Prabir Purkayastha, a 75-year old senior journalist, author, and founding editor of the independent newsportal Newsclick, whose office and home were repeatedly searched for weeks on end for incriminating evidence without any being found, has been arrested and, despite being imprisoned for nearly six months, is yet to be served a charge-sheet; the harmful effects of such an action on media independence are obvious for everyone to see, says the statement.

A group of prominent international scholars, academicians, and writers has sounded the alarm over the prolonged incarceration of critics of the BJP government in India. This open letter with known names such as Amitav Ghosh and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has been published urging the global community to pay attention to the erosion of democratic principles in the world’s largest democracy, and released by SAHMAT.

“India has long been admired internationally as an exemplary democracy, and the largest in the world. Any abridgement of democracy in India is tragic, not only for the people of India, but for all of humanity. We write this letter to alert international opinion to these recent alarming developments in that country and to urge those holding positions of responsibility in the various organs of the Indian state,” reads the statement. The statement especially mentions the case of online media portal, Newsclick’s founding editor, 75-year-old journalist, author, Prabir Purkayastha who has been in custody for nearly six months without being charged. Some of the other signatories of the letter include academics Charles Taylor, Judith Butler, Wendy Brown, Sheldon Pollock, and David Shulman.

Others have been incarcerated even longer, such as those arrested in the Bheema-Koregaon case who (with the exception of those whom the courts have released on bail on medical or technical-legal grounds) have been languishing in prison for over five years without any trial.

Likewise, many accused in the Delhi riots case have been in prison for over three years without any trial –and often without complete charge sheets brought against them; some, who have been charged, but with no trial in sight, have spent even longer in jail than the maximum legal sentence warranted by the charges against them.

This extended incarceration without trial has been given legislative backing, through an amendment to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act passed by the Indian parliament.   But legislative backing provides no justification for such incarceration. Indeed, to use it as a justification amounts to saying that Constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights can be abrogated through a legislative majority; that, notwithstanding Constitutional provisions, someone can be imprisoned for any length of time by a government enjoying a legislative majority. This amounts to undermining the Constitution and overturning the structures of democracy. 

A separate note was also penned and released by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen directed to “my fellow citizens,”  where he highlighted a series of cases where journalists and activists have been detained solely for expressing dissent against the current administration. “There are, of course, many other unjust uses of compelling law that continue in India, despite our hope of building a fairly governed country, but imprisonment without trial and without fairness in the treatment of human beings is certainly among the worst injustices that the country has made into a regular arrangement.”

Recently, after the detention of Delhi chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal in relation to a liquor policy scam, the US state department released a statement citing the importance of ensuring a “fair, transparent and timely legal process” and that the US was closely monitoring the case of the chief minister. India soon summoned a top diplomat after the statement was made and the foreign ministry stated, “We take strong objection to the remarks”.

However, state department spokesperson Mattew Miller declined to comment  on the summons citing confidential diplomatic meetings the following day, also stated that the US government was  aware about how the Congress party’s funds were also frozen in their banks.

The statement by academics also states that, “India has long been admired internationally as an exemplary democracy, and the largest in the world . Any abridgement of democracy in India is tragic, not only for the people of India, but for all of humanity. We write this letter to alert international opinion to these recent alarming developments in that country and to urge those holding positions of responsibility in the various organs of the Indian state, in particular the judiciary, to ensure that the abridgements we are currently witnessing are reversed, and that no encroachment occurs on the fundamental rights of its citizens. Those holding such positions of responsibility will be remembered by posterity if they honourably stand up for Indian democracy.” 

Signatories include:

1. Amitav Ghosh, Novelist and Author, New York.
2. Wendy Brown, UPS Foundation Professor, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton.
3. Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor, Department of Comparative Literature, and the Program of Critical Theory, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, University Professor, Columbia University, New York.
5. Sheldon Pollock, Arvind Raghunathan Professor Emeritus of South Asian Studies, Columbia University, New York.
6. Martha C. Nussbaum, Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Chicago, Chicago.
7. Steven Lukes, Professor of Politics and Sociology, New York University, New York.
8. David Bromwich, Sterling Professor of English, Yale University, New Haven.
9. Marjorie Cohn, Professor,Thomas Jefferson School of Law,San Diego; former president, National Lawyers Guild, U.S.A.
10. Jonathan Cole, John Mitchell Mason Professor, Provost & Dean of Faculties (1989-2003),
    Columbia University, New York.
11. Janet Gyatso,Hershey Professor of Buddhist Studies and Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs, Divinity School, Harvard University, Cambridge.
12. Carol Rovane, Violin Family Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University, New York.
13. Jan Werner-Muller, Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton.
14. Charles Taylor, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory, Oxford University; and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at University of Montreal.
15. 15. Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy; Professor, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York.
16. David Shulman, Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Amartya K. Sen, Thomas W. Lamont University Professor, and Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Harvard University, Cambridge, supports this statement (see the supporting statement attached).

The separate statement released by Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen is below:

ON THE UNDERMINING OF ELEMENTARY FREEDOMS IN INDIA

 Amartya Sen

Some friends of mine have recently written a cogent statement on the violation of elementary freedoms in contemporary India, and, even though I do not, as a rule, sign joint letters, I would like to add my voice to theirs. So this is written as a general statement addressed to my fellow citizens.

Under British rule, Indians were often arrested and imprisoned without trial, and some were kept in prison for a long time. (As many of my family members were trying hard to free India from colonial rule, several of them experienced this kind of treatment of imprisonment without trial.) As a young man, I had hoped that as India became independent, this unjust system, in use in colonial India, would stop. This has not, alas, happened, and the unsupportable practice of arresting and keeping accused human beings in prison without trying them has continued in free and democratic India.

Along with others who are rightly outraged by this injustice, I must also strongly express my sense of indignation at this basic violation of human freedom in my own country, whose claim to being a democracy is strongly negated by such practice.

There are, of course, many other unjust uses of compelling law that continue in India, despite our hope of building a fairly governed country, but imprisonment without trial and without fairness in the treatment of human beings is certainly among the worst injustices that the country has made into a regular arrangement. We should very much hope that the judicial system of India will have the good sense to eliminate barbarities of this kind.”

Related:

UN High Commissioner of Human Rights raises concerns about minorities in India, government calls them ‘unwarranted’

India third highest across the world to enforce internet shutdowns

Day 23 of Farmers March: Mass withholding of social media ahead of march to Delhi, third time since the beginning of the protest

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

YouTube strikes again, independent channel Media Swaraj, critical of regime shut down without notice, back on after outrage

The post Top US academics, including Amartya Sen, condemn long incarceration of journalists & activists, erosion of Indian democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kolkata: Many intellectuals have extended their support to Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, amidst allegations by the Vice Chancellor of Visva Bharati University and a notice by the University to Sen that the latter has allegedly occupied University land. Sen has said that he will respond to the University legally through his legal counsel. 

According to PTI, a letter sent to Sen, signed by the Deputy Registrar of the University earlier this week, read, “It has been found from records and physical survey/demarcation that you are in unauthorised occupation of 13 decimals of land belonging to Visva-Bharati…” There have been allegations from certain quarters that the University’s actions may be politically motivated as Sen has been critical of many Central government policies.

Last Wednesday, during the Upasana (prayer) at a Mandir in Shantiniketan, VC Bidyut Chakraborty had sarcastically said, “In Visva Bharati, all are Tagorean, even lawbreakers, encroachers of varsity land are Tagorean, VC baiters are also tTagorean.”  He also claimed that Sen is not a recipient of the Nobel Prize. 

Meanwhile, at his house, Pratichi, Sen on Friday said that he has no clue why this issue has been raked up and whose brain is working behind it. Regarding the VC’s comment that Sen has not won the Nobel Prize, he said that anybody can make comments and he doesn’t have to comment on it.  

“If the VC thinks, that I am not knocking the door of the court out of fear, then one should have a rethink about his mindset,” said Sen. As he met a few students from the university – who spoke about the falling standards at the university – Sen said that he is perturbed to hear that.

Antara Devsen, Amartya Sen’s daughter and renowned journalist, who is also the managing trustee of Pratichi trust, which was set up by Sen, said, “We are talking about land leased 80 years ago to certain people invited by a fledgling Visva Bharati to help contribute to Tagore’s dream — building an abode of peace, Santiniketan, with universal cultural values and education without borders. Each ‘Aashramik’ in their own way helped build that dream and helped make Visva Bharati a truly special educational institute with an extraordinary campus and lifestyle. Casting aspersions on some of them, calling them land grabbers etc, shows a stunning lack of gratitude and taste, and undermines everything that Visva Bharati once stood for. For this is not about Amartya Sen, who inherited the land, it is about a wilful disrespect of history. Besides, the claims are quite ridiculous since we have valid papers for the land.” 

Responding to the allegations, Kaushik Bhattacharya, secretary of Visva Bharati University Faculty Association (VBUFA), said that on three sides of Sen’s land, the adjacent lands are private lands and on the fourth side was adjacent to PWD land. He added that there was no land owned by the University adjacent to Sen’s land.   

“If Visva Bharati University is saying that their land has been encroached upon, then they should try to prove their claim that Amartya Sen has encroached upon their land. This is an unfair game that is being played. The allegation regarding the Nobel Prize of Amartya Sen is even murkier. The VC has said that Amartya Sen has not won the Nobel Prize. Sen has never said that he won the Nobel Prize, but it is the common people and the media all over the world who rejoiced that Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize. Two persons had in the past filed cases in the lower court and in Supreme Court also on this matter, but they were dismissed by the courts,” he said.

Former VC of Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, Pabitra Sarkar, who is also the recipient of the highest civilian award of the Government of Japan, said, “At the time of the inception of the Nobel prize, awards were there only for chemistry, physics, medicine, literature and peace. In 1905, Alfred Nobel died. Later, the Swedish state bank gave money to the Nobel award committee to start an award in memory of Alfred Nobel and it is considered a Nobel Prize in economics.”

On the controversy surrounding his house, she said that the allegations do not stand on any footing as it was nearly 100 years ago that Sen’s grandfather, Khsitimohan Sen, had got that land. “It is a fact that for political reasons, the BJP government does not like Sen and hence, he is being harassed for frivolous reasons,” she added. 

Professor Anjan Bera of Calcutta University said that the allegations are actually an attack on three aspects. “One, it is an attack on the very idea of Visva Bharati, secondly on the very legacy of Visva Bharati, which began 100 years ago as a part of the nationalistic effort as an alternative to the colonial education system. And thirdly, an attack on Professor Sen, who is a global icon. The allegations are a matter of shame and unfortunately, it is demeaning to Visva Bharati’s prestige before the entire world. Even Prof Sen’s Nobel Prize is being challenged – the whole thing is so low in taste. Do these people not want professor Amartya Sen to stay at Shantiniketan with due honour and peace?” he asked. 

Sujan Chakraborty, CPI(M) central committee member, alleged that as Amartya Sen detracts from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS’ philosophy, Modi and the RSS are trying to defame Amartya. “Hence, this sort of attack is being rained down on him and the VC is just an instrument for it,” he said. 

Swapan Pramanik, who is the former VC of Vidyasagar University, told NewsClick: “I heard that the VC of VBU is saying that Amartya Sen has not received the Nobel Prize and these are childlike utterances with criminal intent. To detract Amartya Sen he is raising questions which do not have any grounding or importance.” 

He said that there is a huge mass movement brewing amongst all stakeholders of Visva Bharati and to hide that, the VC has raked up the issue of the land controversy. “However, the VC has not got any iota of support regarding that. According to me, raking up the issue after 100 years of their residence on that piece of land is an offence on the part of Visva Bharati,” he added. 

Renowned economist and columnist, Professor Ratan Khasnobish, said that Sen is one of the top economists in the world and has made India proud in several ways. “The high place that he enjoys in the society is being tried to be lowered for political interests by the Visva Bharati authorities and this is a heinous attempt thoroughly uncalled for and unprecedented in many ways. However, I feel more protests should happen in the society against this, but it is not happening and as a Bengali, I feel bad about it,” he said. 

Professor Ishita Mukherjee from the Department of Economics of Calcutta University said that what the Visva Bharati authorities are doing is unacceptable. “This kind of political vindictiveness has been observed in those who tried maligning historians such as Romila Thapar and Irfaan Habib. Now, they are doing the same with Amartya Sen,” she said. 

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Intellectuals Criticise Visva Bharati VC for Accusing Amartya Sen of Occupying University Land appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Kolkata: Nobel laureate and renowned economist Amartya Sen on Sunday came out in support of Naseeruddin Shah and said that attempts were being made to “disturb” the actor. Shah was mired in a controversy after his video discussing mob violence and cows gaining precedence over human lives went viral. Shah had also expressed fear for his children and had said that he was afraid what would happen to them if a mob surrounded them and asked about their religion.
 
In a 2.13-minute solidarity video for the human rights watchdog Amnesty India, Shah had said on Friday that those who demand rights are being locked up.
 
Speaking at an event Professor Sen came out in full support of actor Naseeruddin Shah. Asked by reporters on the veteran actor’s comments, Sen said, “We must protest against such attempts to disturb the actor… What has been happening (in the country) is objectionable. It should stop.”
 
In his speech, Professor Amartya Sen stressed on the need for fostering and maintaining humanity, “During the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, what we did, does not come under social responsibility but it is in our humanity to stand by the oppressed. What is happening to Bengali Muslims in Assam in the name of NRC or the deportation of Rohingyas to Myanmar can never be justified. We as humans have failed to do our basic human responsibility to stand with the oppressed.”
 
He also said, “We need to come out in full support of people like Shah and at the same time be vociferous against those who condemn views expressed by the likes of Naseeruddin Shah.”
 
Professor Sen further added, “The atmosphere of religious intolerance is gaining momentum each passing day. So every rational person should come forward and protest against this kind of environment.”
 
When asked why a country like India, which is secular, is witnessing such religious intolerance and what are the reasons behind it, Professor Sen smiled and said, “This could well be qualified as a doctoral thesis. But yes, social reasons coupled with political reasons is the cause.”
 
About troll attacks against personalities like Shah, he said, “Losing the ability to tolerate others is a serious cause for concern, it points to the loss of ability to think and analyse.”
 
The 85-year-old renowned economist was attending the golden jubilee celebration of a Bengali magazine Samatat. He addressed a gathering at Purbashree auditorium, EZCC on Sunday.
 
Along with Prof Sen, Indologist Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri, singers Srikanta Acharya and Sraboni Sen, elocutionist Ratna Mitra, Mayor of Bidhannagar Corporation Sabyasachi Dutta were also present at the occasion.
 
Under the hashtag #AbkiBaarManavAdhikaar, the Amnesty had claimed that India has witnessed a massive crackdown on freedom of expression and human rights defenders.
 
In his solidarity message in Urdu, Naseeruddin Shah had said, “Artistes, actors, scholars, poets are all being stifled. Journalists too are being silenced. In the name of religion, walls of hatred are being erected. Innocents are being killed. The country is awash with horrific hatred and cruelty.”
 
Last month, after the killing of a cop in UP’s Bulandshahr, the 68-year-old actor had said the death of a cow had more significance than that of a police officer in the country.
 
His visit to a literary fest in December was also cancelled following protests by Hindu outfits over his comments on mob violence.

The post Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen backs Naseeruddin Shah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

"We are shocked and angered by the recent Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) demand that certain words be excised from a film based on the work of the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen. The movie is titled after Sen’s 2005 work, The Argumentative Indian, which was widely acknowledged for its deep and authentic explorations of India’s traditions of public debate.
 
The CBFC has reportedly demanded that certain words used by Sen and other scholars and public intellectuals interviewed in the film should be bleeped out if it is to be granted certification for public exhibition. These words include “cow”, “Hindutva view of India”, “Hindu India” and “Gujarat”.

The CBFC’s exertions under its current chair have long crossed the line from farce to tragedy. Occasional efforts to bring it to its senses, such as the stern judicial reprimand handed down in the Udta Punjab case, seem to have no more than transient effect. With its diktat on The Argumentative Indian, the CBFC shows yet again that its anxiety to protect the sensitivities of the political regime, overwhelm any manner of commitment to the Constitution and the law. At risk in this plunge into absurdity, are our most valuable traditions of free speech and debate."

Other Signatories include: Irfan Habib Ashok Mitra, Romila Thapar, Shyam Benegal, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Saeed Mirza, Anand Patwardhan, Prabhat Patnaik, Mihir Bhattacharya
Ram Rahman, Parthiv Shah, Madangopal Singh, Vivan Sundaram, Nilima Sheikh, Sohail Hashmi, Geeta Kapur, Anil Chandra, Kumi Chandra, M.K.Raina, Rajni Arora, Jahar Kanungo
Rajinder Arora, D. N. Jha, Sashi Kumar, Shireen Moosvi, K.M.Shrimali, Arjun Dev, Anil Bhatti, M.M.P. Singh, Rekha Awasthi, Amir Rizvi, P.K.Shukla, Lata Singh, Dinesh Abrol, Archana Prasad, Githa Hariharan, Kumkum Sangari, Rakhshanda Jalil, Kasim Sait, Virendra Saini, Mridula Mukherjee, Zoya Hasan, C.P.Chandrasekhar, Aditya Mukherjee, Ashok Nath Basu
Indira Chandrasekhar, Vishwa Mohan Jha, Sukumar Muralidharan, Sadanand Menon, A.J.Jawad, Ananya Vajpeyi, Malini Bhattacharya, Atlury Murali, Vikas Rawal, JavedAnand, Teesta Setalvad, K.L.Tuteja, Gopinath Ravindran, Sania Hashmi, Mohan Kumawat, IqtidarAlam Khan, Ishrat Alam, Tani Bhargav, Rajeev Bhargav, Ramesh Rawat, Nadeem Rezavi, Shamim Akhtar, Indira Arjun Dev, Mohan Rao, Jayati Ghosh, Nancy Adajania, Veer Munshi, Abhilasha Kumari, Romi Khosla, Neeraj Malik, Javed Malick, Zafar Agha, Madhu Prasad, KalpanaSahni, Amar Farooqui, B.P.Sahu, R.P.Bahuguna, Shakti Kak, Sarah Hashmi, Moggallan Bharti, Rahul Verma, N.K.Sharma
 

The post Censor Board’s Actions Have Moved From Farce to Tragedy: Intellectuals Condemn Censorship of Amartya Sen’s Film appeared first on SabrangIndia.

पीएम मोदी के फैसले 500 व 1000 के नोटों को बंद किए जाने पर भारत रत्न, नोबेल पुरस्कार विजेता और दिग्गज अर्थशास्त्री अमर्त्य सेन ने इंडियन एक्सप्रेस से विशेष बातचीत करते हुए नोटबंदी के फैसले पर अपने विचार रखें। उन्होंने कहा कि “लोगों को अचानक यह कहना कि आपके पास जो करेंसी नोट हैं वो किसी काम का नहीं है, उसका आप कोई इस्तेमाल नहीं कर सकते, यह अधिनायकवाद की एक अधिक जटिल अभिव्यक्ति है, जिसे कथित तौर पर सरकार द्वारा जायज ठहराया जा रहा है क्योंकि ऐसे कुछ नोट कुछ कुटिल लोगों द्वारा काला धन के रूप में जमा किए गए है।

नोटबंदी से लोगों को हो रही मुश्किलों पर उन्होंने कहा, “केवल एक अधिनायकवादी सरकार ही चुपचाप लोगों को इस संकट में झेलने के लिए छोड़ सकती है। आज लाखों निर्दोष लोगों को अपने पैसे से वंचित किया जा रहा है और अपने स्वयं के पैसे वापस लाने की कोशिश में उन्हें पीड़ा, असुविधा और अपमान सहना पड़ रहा है। सरकार की इस घोषणा से एक ही झटके में सभी भारतीयों को कुटिल करार दे दिया गया जो वास्तव में ऐसे नहीं हैं।”

जनसत्ता की खबर के अनुसार, जब उनसे पूछा गया कि क्या नोटबंदी का कुछ सकारात्मक असर दिखेगा जैसा कि प्रधानमंत्री दावा कर रहे हैं तो उन्होंने कहा, “यह मुश्किल लगता है। यह ठीक वैसा ही लगता है जैसा कि सरकार ने विदेशों में पड़े काला धन भारत वापस लाने और सभी भारतीयों को एक गिफ्ट देने का वादा किया था और फिर सरकार उस वादे को पूरा करने में असफल रही।”

आगे उन्होंने कहा, जो लोग काला धन रखते हैं उन पर इसका कोई खास असर पड़ने वाला नहीं है लेकिन आम निर्दोष लोगों को नाहक परेशानी उठानी पड़ रही है। उन्होंने कहा कि मोदी सरकार ने हर आम आदमी और छोटे कारोबारियों को सड़कों पर ला खड़ा किया है।

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter
 

The post केवल एक अधिनायकवादी सरकार ही चुपचाप लोगों को नोटबंदी जैसे संकट को झेलने के लिए छोड़ सकती हैः अमर्त्य सेन appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
PTI reports that “The circumstances under which the leadership change in Nalanda university has been suddenly and summarily effected is disturbing and possibly harmful to the university’s development,” he said in a statement to the members of the earlier board of the university.
 
The board was reconstituted by President Pranab Mukherjee as its visitor on November 21 which severed Sen’s nearly a decade-long association with the institution after the government reconstituted the governing body of the prestigious institution.
 
“It is puzzling why I, as Chancellor, was not even given notice of it. When I was invited to take over the responsibility from Amartya Sen last year, I was repeatedly assured that the university would have autonomy. This appears not to be the case now.

ये भी पढ़ें: मोदी की आलोचना की तो नहीं मिली अमर्त्य सेन को नालंदा विश्वविद्यालय में जगह
 
“Accordingly, and with deep sadness, I have submitted my letter of resignation as Chancellor to the Visitor,” Yeo said.
 
Sources said the President, in his capacity as the visitor of the university, approved the reconstitution of the governing board in accordance with provisions of the Nalanda University Act, 2010.
 
He also approved giving temporary charge of Vice Chancellor to senior-most Dean of the university as the current VC Gopa Sabharwal’s one year extension expired yesterday. It will be a stop-gap measure until the new Vice Chancellor is appointed.
 
The new governing board will be a 14-member body which will be chaired by the chancellor. It will also comprise vice-chancellor, along with five members nominated by India, China, Australia, Laos PDR and Thailand.
 
Former revenue secretary N K Singh, who was also member of the Nalanda Mentors Group, will represent India.

The post Nalanda University loses two Vice Chancellors, Sen and Yeo appeared first on SabrangIndia.

उन्हें 2007 में मनमोहन सरकार द्वारा नालंदा यूनिवर्सिटी का पुनः प्रवर्तन करने के बाद नालंदा मेंटर ग्रुप (NMG) का सदस्य बनाया गया था। सेन के अलावा हॉवर्ड के पूर्व प्रोफेसर और टीएमसी सांसद सुगता बोस और यूके के अर्थशास्त्री मेघनाथ देसाई को भी नए बोर्ड में जगह नहीं मिली है। वे दोनों भी NMG के सदस्य थे।
 
इंडियन एक्सप्रेस को जानकारी मिली है कि साथ ही साथ नए बोर्ड का भी गठन हो गया है। नए बोर्ड में चांसलर, वाइस चांसलर और पांच सदस्य होंगे। ये पांच सदस्य भारत, चीन, ऑस्ट्रेलिया, लाउस पीडीआर और थाईलैंड के होंगे। बोर्ड को तीन साल तक अधिकतम वित्त सहायता भी प्रदान की जाती है। 
 
सूत्रों से पता चला है कि भारत की तरफ से पूर्व नौकरशाह एन के सिंह को चुना गया है। वह भाजपा सदस्य और बिहार से राज्यसभा सांसद भी हैं। उनके अलावा केंद्र सरकार द्वारा तीन और नामों को दिया गया है। उनमें प्रोफेसर अरविंद शर्मा (धार्मिक अध्ययन संकाय, मैकगिल विश्वविद्यालय, कनाडा), प्रोफेसर लोकश चंद्रा (अध्यक्ष, भारतीय सांस्कृतिक संबंध परिषद) और डॉ अरविंद पनगढिया (वाइस चेयरमैन, नीति आयोग) के नाम शामिल हैं।

प्राप्त जानकारी के अनुसार प्रणब मुर्खजी ने नालंदा यूनिवर्सिटी के विजिटर की क्षमता से गर्वनिंग बॉडी के निर्माण की इजाजत दी थी। नालंदा विश्वविद्यालय (संशोधन) विधेयक 2013 को अगस्त 2013 में राज्यसभा के सामने लाया गया था।
 
जिसमें नालंदा विश्वविद्यालय अधिनियम 2010 के कुछ प्रावधानों में संशोधन करने को कहा गया था। लेकिन फिर लोकसभा चुनाव की वजह से उसपर काम नहीं हो पाया था। भाजपा के समर्थक और विधायक ने अमर्त्य सेन द्वारा मोदी के विरोध पर बहुत उग्र हो चुके हैं और उनकी बेटी को भी इस मामले में घसीट चुके हैं।

अमर्त्य सेन की बेटी नंदना सेन का मामला 
भाजपा के सांसद चन्दन मित्रा ने उस समय ट्वीट कर कहा था, कि अमर्त्य सेन से भारत रत्न छीन लेना चाहिए। सेन ने उस वक्त मोदी की आलोचना करते हुए कहा था कि एक हिन्दुस्तानी होने के नाते वह मोदी को प्रधानमंत्री के पद पर नहीं देखना चाहेंगे।  विवाद बढ़ा तो वीजेपी ने खुद को चंदन मित्रा से तब खुद को अलग कर लिया था। लेकिन यह हमला सिर्फ चंदन मित्रा तक ही सीमित नहीं था, यह आगे और भी बढ़ा और बीजेपी समर्थकों ने अपनी सारी हदें पार कर दीं। 
 
अमर्त्य सेन पर हमला यही नहीं रुका उनकी बेटी को भी बीजेपी समर्थकों ने सोशल मीडिया पर खिंचा। फेसबुक पर मोदी समर्थकों ने नंदना की टॉपलेस तस्वीर के साथ सेन की तस्वीर लगाईं और बहुत गालियाँ दी। इस तस्वीर पर कैप्शन लिखा था, अमर्त्य सेन साहब आप अपनी बेटी और अपना घर संभाल लीजिए, वही बहुत होगा आपके लिए।
 
इसके आगे लिखा गया कि देश और मोदी पर निर्णय लेने के लिए भारत के नागरिक बहुत हैं। हमें किसी भी विदेशी नागरिकता प्राप्त सठियाये बुड्ढे की सलाह नहीं चाहिए। बेटी तो संभाली नही जाती बात करते हैं मोदी की। सूत्रों कि माने तो अमर्त्य सेन को नहीं लेने की एक बड़ी वजह उनका मोदी विरोध है। 
 
इनपुट जनसत्ता से भी।

Courtesy: National Dastak

The post मोदी की आलोचना की तो नहीं मिली अमर्त्य सेन को नालंदा विश्वविद्यालय में जगह appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The saffron agenda of confounding mythology with history also undermines India’s magnificently multi-religious and heterodox history
 

Image: Tehelka.com

In an often–quoted remark, Henry Ford, the great captain of indus try, said, “History is more or less bunk.”  As a general statement about history, this is perhaps not an assessment of compelling delicacy. And yet Henry Ford would have been right to think, if that is what he meant, that history could easily become “bunk” through motivated manipulation.

This is especially so if the writing of history is manoeuvred to suit a slanted agenda in contemporary politics. There are organised attempts in our country, at this time, to do just that, with arbitrary augmentation of a narrowly sectarian view of India’s past, along with undermining its magnificently multi-religious and heterodox history. Among other distortions, there is also a systematic confounding here of mythology with history. 

An extraordinary example of this has been the interpretation of the Ramayana, not as a great epic, but as documentary history, which can be invoked to establish property rights over places and sites possessed and owned by others. (1) The Ramayana, which Rabindranath Tagore had seen as a wonderful legend (“the story of the Ramayana” is to be interpreted, as Tagore put it, not as “a matter of historical fact” but “in the plane of ideas”) and in fact as a marvellous parable of “reconciliation,” (2) is now made into a legally authentic account that gives some members of one community an alleged entitlement to particular sites and land, amounting to a license to tear down the religious places of other communities.  

Thomas de Quincey has an interesting essay called “Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts.” Rewriting of history for bellicose use can also, presumably, be a very fine art. I note the contemporary confounding of historical studies in India as the starting point of this lecture, even though I shall not be directly concerned with addressing these distortions: there are many superb historians in India to give these misconstructions their definitive due.  

Instead, I shall be concerned with outlining some methodological issues that relate to the subject of truth and falsehood in general history.  I will also try to develop and defend a view of history as “an enterprise of knowledge.”  There will be occasional references to contemporary debates (because I shall illustrate the general points with examples from Indian history), but the overall focus will be on more general themes. 

There will be occasions, in this context, to take a fresh look at India’s persistent heterodoxy, which includes not only its tendency towards multi–religious and multi–cultural coexistence (a point emphasised in Rabindranath Tagore’s “vision of India’s history”), but also its relevance for the development of science and mathematics in India. For history is not only an enterprise of knowledge in itself, it cannot but have a special involvement with the history of other enterprises of knowledge. The view of history as an enterprise of knowledge is, of course, very old–fashioned: I am not trying to innovate anything what-soever. However, this and related epistemic approaches to history have taken some hard knocks over the last few decades. These have come not so much from sectarian bigots (who have barely addressed issues of method), but in the hands of sophisticated methodologists who are not only sceptical of the alleged virtues of modernity and objectivity (often for understandable reasons), but have ended up being deeply suspicious also of the idea of “truth” or “falsehood” in history.  

They have been keen, in particular, to emphasise the relativity of perspectives and the ubiquity of different points of view. Perspectives and points of view, I would argue, are indeed important, not just in history, but in every enterprise of knowledge. This is partly because our observations are inescapably “positional.” Distant objects, for example, cannot but look smaller, and yet it is the job of analysis and scrutiny to place the different positional views in their appropriate perspectives to arrive at an integrated and coherent picture. The elementary recognition of the “positionality” of observations and perceptions does not do away with ideas of truth and falsehood, nor with the need to exercise reasoned judgement faced with conflicting evidence and clashing perspectives. I shall not here reiterate the methodological arguments I have presented elsewhere, but will discuss their relevance to the interpretation of Indian history. (3). 

Indeed, describing the past is like all other reflective judgements, which have to take note of the demands of veracity and the discipline of knowledge. (4).  The discipline includes the study of knowledge formation, including the history of science (and the constructive influences that are important in the cultivation of science) and also the history of histories (where differences in perspective call for disciplined scrutiny and are of importance themselves as objects of study).  

I shall be concerned with each. I should make one more motivational remark. I address this talk primarily to non-historians, like myself, who take an interest in history. I am aware that no self–respecting historian will peacefully listen to an economist trying to tell them what their discipline is like. But history is not just for historians. It affects the lives of the public at large.  

We non–historians do not have to establish our entitlement to talk about history. Rather, a good point of departure is to ask: why is history so often invoked in popular discussions?  Also, what can the general public get from history? Why, we must also ask, is history such a battleground? 

Knowledge and Its Use 

Let me begin by discussing some distinct motivations that influence the public’s interest in history. 

(1) Epistemic interest: The fact that we tend to have, for one reason or another, some interest in knowing more about what happened in the past is such a simple thought that it is somewhat embarrassing to mention this at a learned gathering. But, surely, catering to our curiosity about the past must count among the reasons for trying to learn something about historical events. An ulterior motive is not essential for taking an interest in history (even though ulterior reasons may also exist often enough). The simplicity of the idea of historical curiosity is, however, to some extent deceptive, because the reasons for our curiosity about the past can be very diverse and sometimes quite complex. The reason can be something very practical (such as learning from a past mistake), or engagingly illuminating (such as knowing about the lives of common people in a certain period in history), or largely recreational (such as investigating the chronology and history of India’s multiplicity of calendars). (5).

Also, the historical questions asked need not be straightforward, and may even be highly speculative. (6).  Whether or not it is easy to satisfy our curiosity (it may not always be possible to settle a debate regarding what actually happened), truth has an obvious enough role in exercises of this kind. In fact, curiosity is a demand for truth on a particular subject.

 Thomas de Quincey has an interesting essay called “Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts.” Rewriting of history for bellicose use can also, presumably, be a very fine art.

(2) Practical reason:  Historical connections are often invoked in the context of contemporary politics and policies. Indeed, present-day attitudes in politics and society are often strongly influenced by the reading — or misreading — of the history of past events. For example, sectarian tensions build frequently on grievances (spontaneous or cultivated) linked to past deeds (real or imagined) of one group against another. 
This is well illustrated, for example, by the recent massacres in Rwanda or former Yugoslavia, where history — or imagined history — were often invoked, concerning alleged past records of hostilities between Hutus and Tutsies, or between Serbs and Albanians, respectively.  Since these uses of history are aimed primarily at contemporary acts and strategies, the counteracting arguments which too invoke history,
though in the opposite direction, also end up being inescapably linked to current affairs.  

Given the dialectical context, we may be forced to take an interest in historical disputations on battlegrounds that have been chosen by others — not ourselves. For example, in defending the role of secularism in contemporary India, it is not in any way essential to make any claim whatsoever about how India’s Mughal rulers behaved whether they were sectarian or assimilative, whether they were oppressive or tolerant. 

Yet in the political discussions that have accompanied the activist incursions of communal politics in contemporary India (well illustrated, for example, by the rhetoric that accompanied the demolition of the Babri Masjid), a heavily carpentered characterisation of the Mughal rule as anti–Hindu was repeatedly invoked.  

Since this characterisation was to a great extent spurious and based on arbitrary selection, to leave that point unaddressed would have, in the context of the on going debate, amounted to a negligence in practical reason, and not just an epistemic abstinence.  Even the plausibility or otherwise of the historical argument that some of the juridical roots of Indian secularism can be traced to Mughal jurisprudence (a thesis I have tried to present in my paper, “Reach of Reason: East and West”), even though a matter of pure history, ends up inescapably as having some relevance for contemporary politics (even though that was not a claim I made). (7).

The enterprise of knowledge links in this case with the use of that knowledge. However, this does not, in any way, reduce the relevance of truth in seeking knowledge. The fact that knowledge has its use does not, obviously, make the enterprise of acquiring knowledge in any way redundant.  In fact, quite the contrary.

(3). Identity scrutiny:  Underlying the political debates, there is often enough a deeper issue related to the way we construct and characterise our own identities, in which too historical knowledge — or alleged knowledge — can play an important part.  Our sense of identity is strongly influenced by our under standing of our past. We do not, of course, have a personal past prior to our birth, but our self–perceptions are associated with the shared history of the members of a particular group to which we think we “belong” and with which we “identify.” Our allegiances draw on the evocation of histories of our identity groups. 

A scrutiny of this use of history cannot be independent of the philosophical question as to whether our identities are primarily matters of “discovery” (as many “commu-nitarian” thinkers claim), (8) or whether they are to a significant extent matters of selection and choice (of course, within given constraints — as indeed all choices inescapably are). (9).  

Arguments that rely on the assumption of the unique centrality of one’s community–based identity survive by privileging — typically implicitly — that identity over other identities (which may be connected with, say, class, or gender, or language, or political commitments, or cultural influences). In consequence, they restrict the domain of one’s alleged “historical roots” in a truly dramatic way. Thus, the increasing search for a Hindu view of Indian history not only has problems with epistemic veracity (an issue I discussed earlier), but also involves the philosophical problem of categorical oversimplification.

A good point of departure is to  ask: why is history so often invoked in popular discussions? Also, what can the general public get from history? Why, we must also ask, is history such a battleground?

It would, for example, have problems in coming to terms with, say, Rabindranath Tagore’s description of his own background as “a confluence of three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British.”(10).  No less importantly, it cannot but be in some tension with the sense of pride that an Indian may choose to have, irrespective of his or her own religious background, at the historical achievements of, say, Ashoka or Akbar, or Kalidasa or Kabir, or Aryabhata or Bhaskara.  

To deny the role of reasoned choice, which can draw on the knowledge of the past, can be a very serious loss indeed.  Even those who want to identify with India’s historical achievements and perhaps take some pride in them (a legitimate enough concern) must also examine critically what to take pride in, since it is easy to be misled into a narrow alley through incitements to ignore India’s capacious heterodoxy in favour of a constricted sectarian identity.

While discovery and choice compete as the basis of identity, knowledge and choice are essentially complementary to each  other. Engagement with issues of identity enriches the enterprise of knowledge and extends its reach. 

Science and Intellectual Heterodoxy 

Let me now move to a more active view of the enterprise of knowledge, and turn to the history of science, which is among the historical subjects of study. As has already been argued, history is not only an enterprise of knowledge, its subject matter includes other enterprises of knowledge. The issue of heterodoxy, to which reference was made earlier, is particularly important here. Indeed, I would argue that there is a general connection between intellectual heterodoxy and the pursuit of science, and that this connection deserves more attention than it tends to get. 

Heterodoxy is important for scientific advance because new ideas and discoveries have to emerge initially as heterodox views, at variance with established understanding. One need reflect only on the history of the scientific contributions of, say, Galileo or Newton or Darwin, to see the role of heterodoxy in the process. The history of science is integrally linked with heterodoxy.

If this interpretation is correct, then the roots of the flowering of Indian science and mathematics that occurred in and around the Gupta period (beginning particularly with Aryabhata and Varahamihira) can be intellectually associated with persistent expressions of heterodoxies which pre–existed these contributions. In fact, Sanskrit and Pali have a larger literature in defence of atheism, agnosticism and theological scepticism than exists in any other classical language.

The origins of mathematical and scientific developments in the Gupta period are often traced to earlier works in mathematics and science in India, and this is indeed worth investigating, despite the historical mess that has been created recently by the ill–founded championing of the so–called “Vedic mathematics” and “Vedic sciences,” based on very little evidence.  What has, I would argue, more claim to attention as a precursor of scientific advances in the Gupta period is the tradition of scepticism that can be found in pre-Gupta India — going back to at least the sixth century B.C. — particularly in matters of religion and epistemic orthodoxy.  

Indeed, the openness of approach that allowed Indian mathematicians and scientists to learn about the state of these professions in Babylon, Greece and Rome, which are plentifully cited in early Indian astronomy (particularly in the Siddhantas), can also be seen as a part of this inclination towards heterodoxy.

Observation, Experience and Scientific Methods

Indeed, the development of Indian sciences has clear methodological connections with the general epistemological doubts expressed by sceptical schools of thought that developed at an earlier period. This included the insistence on relying only on observational evidence (with scepticism of unobserved variables), for example in the Lokayata and Charvaka writings, not to mention Gautama Buddha’s powerfully articulated agnosticism and his persistent questioning of received beliefs.  

The untimely death of professor Bimal Matilal has robbed us of the chance of benefiting from his extensive programme of systematic investigation of the history of Indian epistemology, but his already published works bring out the reach of unorthodox early writings on epistemology (by both Buddhist and Hindu writers) in the period that can be linked to the flowering of Indian science and mathematics in the Gupta era. (11). 

Similarly, the expression of hereticism and heterodoxy patiently – if somewhat grudgingly — recorded even in the Ramayana (for example, in the form of Javali’s advice to Rama to defy his father’s odd promise) presents methodological reasons to be sceptical of the orthodox position in this field. (12).

Indeed, in A Vision of India’s History, Rabindranath Tagore also notes the oddity of the central story of Rama’s pious acceptance of banishment based on “the absurd reason… about the weak old king [Rama’s father] yielding to a favourite wife, who took advantage of a vague promise which could fit itself to any demand of hers, however preposterous.”  Tagore takes it as evidence of “the later degeneracy of mind,” when “some casual words uttered in a moment of infatuation could be deemed more sacred than the truth which is based upon justice and perfect knowledge.”(13). 

In fact, Javali’s disputation goes deeply into scientific methodology and the process of acquiring of knowledge: There is no after–world, nor any religious practice for attaining that.  Follow what is within your experience and do not trouble yourself with what lies beyond the province of human experience. (14).

The increasing search for a Hindu view of Indian history would, for example, have problems in coming to terms with, say, Rabindranath Tagore’s description of his own background as “a confluence of three cultures, Hindu, Mohammedan and British.

As it happens, the insistence that we rely only on observation and experience is indeed a central issue in the departures in astronomy — initiated by Aryabhata and others — from established theological cosmology. 

The departures presented in his book Aryabhatiya, completed in 421 Saka or 499 A.D., which came to be discussed extensively by mathematicians and astronomers who followed Aryabhata (particularly Varahamihira, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara, and were also discussed in their Arabic translations), included, among others: (1) Aryabhata’s advocacy of the diurnal motion of the earth (rather than the apparent rotation of the sun around it), (2) a corresponding theory of gravity to explain why objects are not thrown out as the earth churns, (3) recognition of the parametric variability of the concept of “up” and “down” depending on where one is located on the globe, and (4) explanation of lunar and solar eclipses in terms respectively of the earth’s shadow on the moon and the moon’s obscuring of the sun.

Observational arguments, based on what Javali calls “the province of human experience,” are central to the departures initiated by Aryabhata in these and related fields (more on this presently). In the enterprise of knowledge involving the natural sciences, the intellectual connections between scepticism, heterodoxy and observational insistence, on the one hand, and manifest scientific advances, on the other, require much further exploration and scrutiny than they seem to have received so far.

History of Histories and Observational Perspectives

The observational issue is important also for the particular subject of history of histories, or metahistories (as we may call them). Given the importance of perspectives in historical writings, history of histories can tell us a great deal not only about the subject of those writings, but also about their authors and the traditions and perspectives they reflect. 

For example, James Mill’s The History of British India, published in 1817, tells us probably as much about imperial Britain as about India. This three–volume history, written by Mill without visiting India (Mill seemed to think that this non–visit made his history more objective), played a major role in introducing the British governors of India (such as the influential Macaulay) to a particular characterisation of the country.  

There is indeed much to learn from Mill’s history — not just about India, but more, in fact, about the perspective from which this history was written. This is an illustration of the general point that the presence of positionality and observational perspective need not weaken the enterprise of knowledge, and may in fact help to extend its reach. (15).

James Mill disputed and rejected practically every claim ever made on behalf of Indian culture and intellectual traditions, but paid particular attention to dismissing Indian scientific works. Mill rebuked early British administrators (particularly, Sir William Jones) for having taken the natives “to be a people of high civilisation, while they have in reality made but a few of the earliest steps in the progress to civilisation.”(16).

Indeed, since colonialism need not be especially biased against any particular colony compared with any other subjugated community, Mill had no great difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Indian civilisation was at par with other inferior ones known to Mill: “very nearly the same with that of the Chinese, the Persians, and the Arabians,” and also the other “subordinate nations, the Japanese, Cochin–Chinese, Siamese, Burmans, and even Malays and Tibetans” (p. 248).

Mill was particularly dismissive of the alleged scientific and mathematical works in India. He denied the generally accepted belief that the decimal system (with place values  and the placed use of zero) had emerged in India, and refused to accept that Aryabhata and his followers could have had anything interesting to say on the diurnal motion of the earth and the principles of gravitation.  

Writing his own history of histories, Mill chastised Sir William Jones for believing in these “stories,” and concluded that it was “extremely natural that Sir William Jones, whose pundits had become acquainted with the ideas of European philosophers respecting the system of the universe, should hear from them that those ideas were contained in their own books.”(17).

A Contrast of Perspectives 

It is, in fact, interesting to compare Mill’s History with another history of India, called Ta’rikh al–hind (written in Arabic eight hundred years earlier, in the 11th century) by the Iranian mathematician Alberuni.(18).  
Alberuni, who was born in Central Asia in 973 AD, and mastered Sanskrit after coming to India, studied Indian texts on mathematics, natural sciences, literature, philosophy, and religion. Alberuni writes clearly on the invention of the decimal system in India (as do other Arab authors) and also about Aryabhata’s theories on earth’s rotation, gravitation, and related subjects.

These writings contrast sharply with Mill’s history from a dominant colonial perspective, well established by the beginning of the nineteenth century. The interest in Mill’s dismissive history in imperial Britain (Macaulay described Mill’s History of British India to be “on the whole the greatest historical work which has appeared in our language since that of Gibbon” (19) contrasts with extensive constructive interest in these Indian works among Islamic mathematicians and scientists in Iran and in the Arab world.

In fact, Brahmagupta’s pioneering Sanskrit treatise on astronomy had been first translated into Arabic in the 8th century by Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al–Fazari, and again by Alberuni three hundred years later in the eleventh century (since Alberuni had certain criticisms of the previous translation). Several Indian works on medicine, science and philosophy had Arabic rendering by the 9th century, and so on. It was through the Arabs that the Indian decimal system and numerals reached Europe, as did Indian writings in mathematics, science and literature, in general. Indeed, history of histories, particularly about science, can tell us a great deal about the nature of political and social relations between the different countries (such as Iran and Gupta India, on the one hand, Britain and colonial India, on the other).

As it happens, Alberuni’s history also provides interesting illumination on scientific discussions within India, and particularly on the constructive role of heterodoxy in this context. Even though Alberuni himself tended to reject Aryabhata’s theory regarding the diurnal motion of the earth, he describes patiently the Indian arguments in defence of the plausibility of Aryabhata’s theory, including the related theory of gravity.

Conservatism, Courage and Science

It is, in this context, particularly interesting to examine Alberuni’s discussion of Brahmagupta’s conservative rejection of the exciting departures proposed by Aryabhata and his followers on the subject of lunar and solar eclipses. Alberuni quotes Brahmagupta’s criticism of Aryabhata and his followers, in defence of the orthodox religious theory, involving Rahu and the so-called “head” that is supposed to devour the sun and the moon, and finds it clearly unpersuasive and reactionary. He quotes Brahma-gupta’s supplication to religious orthodoxy, in Brahmasiddhanta: Some people think that the eclipse is not caused by the Head. This, however, is a foolish idea, for it is he in fact who eclipses, and the generality of the inhabitants of the world say that it is the Head that eclipses. The Veda, which is the word of God from the mouth of Brahman, says that the Head eclipses… On the contrary. Varahamihira, Shrishena, Aryabhata and Vishnuchandra maintain that the eclipse is not caused by the Head, but by the moon and the shadow of the earth, in direct opposition to all (to the generality of men), and from the enmity against the just–mentioned dogma. (20).

Alberuni, who is quite excited about Aryabhata’s scientific theories of eclipses, then accuses Brahmagupta (a great mathematician himself) for lacking the moral courage of Aryabhata in dissenting from the established orthodoxy. He points out that, in practice, Brahmagupta too follows Aryabhata’s methods in predicting the eclipses, but this does not prevent Brahmagupta from sharply criticising — from an essentially theological perspective — Aryabhata and his followers for being heretical and heterodox.  Alberuni puts it thus: … we shall not argue with him [Brahmagupta], but only whisper into his ear: …Why do you, after having spoken such [harsh] words [against Aryabhata and his followers], then begin to calculate the diameter of the moon in order to explain the eclipsing of the sun, and the diameter of the shadow of the earth in order to explain its eclipsing the moon?  Why do you compute both eclipses in agreement with the theory of those heretics, and not according to the views of those with whom you think it is proper to agree? (21).

  The interest in Mill’s dismissive history in imperial Britain contrasts with extensive constructive interest in these Indian works among Islamic mathematicians and scientists in Iran and in the Arab world.

The connection between heterodoxy and scientific advance is indeed close, and big departures in science require methodological independence as well as analytical and constructive skill. Even though Aryabhata, Varahamihira and Brahmagupta were all dead for many hundred years before Alberuni was writing on their controversies and their implications, nevertheless Alberuni’s carefully critical scientific history helps to bring out the main issues involved, and in particular the need for heterodoxy as well as moral courage in pursuit of science. 

A Concluding Remark 

To conclude, I have tried to illustrate the different ways in which history has relevance for non-historians — indeed the general public. First, there are diverse grounds for the public’s involvement with history, which include (1) the apparently simple attractions of epistemic interest, (2) the contentious correlates of practical reason, and (3) the scrutiny of identity–based thinking. All of them — directly or indirectly — involve and draw on the enterprise of knowledge. 

Second, history is not only itself an enterprise of knowledge, its domain of study incorporates all other enterprises of knowledge, including the history of science. In this context, it is easy to see the role of heterodoxy and methodological independence in scientific advance. The intellectual connections between heterodoxy (especially theological scepticism) and scientific pursuits (especially big scientific departures) deserve more attention in the history of sciences in India. 

Third, metahistories — or histories of histories — also bring out the relevance of an appropriate climate for the enterprise of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge not only requires an open mind (the contrast between Alberuni’s scientific interest and Mill’s colonial predispositions radically differentiate their treatments of the same subject matter), it also requires an inclination to accept heterodoxy and the courage to stand up against orthodoxy (Alberuni’s critique of Brahmagupta’s criticism of Aryabhata relates to this issue).  The plurality of perspectives extends the domain of the enterprise of knowledge rather than undermining the possibility of that enterprise. (22).

Since the rewriting of Indian history from the slanted perspective of sectarian orthodoxy not only undermines historical objectivity, but also militates against the spirit of scientific scepticism and intellectual heterodoxy, it is important to emphasise the centrality of scepticism and heterodoxy in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The incursion of sectarian orthodoxy in Indian history involves two distinct problems, to wit, (1) narrow sectarianism, and (2) unreasoned orthodoxy.  The enterprise of knowledge is threatened by both. 

(The writer, a Nobel prize winner is Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Lamont University Professor Emeritus, Harvard University. The above paper was presented by the writer at the Indian History Congress in Calcutta)

ENDNOTES 

1. The confusing story of a recent statement by a Director of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) announcing exact knowledge where Rama, the avatar, was born (not surprisingly precisely where the Babri Masjid stood — from which the property rights for building a temple exactly there is meant to follow!), combined with the assertion that the Masjid itself had no religious significance (followed by an embarrassed dissociation of the ICHR itself from these remarkable pronouncements), illustrates the confounding of myth and history.
2. Rabindranath Tagore, A Vision of India’s History (Calcutta: Visva–Bharati, 1951), p. 10; this essay was first published in Visva-Bharati Quarterly, 1923.
3. See “Positional Objectivity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1993.  I have also illustrated the methodological issues involved in the context of Indian history in On Interpreting India’s Past (Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1996), also included in Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, eds., Nationalism, Democracy and Development: Reappraising South Asian State and Politics (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996).
4. I have discussed the demands of descriptive discipline in “Accounts, Actions and Values: Objectivity of Social Science,” in C. Lloyd, ed., Social Theory and Political Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).
5. I have tried to argue elsewhere that the history of Indian calendars also provides some insights on the lives of the people and particularly on the state of science and mathematics at different times, and can even illuminate the political ideals that may be indirectly reflected in devising new calendars. The last is well illustrated, for example, by Emperor Akbar’s initiation of a synthetic solar calendar in the form of Tarikh–ilahi, in 1584, and its continuing influence on the Bengali san (on these issues, see my “India through Its Calendars,” The Little Magazine, 1, 1, May 2000). 
6. A good example of an interesting but rather bold speculation is Rabindranath Tagore’s conjecture about a story in the epics that “the mythical version of King Janamejaya’s ruthless serpent sacrifice” may quite possibly stand for an actual historical event involving an “attempted extermination of the entire Naga race” by the dominant powers in ancient India (Tagore, A Vision of India’s History, p. 9). 
7. Amartya Sen, “Reach of Reason: East and West,” The New York Review of Books, July 20, 2000. 
8. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 1998), for a fine presentation of the “discovery” view of identity, and in particular of the thesis (among others) that “community describes not just what they have as fellow citizens but also what they  are, not a relationship they choose (as in a voluntary association) but an attachment they discover, not merely an attribute but a constituent of their identity” (pp. 150–2).
9. I have discussed the role of choice in the selection of identities and in the determination of priorities in my Romanes Lecture at Oxford, Reason before Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), and in my Annual British Academy Lecture (to be published by the British Academy): for a shorter version, see “Other People,” The New Republic, September 25, 2000. 
10. See Rabindranath Tagore, The Religion of Man (London: Unwin, 1931, 2nd edition, 1961), p. 105.
11. See particularly Bimal Matilal, Perceptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). 
12. Even though I shall not discuss in this paper the role and reach of Arjuna’s disagreements with Krishna’s high deontology in the  Mahabharata, and in particular in the Bhagavad–Geeta, that too is philosophically an important departure; on this see my “Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason,” The Journal of Philosophy, 97 (September 2000). 
13. Tagore, A Vision of India’s History, p. 22.
14. The translation is taken from Makhanlal Sen, Valmiki Ramayana (Calcutta: Rupa, 1989), pp. 174–5.
15. On this general subject, see my “Positional Objectivity” (1993), and also “Accounts, Actions and Values: Objectivity of Social Science” (1983). 
16. James Mill, The History of British India (London, 1817; republished, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), pp. 225–6.
17. Mill, The History of British India, pp. 223–4.
18. For an English translation, see Alberuni’s India, translated by EC Sachau, edited by AT Embree (New York: Norton, 1971). 
19. Quoted in John Clive’s introduction to Mill, The History of British India (republished, 1975), p. viii. 
20. Alberuni’s India, pp. 110-1. 
21. Alberuni’s India, p. 111.
22. On this see also my “Accounts, Actions and Values: Objectivity of Social Science” (1983) and  “Positional Objectivity” (1993).

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2001. Year 8, No. 65, Forum, Published under the title History and the enterprise of knowledge

The post Confounding Mythology with History is the Sangh’s Agenda: Amartya Sen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Text of the annual Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India in Delhi on February 12, 2016
 
I begin on a self-indulgent note. “How is Amartya?” asked my uncle Shidhu (Jyotirmoy Sengupta) — cousin of my father — in a letter written from Burdwan Jail, on August 22 of 1934, before I was one. He complained about the name “Amartya”, given to me by Rabindranath Tagore, and argued that the great Tagore had “completely lost his mind in his old age” to choose such a “tooth-breaking name” for a tiny child. Jyotirmoy was in jail for his efforts to end the British Raj. He was moved from prison to prison — Dhaka Jail, Alipur Central Jail, Burdwan Jail, Midnapur Central Jail. There were other uncles and cousins of mine who were going through similar experiences in other British Indian prisons.
 
Jyotirmoy himself came to a sad end, dying of tuberculosis, related to undernourishment in the prisons. As a young boy I was lucky to have a few conversations with him, and felt very inspired by what he said and wrote. He was committed to help remove “the unfreedoms heaped on us by our rulers.”
 
How happy would Jyotirmoy have been to be in today’s India, with the Raj dead and gone, and with no unfreedoms imposed on us by the colonial masters? But — and here is the rub — have these unfreedoms really ended? The penal codes legislated by the imperial rulers still govern important parts of our life. Of these, Section 377 of the code, which criminalises gay sex, is perhaps the most talked about, but happily a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is re-examining it.
 
It is, however, often overlooked that the putting on a pedestal of the sentiments of any religious group — often very loosely defined — is another remnant of British law, primarily Section 295(A) of the penal code introduced in 1927. A person can be threatened with jail sentence for hurting the religious sentiments of another, however personal — and however bizarrely delicate — that portrayed sentiment might be.
 
The Indian Constitution, despite claims to the contrary, does not have any such imposition. In a judgment on March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court in fact gave priority to the fundamental right of the people to express themselves, as enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution’s insistence on “public order, decency or morality” is a far cry from what the organised political activists try to impose by hard-hitting kick-boxing, allegedly guided by delicate sentiments. The Constitution does not have anything against anyone eating beef, or storing it in a refrigerator, even if some cow-venerators are offended by other people’s food habits.
 
The realm of delicate sentiments seems to extend amazingly far. Murders have occurred on grounds of hurt sentiments from other people’s private eating. Children have been denied the nourishment of eggs in school meals in parts of India for the priority of vegetarian sentiments of powerful groups. And seriously researched works of leading international scholars have been forced to be pulped by scared publishers, threatened to be imprisoned for the offence of allegedly hurting religious sentiments.
 
Journalists often receive threats — or worse — for violating the imposed norms of vigilante groups. The Indian media has a good record of standing up against intimidation, but freedom of speech and reporting need more social support.
 
To see in all this the evidence of an “intolerant India” is just as serious a mistake as taking the harassment of people for particular social behaviour to be a constitutional mandate. Most Indians, including most people who are classified as Hindu (including this writer), have no difficulty in accepting variations in food habits among different groups (and even among Hindus). And they are ready to give their children the nourishment of eggs if they so choose (and if they can afford them).
 
And Hindus have been familiar with, and tolerant of, arguments about religious beliefs for more than 3,000 years (“Who knows then, whence it first came into being? … Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not,” Rigveda, Mandala X, Verse 129). It is a serious insult to Indians — and to Hindus in general — to attribute to them the strange claims of a small but well organised political group, who are ready to jump on others for violations of norms of behaviour that the group wants to propagate, armed with beliefs and sentiments that have to be protected from sunlight.
 
The silencing of dissent, and the generating of fear in the minds of people violate the demands of personal liberty, but also make it very much harder to have a dialogue-based democratic society. The problem is not that Indians have turned intolerant. In fact, quite the contrary. We have been too tolerant even of intolerance. When some people — often members of a minority (in religion or community or scholarship) — are attacked by organised detractors, they need our support. This is not happening adequately right now. And it did not happen adequately earlier as well.
 
In fact, this phenomenon of intolerance of dissent and of heterodox behaviour did not start with the present government, though it has added substantially to the restrictions already there. M.F. Husain, one of the leading painters of India, was hounded out of his country by relentless persecution led by a small organised group, and he did not get the kind of thundering support that he could have justly expected.
 
In that ghastly event at least the Indian government was not directly involved (though it certainly could — and should — have done much more to protect him). The government’s complicity was, however, much more direct when India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.
 
So what should we do, as citizens of India who support freedom and liberty? First, we should move away from blaming the Indian Constitution for what it does not say. Second, we should not allow colonial penal codes that impose unfreedoms to remain unchallenged. Third, we should not tolerate the intolerance that undermines our democracy, that impoverishes the lives of many Indians, and that facilitates a culture of impunity of tormentors. Fourth, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have good reason to examine comprehensively whether India is not being led seriously astray by the continuation of the rules of the Raj, which we fought so hard to end.
 
In particular, there is need for judicial scrutiny of the use that organised tormentors make of an imagined entitlement of “not to be offended” (an alleged entitlement that does not seem to exist in this particular form in any other country). Fifth, if some states, under the influence of sectarian groups want to extend these unfreedoms through local legislation (for example, banning particular food), the courts surely have to examine the compatibility of these legislation with the fundamental rights of people, including the right to speech and to personal liberties.
 
As Indians, we have reason to be proud of our tradition of tolerance and plurality, but we have to work hard to preserve it. The courts have to do their duty (as they are doing — but more is needed), and we have to do ours (indeed much more is surely needed). Vigilance has been long recognised to be the price of freedom.
 
(Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and professor of economics and philosophy at Harvard University)

The post The Criticality of the Right to Dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.