It stands in sharp contrast to how India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru intervened to get a scholarship for a young Irfan Habib in spite of the fact that he was member of communist party, faced some penal action from the Aligarh Muslim University for his activities.

The present case of shocking police action against Mahmudabad – putting him behind bars on very grave charges – over his posts needs a close look before putting it in the historical context of how Nehru helped Habib, who would go on to become a famous historian in the future.

Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s Facebook post

Mahmudabad, a young, bright and brilliant academic, was arrested by Haryana police on the grounds that his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor (conducted by Indian Army to deal with the threat of terrorism from Pakistan) among others, incited rebellion and hurt religious feelings.

Mahmudabad remarked in his post that the press briefings on Operation Sindoor conducted by colonel Sofiya Qureshi and wing commander Vyomika Singh were important and constituted good optics. While noting with satisfaction that many right wing commentators applauded colonel Qureshi, he boldly spelt out his concerns that the “optics” could be counted as “hypocrisy” if those commentors, in their role as Indian citizens failed in demanding equally loudly, the protection of “ the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering”.

He also referred to the example of a prominent Muslim politician who said “Pakistan Murdabad” and was trolled by Pakistanis and applauded by Indian right wing commentators hailing him as “our mulla”. “Of course this is funny” remarked Mahmudabad and observed with sadness “but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the Indian body politic.”

However, he displayed optimism that the press conference addressed by colonel Qureshi and wing commander Singh offered him a fleeting glimpse of, what he said, “to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built”. “As I said,” he said, “the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

It is preposterous to think that what he wrote pointed to sedition or attempts to stoke enmity among people professing diverse faiths. The arrest of professor Ali Khan is an example of State action egregiously violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and rule of law.

Nehru on Irfan Habib

It is against this sordid backdrop that we may recall how seventy years back in 1955, Nehru intervened to get a scholarship for Irfan Habib, now a renowned historian. Nehru’s intervention was warranted because the Home Ministry had raised objections owing to the fact that Habib was a member of the Communist Party.

Following Zakir Hussain’s pleadings that Habib should be helped Nehru met him. In the letter to Zakir Hussain, Nehru wrote that Habib was a Member of Communist party and the government scholarship should not be given to someone who might use it to study and later act against the State.

“No State,” Nehru wrote, “ could be expected to go out of its way to give a scholarship to a person on whom it could not rely or who was likely to indulge in activities which were harmful to the State”.

It is instructive that Nehru in that letter described Irfan and his comrades as Jesuits and he wrote that they belonged “… to the strict order and not over-scrupulous in their dealings with others, provided they carry out the dictates of that order to whom they owe their basic loyalty”.

“I see no reason why Government should go out of its way to offer a scholarship to a person who is so tied up with an order of this kind, whether it is the communist party or some other,” Nehru sharply noted.

However, while he did make those remarks, Nehru also showed his statesmanship and wrote, “I recognise, of course, that one must not judge young people too strictly and youthful enthusiasm must not be ignored. Probably, with some greater experience, one grows out of these immature grooves of thought and action”.

In the end, he advised the Ministry of Education to give scholarship to Habib with the remarks that “…. he is a young man of intelligence and, I believe, integrity and both these qualities will no doubt influence his future growth.”

Modi regime criminalising dissent

Seventy years after Nehru displayed his liberality while dealing with a young dissenting academic like Habib and granted him a scholarship, a young professor like Mahmudabad is being put behind bars for his Facebook post which is full of constructive crticisim rooted in idea of India. Eventually Mahmudabad will triumph because in his own words, “India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to former President of India K.R. Narayanan.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Constituent Assembly discussed Article 289 of the draft Constitution (corresponding Article 324 of the Constitution) dealing with the setting up of the Election Commission of India on June 15 and 16, 1949, such a proposal never came up.

Therefore, the said recommendation of the Kovind Commission and the in-principle acceptance of it by the Union cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clear violation of the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly.

Ambedkar never envisaged ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea

It is worthwhile to go through the discussions that took place in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 after Dr B.R. Ambedkar moved Article 289 which, among others, provided that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Parliament and to the legislature of every state would be vested in a body outside the Executive to be called the Election Commission.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time.

He then stated that the Election Commission would be a permanent body with one man called the Chief Election Commissioner with a skeleton machinery at his disposal to conduct elections which he said “will generally take place at the end of five years”.

But he was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time, therefore he proceeded to add, “The assembly may be dissolved before its period of five years has expired. Consequently, the electoral rolls will have to be kept up to date all the time so that the new election may take place without any difficulty.

“It was, therefore, felt that having regard to these exigencies, it would be sufficient if there was permanently in session one officer to be called the Chief Election Commissioner, while when the elections are coming up, the President may further add to the machinery by appointing other members to the Election Commission.”

Quite clearly, Dr Ambedkar’s utterances in the Constituent Assembly that elections would generally take place at the end of five years and there would be the necessity of conducting another election within the five-year time frame in case an assembly got dissolved underlined his intent that in India simultaneous elections to assemblies could not be prescribed by the Constitution.

Shibbon Lala Saxena’s stand in the Constituent Assembly

Another distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly Shibbon Lal Saxena, while participating in the discussion on Article 289, referred to the point made by Dr Ambedkar that the Election Commission might not have adequate work after the conduct of elections and so it should have only Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners would be appointed, if required, prior to the announcement of election schedules.

Saxena went on to say, “In our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise but they will be at varying times in accordance with the vote of no-confidence passed in various legislatures and the consequent dissolution of the legislatures.”

Even before he articulated those thoughts he stated, “Our Constitution does not provide for a fixed four-year cycle like the one in the United States of America. The elections will probably be almost always going on in some province or the other.”

While noting that India would have about thirty provinces after the integration of states into the Indian Union he made it very clear that “our Constitution provides for the dissolution of the legislature when a non-confidence is passed” and presciently remarked, “So it is quite possible that the elections to the various legislatures in the province and the Centre will not be all concurrent.”

He forcefully observed, “Every time some election or other will be taking place somewhere.” Then he very prophetically said, “It may not be so in the very beginning or in the very first five or ten years. But after ten or twelve years, at every moment some elections in some province will be going on.”

“Therefore,” he said, “it will be far more economical and useful if a permanent Election Commission is appointed— not only the Chief Election Commissioner but three or five members of the commission who should be permanent and who should conduct the elections.”

He dispelled the notion that the Election Commission would be deficient in terms of work because, according to him, frequent elections would be conducted taking into account the exigencies of the situation that would arise following the premature dissolution of legislatures after the fall of the governments, among others, on the basis of passage of no-confidence motions against them.

Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections simultaneously.

Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections, as accepted by Modi regime, simultaneously for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

It corresponded to the aforementioned statement of Dr Ambedkar who while stating that elections “will generally take place at the end of five years” was deeply conscious of the fact that a legislature might get dissolved before its mandated period of five years and it would necessitate an election.

R.K. Sidhwa’s stand

Another prominent member, R.K. Sidhwa, while speaking on the discussion on the Election Commission in the Constituent Assembly said, “We shall have now about 4,000 members in all the provinces and there will be bye-elections. Surely, every month there will be two or three elections— some will die, some will be promoted to high offices— some will go here and there.”

“In this Constituent Assembly,” he said, “during the short period we have had a number of bye-elections although we had nothing to do with them, but in the places from which they have come there have been a number of elections.”

He, therefore, stated that apart from necessity and fairness, the Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.

Describing the electoral roll as the principal thing in an election he appealed for establishing an impartial and independent Election Commission to deal with the situation necessitating the organisation of multiple elections.

The Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.

He did not pay heed to those who flagged that more expenses would be incurred for that purpose and pleaded for an Election Commission empowered to conduct elections with impartiality, fairness and integrity.

Culture of accountability getting eroded

Therefore, the Modi-led cabinet’s decision to accept in principle the recommendation of the Kovind Commission centered around the ‘One Nation, One Election’ scheme negates the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly and the vision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

Such a recommendation is contrary to the ethos of parliamentary democracy defined in terms of the accountability of the government to the legislature. The sooner that recommendation is abandoned, the better it would be for the cause of upholding the ideal of accountability which has been severely eroded during the last ten years.

The author was Press Secretary to President of India late KR Narayanan.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Constituent Assembly Did Not Envision ‘One Nation, One Election’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nehru campaigned against communalism during first general elections

Modi targeting Muslim community of our country in his campaign speeches have no parallel in the electoral history of independent India. Those deplorable articulations of Modi reminds one of the warnings of the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru, who just before the conduct of the first general elections, had flagged that the appeal of parties by employing communal rhetoric for votes would put unity and integrity of the people and country into peril.

“This activity,” he stated,  “seldom concerns itself with any positive proposals and  asserted that “It was  largely a denunciation of Government and more especially of what is called the ‘appeasement’ policy of Government towards Muslims.” Nehru noted with sadness that “this kind of thing, adorned with an abundance of vulgar abuse, sometimes goes down with the crowd.”

Those prescient observations of Nehru uttered a few months before the first general elections are now playing out and the vulgarity associated with the communal phrases and idioms being employed by Modi and many other leaders of the BJP while campaigning during the 18^th general elections make the country mindful of the dangers of such an approach  to our unity.

Nehru while taking note of the dangers of this vulgar and foolish approach and the inherent poison of communalism, expressed satisfaction that  people he  addressed with full  facts responded by rejecting that toxicity.  For instance in his election speech delivered in Ludhiana on September 30, 1951 he addressed a  gathering of about one lakh people and gave a call for an”all-out war” on communalism.

Nehru’s warning on Hindu State

Nehru in the aforementioned letter observed  that “Behind these communal bodies are the forces of every kind of social reaction”. He proceeded to add that “Some of the old ruling princes, deprived of their powers but having enough money, the jagirdars, the big zamindars, and some of the big capitalists, support these communal bodies and talk loudly of a Hindu State or a Sikh State and of ancient Hindu culture”.

“Behind this garb of ancient culture,” Nehru sharply remarked, “they hide the narrowest acquisitiveness and reaction”.

He stated, “Essentially, these communal bodies are fascist in ideology and technique. They indulge in violence and disturbance and try to terrorize people or appeal to their lowest instincts. This has seemed to me, therefore, the major evil today and I have consequently laid great stress upon it.”

Nehru’s observation in 1951 that “the big zamindars, and some of the big capitalists, support these communal bodies and talk loudly of a Hindu State or a Sikh State and of ancient Hindu culture” bear special significance in the context of the huge corporates and crony capitalists supporting and funding BJP, and Prime Minister Modi  relentlessly using highly inflammable communal narratives with an intention to polarise the electorates.

Warning on casteism  

In another letter to chief ministers on November 1, 1951 Nehru while stating that several aspects of  electioneering was most depressing as he wondered sometimes “if this particular form of democracy cannot be improved upon”. With anguish he noted that electioneering brought about  the “undesirable features in a man’s nature, his desire for power and position, his acquisitiveness and wish for self-advancement even at the cost of others, his losing all perspective of the larger issues and judging everything by some petty and personal electoral victory”. He observed with pain that caste groups were likely to play a very negative role in the elections. Noting that the Congress party took into account those worrisome developments and, therefore, in one of its sessions  passed a special resolution about anti-social tendencies and expressed the resolve of the party to  stoutly face the problem without compromising with them.

Communalism most dangerous development

Nehru, however, observed in the same letter that the most dangerous development of that time was that of communalism and separatism. He referred to the remark of Syama Prasad Mookerjee who dismissed the existence of communalism in India except the Congress policy of Muslim appeasement and described him as someone functioned in communal organisations and played  an exceedingly narrow-minded and communal role. He charged that people like Syama Prasad  saw communalism in some other group, and not their own.

Communalism flourished in the name of nationalism

Nehru observed that the partition and its consequences largely  pushed out Muslim communalism to Pakistan, where it flourished exceedingly and  resulted in encouraging Hindu and Sikh communalism in India and many other separatist tendencies. “These flourished,” he remarked,  “in the name of nationalism and culture” and   proceeded to state that those who demanded strong action including war against Pakistan, criticised his government’s  policy as one of appeasement of Pakistan,  had little role in the struggle for India’s freedom and ostensibly claimed that they were true champions of nationalism. It is quite striking that he was saying so during election campaign.

Defeat of  communalism and dealing with economic problems

Nehru also flagged Syama Prasad’s statements that communalism and separatism were not the real problems of India as much as  poverty and unemployment were. While agreeing with the point that the primary problem of India was economic in nature and everything else was secondary, Nehru stressed that to  tackle that problem effectively, there should be some unity of conception and effort.

Stating that persistence of  separatism and sectarianism would make it difficult to tackle the primary economic  problem, he wrote, “Therefore, it is of primary importance to scotch and try to put an end to these communal and separatist tendencies in order to go ahead with the primary problem of India’s economic ills”.

“But if we allow the communal spirit to grow,” he warned “…. inevitably social reaction will also grow and prevent economic progress.”

“I would like to repeat…,” he emphatically noted, “it is better to lose elections than to give up something which has been the basis of our national movement and that is the foundation of all progress in India.”

Those words of the first prime minister of India, uttered during the first general elections,  are of seminal importance when Prime Minister Modi is negating the idea of India by his visceral communal articulations and imperilling the very foundation of our country just for winning election and getting access to power.

S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan

Courtesy: The Wire

The post What Nehru Flagged as ‘Most Dangerous’ Modi Now Invokes for Votes appeared first on SabrangIndia.