have happened if the Intelligentsia of India had convinced the people that the New Economic Policies are anti-constitution and anti-democracy, that a dreadful future awaits them. The crucial/central problem of our times is that the intelligentsia will not stand against the neo-liberal policies even after this decision of the government. However, from now onwards, all constitutional safeguards provided to hill and north-eastern states and marginal communities, including tribals, would be scrapped on a fast pace to facilitate the corporate control over resources. This adherence to capitalist/consumerist model of development would further erode the federal character of the Constitution in the name of new India – strong India – one India. No safeguards enshrined in the Constitution, meant for states’ rights and citizens’ rights, would be honoured in this venture. In such a situation, it seems that the constitutional India would wither away in near future.
 
The Home Minister Amit Shah, while speaking in the Parliament, has shown false hopes of development to the Kashmiri people, as if Article 370 was the only hurdle. The intelligentsia shares the same vision of development. Those, who always talk of opposing the capitalist model, as per the experience till now, do this for funding and various types of national/international awards provided by the agencies of the neo-liberal establishment. The continuation of their programmes and the awards being in their names is their ulterior motive. Amit Shah knows that Hindus of Jammu region are not forbidden to buy movable and immovable property in the valley. But nothing like this has happened in the last 70 years. It is hardly possible that the Kashmiri Pandits, displaced from the valley, would return after this decision. In case some of them return, they will not opt for business there. Later, Amit Shah can say that foreign investment will be invited in the valley on large scales. He, in his speech, has expressed the possibility of big tourism companies coming to the valley. That is, marketist nationalism will also reach fast in the valley and Ladakh. The permission for such foreign investments might have already been taken from the US president Donald Trump! The decision on J&K was as dramatic as demonetisation. The Home Minister said that Article 370 is responsible for corruption, poverty, terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir!
 
A large number of people in the country believed that RSS/BJP would make LK Advani president of India, since he was suddenly pushed out of the prime minister’s race. They felt that if elders were not respected in the ‘pariwar’ (family), then where would they be respected? But this was not done. One can realize now that Advanimight not have agreed to the decision and the method adopted by the government.
 
Alongside Jammu and Kashmir are Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Pakistan. Hindu-Muslims within the country and India-Pakistan on the border – this all-time saga would remain an enduring dose for marketist nationalism. Otherwise, India has 20 thousand square kilometres of land under the occupation of China,and the Resolution to take it back had been passed by the Parliament just after the Indo-China war in 1962. With this decision, it has also been decided that Pakistan can do whatever it wants to do with the PoK. Before this decision, there were 24 vacant seats for the representatives of Pak Occupied Kashmir in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. The idea being that they would be filled when PoK is merged with India. Everyone knows that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is also in the international court. This decision will resonate there too. Maybe the government has agreed to accept any condition of America to calm the matter there!
 
In the light of this development, the people of Kashmir should also directly question the role of the separatists in the valley. They have an equal role, with the government, in demolishing democracy in the state. If they believe that their forefathers chose to live in secular India instead of theocratic Pakistan, then the divide of Hindu-Muslim has to be bridged in the coming decades. The separatists and terrorists want to preserve this divide and thus help the communalist elements in the polity and the society. The role of the Hindu citizens of Jammu region of the state would be important in this venture. It can be hoped that they will play this role positively. It is true that the RSS/BJP senior leaders, from Shyama Prasad Mookerjee to MurliManohar Joshi, have been marching to Srinagar with their agenda. But the Gandhians, including Jai Prakash Narayan (JP) have made no less efforts to help and sympathize with the Kashmiri people.
 
The people of Kashmir have to understand that not only they, but the rest of the country’s people were also not taken into confidence for this decision. It is reported that even some ministers of the government were not aware. They do not need to get excited and angry. They can create a new leadership and politics, for which democracy is the only way. They have to understand that the autonomy of the entire nation is at stake. They will have to reconcile their struggle with the struggle of the people of the country fighting against neo-imperialism. The next phase of the struggle, in Gandhi’s country, should be civil disobedience, based on non-violence and satyagraha, in which citizens of the entire state should participate.
 
(Writer, a former fellow of Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, teaches Hindi in Delhi University)
 
 
 

The post Government’s Decision on Jammu and Kashmir: A Long Leap into Unconstitutionality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
On the occasion of the 75th anniversary, Prime Minister NarendraModi gave a call for the revival of the spirit of the Quit India Movement by coining a new slogan – ‘karengeaurkarkerahenge‘  -in place of Gandhi’s slogan,‘karoyamaro‘ – Do or Die. This slogan is a sort of exhortation to achieve the goal of building a ‘New India’ by the year 2022. He said that India will complete 75 years of Independence in 2022, and the memory of the 75th anniversary of the Quit India Movement should be utilized by striving for the creation of a New India, so that the vision can be realized by the 75th anniversary of Independence.
 
Prime Minister’s call for New India is utterly misaligned with the basic spirit which underlay the Quit India movement. It is an unmindfully bizarre effort to make a stagnant mentality, which is otherwise known as ‘Manuvad’, fit in with the borrowed and poor digital setup. This New India is being built at the cost of the Constitution, the sovereignty and the resources of the country. Since the Constitution, the sovereignty and the resources of the country had been achieved with the Independence from the colonial power, of which the Quit India Movement was the gateway, it is natural for the Prime Minister to think that the spirit of the struggle for Independence, including the Quit India Movement, would hold any meaning only when it is used for building a New India. This can only be possible when the spirit of freedom is reduced into spirit of slavery. In his call, this obvious meaning can be read that the time has come to correct the ‘incorrect’ spirit of freedom struggle. The RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS) was farsighted enough, when it had opposed the struggle of Independence inspired by an incorrect spirit!
 
The communists of India would be called honest because they had opposed the Quit India Movement and, at the same time, had no concern with the spirit of Quit India Movement, and the people and leaders who participated in it. Although the Communist Party of India (CPI) had later apologized for its role in the Quit India Movement, but even today, most communist leaders and intellectuals can still be found to argue in favour of their opposing role during the Quit India Movement on the basis of international conditions. They consider the Independence of India in 1947 as a consequence of international conditions, not the result of the Indian people’s struggle and sacrifices.
 
In this article, the spirit of freedom which inspired the people of India during the Quit India Movement, has been contemplated with reference to Lohia’s analysis of the same. Lohia uses the phrase ‘will of freedom’ instead of ‘spirit of freedom’ in his analysis.
 
In the Indian freedom struggle, the will of freedom and the strength, gathered from various sources, to achieve Independence finally culminated in the Quit India Movement. The Quit India Movement conveyed the fact that even if the leaders of the country were directed by the will of freedom, the real strength to achieve it decisively resided in public. In this nationwide movement, a large number of people participated and the movement witnessed unprecedented courage and endurance. Lohia has written, quoting Leon Trotsky, “… barely one percent of the Russian population took part in the Russian Revolution. In our Revolution, no less than 20% of our people took part.”
 
The ‘Quit India’ resolution was passed On August 8, 1942; ArunaAsaf Ali hoisted the tricolor on the Gowalia Tank ground; and on the night of 9^th August the senior leaders of the Congress were arrested. Due to the arrest of the leaders, the action plan of the movement could not be formulated. The relatively young leadership of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) was active, but it had to work underground. In such a situation, Jai Prakash Narayan (JP) wrote two long letters, from unknown places, to provide guidance and encouragement to the revolutionaries and to explain the character and method of the movement. It can be said that the public itself was its own leader during the Quit India Movement.
 
Lohia wrote on the25th anniversary of the Quit India Movement, “9th August was and will remain a people’s event. 15th August was a state event. … 9th August 1942 expressed the will of the people – we want to be free, and we shall be free. For the first time, after a long period in our history, crores of people expressed their desire to be free. … Anyhow, this is the 25th anniversary of 9th August 1942. It should be celebrated well. Its 50th anniversary perhaps will be celebrated in such a way that 15th August will be forgotten, and even 26th of January will either be foreshadowed or would equal it.”
 
Lohia did not live to see the 50th anniversary of the August Revolution. His belief that people will listen to him after his death, has been proved to be a delusion. The 50th anniversary of the August Revolution came in the wake of the New Economic Policies, which had already been introduced in the year 1991. These policies had opened the country’s doors to domestic and foreign multinationals for loot; and a 500-year-old mosque was demolished in the name of Lord Rama. Since then, due to the nexus of neo-liberalism and communalism, the ruling class of India has become a bitter enemy of the Indian people, who had paved the way for freedom while facing the suppression of the imperialist rulers in the Quit India Movement.
 
The inception of PM’s much glorified New India took place in 1991-1992.In the last three decades, the sovereignty and the resources from the country, and the constitutional rights from the public, have been snatched. The spirit of the freedom struggle, including that of the Quit India Movement, is being used, by its propagators, in the direction of building this very New India. ‘Lohiake log‘ (Men of Lohia), too, are involved in this venture. By the time it will be the 100th anniversary of the Quit India Movement, the picture of the New India would become quite certain.
 
In order to stop this future from becoming a reality, a new resolution must be taken by taking the aid of the words of Lohia, – ‘ we want to be free, and we shall be free’ from New India. Further, taking a cue from Lohia’s perception about the spirit of the Quit India Movement, it can be said that this revolution to regain India will be brought to life by the people of India as they did on August 9, 1942.
 
(The writer teaches Hindi at Delhi University and is former president of the  Socialist Party)

The post The Spirit of Quit India Movement: Lohia’s Perception appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Prof. Keshav Rao Jadhav, a prominent socialist thinker and leader passed away on June 16, 2018, at a hospital in Hyderabad at the age of 86. Prof. Jadhav was ill for a long time. His funeral took place the same day in Hyderabad in the presence of several leaders and activists associated with the Telangana movement and the socialist movement. His last rites were performed by his elder daughter according to the Arya Samaj method. Senior socialist leader (now in Congress) Jaipal Reddy, former Supreme Court judge and one of the trustees of ‘Ram Manohar Lohia Trust’ Sudershan Reddy, revolutionary poet Varvar Rao, senior Congress leader K. Jana Reddy, Telangana Jan Samiti president Prof. M. Kodandaram, along with other leaders, writers, journalists and artists, were present at the funeral. 
 
A teacher by profession, Prof. Jadhav served as a professor of English in Osmania University till his retirement. Prof. Jadhav was a man of dreams and ideas who joined the socialist movement in his student days. He was deeply inspired by the philosophy of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia. He was elected to the post of president of Socialist Yuvjan Sabha (SYS), the youth wing of the Socialist Party. He became a close associate of Dr. Lohia in the course of time and worked with him in ‘Mankind’ and ‘Jan,’ He published ‘Lohia in his words’ – a collection of quotations from the writings of Dr. Lohia – in the form of booklets. Comrade Ravela Somayya is planning to compile these booklets into a book. Prof. Jadhav brought out a magazine ‘New Mankind’, similar to ‘Mankind’, which he kept publishing for four to five years. He also published another magazine ‘Olympus’ for almost a decade. He kept himself engaged in holding and attending discussions, dialogues, workshops, seminars through various forums on issues and topics of social significance. He formed Lohia Vichar Manch with Kishan Patnayak. He was one of the trustees of ‘Ram Manohar Lohia Trust.’ He, thus, enriched the legacy of socialist philosophy and movement.         
 
He played a major role in the movement of the separate Telangana state from the late sixties to early seventies. He was arrested 17 times during the first phase of the movement and was jailed for two years. He led the Telangana Jan Samiti in order to achieve the goal. This was perhaps the reason that the Chief Minister of Telangana Mr. K. Chandrasekhar Rao condoled his demise.
 
Prof. Jadhav had been a constant fighter for the rights of the marginalized sections. Simultaneously, he was a champion of civil liberties. He led the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in Andhra Pradesh and later in Telangana. Prof. Jadhav, a true democrat, was against violent methods to be used either by the state or by the ultra-left groups called Maoists. He, however, was always in favour of a dialogue with the Maoists. He also constantly fought against the communal forces and worked for peace, harmony and relief during spells of communal riots the city of Hyderabad. Prof. Jadhav was jailed under MISA during the Emergency. 
 
Prof. Jadhav took an active part in the political activities of Janata Party and then the Lok Dal. He contested Lok Sabha election from Medak constituency against Mrs. Indira Gandhi. At last, he became disillusioned from the mainstream politics and got associated with Samajwadi Jan Parishad (SJP), formed in 1995 by Kishan Patnayak and other senior and young socialists to counter the New Economic Policies imposed in 1991. He held the responsibility of vice president in SJP. But his mind was ever on a quest. He played a major role in the re-establishment of the original Socialist Party in 2011 in Hyderabad as Socialist Party (India). He remained associated with his new party till the end.
 
Prof. Jadhav will be remembered as a man of courage, conviction and commitment. The Socialist Party (India) has lost its three stalwarts – Bhai Vaidya, Justice Rajindar Sachar and now Prof. Jadhav – within the last three months. The demise of Prof. Jadhav is indeed a big loss to the socialist movement in general and to the Socialist Party in particular.
 
We pay our humble tributes to him with a pledge that the fight for socialism will go on uninterrupted.
 
The author teaches Hindi at Delhi University and is president of Socialist Party (India.)
 

The post Prof. Keshav Rao Jadhav: A Man of Courage, Conviction and Commitment appeared first on SabrangIndia.