On January 18^th, 1982 the working class movement commemorated the 40^th anniversary of the Textile Workers Strike that lasted for 18 months, till July 1983. It was landmark event that played a major role in shaping the working class movement. With more than 2.5 lakh workers from 65 textile mills joining in this strike for almost two years, this strike became one of the most significant strikes in terms of scale and duration All democrats should applaud the mill workers’ united battle, and their unflinching resilience an death defying courage  continues to serve as a model for contemporary working-class movements. Many middle class persons harboured opinions that the Textile workers were pampered or were a labour aristocracy, ignorant of how they were denied wages to provide for basic necessities.

The Great Bombay Textile Strike is notably one of the most defining movements in the working class struggles in Post-independent India. Bombay’s textile industry flourished in the 20th century, accompanied by a growing number of worker grievances. As a result, the Great Bombay Textile Strike sprung from a set of grievances that Bombay Textile Union and All India Trade Union Congress were unable to resolve. On January 18, 1982, textile mill workers led by Trade Union Leader Datta Samant went on strike for better wages, employment conditions, and repeal of the Bombay Industrial Act of 1946.

The protest underwent several incidents of police brutality against striking workers and a rise of indifferent attitudes on the part of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Additionally, the introduction of the liberalisation policies (the 1980s) to expose the Indian economy to global finance capital struck a mortal blow to the ongoing strike—the new reforms led to dissipation of labour laws; fragmenting the labour market and patronising of exploitative working conditions.

I can never forget how it tickled or was major thorn in the flesh of the Mill Owners in their very backyard, striking a mortal blow to production or profits. The mill industry was literally paralysed.

The relentless spirit of the mill workers left a permanent mark and won the support of many an intellectuals and other sections of workers.

Democratic forces underwent serious mobilisation in support be it trade Unions, civil liberties organisations or even students and youth groups. They consistently exposed the ruthless exploitation of the workers who were denied adequate wages, and the conspiracies of the mill owners who were backed by the politicians and police machinery. Qualitative roles played by Indian Federation of trade Unions, Naujwan Bharat Sabha-Vidhyarti Praghati Sanghatana and Lok Shahi Hakk Sanghatana. Playwright Ratnakar Matkari wrote a soul searching play

It was classical resistance of an independent trade Union not affiliated to any political party, and an aura built around a single political leader.

The strike resurrected earlier events in Indian working class history.

It taught the working class important political lessons when being at the brunt of police repression.

However it also later broke the backbone of the organised working class movement. It led to massive loss in jobs of workers. The industry was paralysed.

Datta Samant leading Strike

While some workers had been already agitating about wage issues with their respective employers, mill owners and the government were startled by the workers’ spontaneous decision to reject established unions and leaders and accept the leadership of a new trade unionist – Datta Samant.

Until the fiery Datta  Samant came on the scene, the officially recognised union of the textile workers had been the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which was affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). Samant was able to get a substantial wage hike for the workers of Premier Automobiles, and this paved the way for his election as the representative of textile workers. The strike called by Samant lasted a year, and at the end of it nothing was achieved. Before the strike, there were about 2, 50,000 workers in the mills. When the mills reopened a year later, about a hundred thousand lost their jobs. Predictably, the majority of those who had lost their jobs had been active during the strike. Some of the mills had either shut down or moved out of the city, and this also resulted in loss of jobs.

Samant’s aggressive style invited wrath from the government. Although Samant had connections with the Congress, especially with A.R. Antulay, who was Maharashtra’s Chief Minister from 1980 to 1982, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was wary of him. The ruling classes trembled that if Samant was successful with the textile mills strike, resistance would spread to other labour-intensive sectors such as the Railways and the docks. Thus, it was politics and labour policies that prevented the government in conceding to Samant’s demands for textile workers.

The strike led by Dr. Datta Samant involved 247,189 Mumbai mill workers paralysed Mumbai. The 1982-83 strike was the last industrial action by the Mumbai mill workers when the city witnessed an industry-wide strike bringing the workforce to the centre of politics.

The conflict between the mill workers and the owners sprouted over the issue of bonuses. However, as the conflict gained momentum other demands were added, such as providing for an ad hoc increase of wage per month from Rs 120 to Rs 195 per month depending on the years of service.

Secondly, to make the badli workers permanent who had worked for an aggregate period of 240 days.

Thirdly, payment of House Rent Allowance (Rs 52 per month), Leave Travel Allowance (Rs 42 per month), and Educational Allowance (Rs 30 per month). Substantial improvement in leave facilities such as privilege leave, casual leave, sick leave, and paid holidays was also one of the demands.

Finally, the strikers demanded non-recognition of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) as the representative union, and the sole bargaining agent for workers. These demands shocked the employers. The mill owners were able to suppress  the strike by colluding with the state machinery and the RMMS, the officially recognised trade union, which had complete control in  speaking up for the workers.

Events on October 23, proved to be a determinant for much of what was to follow. On that day striking workers, totally unaware  of all established trade unions in the textile industry, sought  the intervention of an outsider who inspired them greatly  and whose reputation had sparkled over the years in spite of the countless attacks staged on him and on the way he dealt with labour problems.

In fact, what was mostly rebuked as adventurism or irresponsible trade unionism by employers and trade unionists alike was precisely what seemed to attract workers towards him. Hundreds of workers from Standard Mills, one of the mills that would have to pay the highest bonus, walked that day from the gates of the mill to the residence of the both famous and infamous Datta Samant (in Ghatkopar with the demand that he should lead them in the strike.)

If they under the apprehension that they would warmly received they were in for a rude shock. Dr Samant declined the honour and informed them that he didn’t want to lead them as their industry was regulated by the BIR Act. Apart from that he had no desire to increase the burden of the many responsibilities he already shouldered.

However, the workers, relentlessly, staged a dharna* at his home, staying there throughout the night in an effort to force him to accept leadership. When Samant found that the workers were determined to battle the employers at all costs and the fear of severe hardships  in the course of a struggle would not intimidate r them, he decided to give in.

The news spread like wildfire, and when Datta Samant addressed a gate meeting at Standard Mills in the morning of October 26, thousands of workers of the mills on strike assembled near the gate, turning the meeting into a massive rally. Interrupted by thunderous cheers of approval, Samant declared that the fight would not just be for a higher bonus but also for a wage increase and permanency of badlis.

It was the first of a series of meetings and rallies which would attract ever-larger audiences, of sometimes over a lakh. A spark was turned into a Prairie Fire. In the days to follow, Samant’s office poured with  workers from mills where no strike was taking place and who continued the trail of the Standard Mill workers, which was that ‘Doctor’ should lead them in the struggle. Datta Samant grew convinced that the request made by the Standard workers was no accident but a manifestation of intense inner rage possessed by all workers.

There was only one red flag union that wasted no time in waiting for the cat to throw itself to the pigeons and this was the communist-oriented Sarva Shramik Sangh (SSS) led by the independent Lal Nishan Party, which a union in the textile industry had called the Kapad Kamgar Sanghatana. Their support to the workers’ cause was immediate and unconditional, and it was the SSS again that would share the dais with Datta Samant on the eve of the strike.

Hoping to recover ground that they had lost a few years earlier, the Shiv Sena-affiliated Girni Kamgar Sena (GKS) also acted promptly. Sena leader Bal Thackeray at once called for a one-day strike on the first of November, putting up a charter of demands in which a wage increase of not less than Rs 200 per month was claimed.

To this was added the threat that an indefinite strike would follow if this demand was not met by mid-November. Practically all the workers participated in this strike but Thackeray’s threat stood exposed as empty when the militant action ended there. The formidable response to the one-day strike was a sure indication of the workers’ mood and their readiness for battle but in the process, it also showed that the workers at that point had not yet developed a strong commitment to Datta Samant.

Consequences of Strike

After this, about 91,251 mill workers were laid off. The catastrophic outcome of the strike also had national-level implications, as Mumbai’s mill workers held the vanguard position of the country’s labour movement.

The failure of the 1982-83 strike stripped workers of their entitlements which they won through various struggles and transformed   workers’ claims over the city’s social fabric. Following termination oh the strike, the workers fighting spirit was greatly nullified, which they had demonstrated historically.

Throughout the strike, the state deployd its police machinery to undertake repression on the workers. The judiciary took a long time in deciding on the case that challenged the RMMS status as the representative union. The bureaucracy too assisted in delaying the process.

The mill workers who were taken back to work had to return on deeply unfavourable terms.

First, many workers who returned to work did not receive the payments they were entitled to.

Secondly, workers had to face a most unwelcoming environment inside the factory. They were fined for the slightest mistakes and often abused and very easily charge-sheeted.

Thus, the mill management gave warning to the workers that henceforth no resistance against its policy would be brooked. Before accepting the jobs workers had to sign a statement in which they declared that they had participated in an illegal strike, and they would henceforth refrain from agitation and not cause trouble in future. Left with little choice workers were compelled to sign the statement without even having the opportunity to read it.

The attempts by the state to term strike illegal under some conditions traces back or have roots in introduction of the Bombay Industrial Disputes (BID) Act by the provincial government in 1938. In 1938, the then Bombay provincial government led by the Congress party introduced the BID Act which sought to curb workers right to organise industrial actions.  The BID Act was opposed by various labour organisers which culminated in the successful organisation of a one-day strike in 1938 by Ambedkar’s Independent Labour Party.

During the 1982-83 strike, the Datta Samant led union was able to dislodge the representative union but the state agencies, both the bureaucracy and the judiciary, ensured that the RMMS retained its position. As a result, after the strike was put down by the state and mill owners, the RMMS became aggressive towards the strikers and penalised them for participating in the industrial action.

It is probably this reason that a section of mill workers constantly evokes that the 1982-83 strike was never officially called off. For the workers, the strike symbolised their whole struggle for emancipation, and given the fact they were pushed into involuntary servitude, it continues for them even today.

The events illustrated the autocratic nature o the socio-political system, which was partisan with the industrialist class and sanctioned repression of machinery on workers.

By the 1980s, leftist parties in Bombay had become weak and the number of mill workers in the city had gone up to around 2.5 lakhs. However, working class militancy continued. In the absence of a Left leadership capable enough to lead and organise the workers’ movement, the Congress-run state government and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) affiliated to it, controlled the labour relations in the city. RMMS was the only “union” recognised by the mill owners and the administration, despite the Industrial Disputes Act of 1938. While the Girni Kamgar Union would organize strikes against the management, the RMMS would be the signing authority on the settlement as the workers’ legitimate representative. Many struggling workers were termed as “Laal Bawtewaale” [One with the Red Flag], and removed from work on grounds of being a Communist. These were workers who were agitating not just for fair wages, but also against increasing mechanization and loss of jobs in the textile industry.

In 1982, large sections of the Bombay textile mill workers went to strike under Dutta Samant’s Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Aghadi, against the Mill Owners’ Association and the Congress-affiliated official trade union RMMS. The communist controlled Girni Kamgar Union had to support Samant’s leadership, though he was throughout seen as “a Congress agent” or “Congress fraction” by some sections.

Under his leadership, around 2.5 lakh mill workers of Bombay went on the historic general strike that was never lifted and technically continues even today. Though the expectation was that the strike would last for a few months, it extended to a year and a half. With the Left already cornered, and with Samant’s Congress affiliation guaranteeing natural limits on his class politics, Bombay’s bourgeois political class decided to give a final knockout punch to the city’s working class politics.

They never reopened the textile mills again. After a year long strike that began in 1982, the workers’ families finally surrendered, though after waging a prolonged battle. A large number of workers’ families had left the city due to the prolonged strike, and in parts because of a call given by Samant himself sending struggling workers back while he manages the strike in the city. The 1982 strike is technically still going on, because it was never officially called off.

By 1984 however, the strike was morally averted with Samant winning no concessions. The mill owners gradually started shifting their mills to the outskirts of the city – at places like Bhiwandi and Malegaon. Many mills shifted to the neighbouring state of Gujarat. Over the years, mechanized big composite mills got replaced by smaller power-looms and separate smaller units for dying, for weaving, etc – converting a once organised advanced industrial workforce into unskilled, unorganised daily wage and contractual labour force.

For many Dalit-Bahujan workers, mass closure of the mills meant getting pushed back into the same old economic and social slump. “My grandmother was working in the Dawn Mill at Lower Parel during the British era. She was earning Rs. 40 per month. There was economic mobility for people from lower castes for the first time, as they were getting mill jobs. The mills should have been saved.” said Madan Khale, a former CPI worker who is now active in the BSP. “While we can talk about the ‘glorious strike’ and all, but it is true that the workers got crushed,” said Com. Prakash Reddy of the CPI.

Principal causes for Defeat of Strike

What defeated the mill workers strike was

1. The lack of penetration of any genuine revolutionary left force within the unions of mill workers.
2. Powerful prevalence of revisionism of the CPI and CPM within the movement.,
3. The absence of any revolutionary democratic workers movement, strong trends of legalism within trade Union Movement,
4. Lack of organisational structure to confront attacks and Weakness in solidarity from other sections of the workers or even the peasantry.
5. Political preparation was inadequate and links with workers from other sections.
6. Inadequate mass political work was undertaken by revolutionary sections which made the workers unable to distinguish between revolutionary politics and opportunism and economism.Glaring absence of fractional work by Communist revolutionary sections.
7. Absence of a coherent revolutionary working class movement and fortified Communist party prevented giving a genuinely revolutionary shape to the   textile strike or a  class cutting edge.
8. Workers were unable to gauge the bourgeois class character of Datta Samant, who indirectly played into the hands of the management. Democratic functioning was absent within the Kamgar Union of Datta Samant.
9. There was lack of proper study circles for the workers.
10. Democratic revolutionary forces were unable to organise struggles to save the jobs of workers in the mid 1980’s.
11. Unable to mobilise temporary or badly workers

Impact of globalisation and liberalisation from 1991

The strike precipitated the ground for the introduction of liberalisation in 1991, which fragmented the working class, breaking up all it’s organisational mechanisms. The rulers in period of globalisation devised a strategy to freeze trade Unions and close many traditional industries, including the mill workers.

With the advent of economic liberalisation in 1991, the militant trade unionism of the 1970s and 1980s took a huge backseat.. The influx of money and investment sharpened competition in the industry, and as a result managements started rebuking unions’ demands. Workers were not being paid. There was reverse migration. Some workers survived on unskilled jobs. The dismantling of trade unions had begun, who were now championing the new business ethos in which labour welfare played a very marginal role. The failure of the trade unions lay in not establishing link the larger brotherhood of textile workers in the power loom and garments sectors. These sectors were already enstrangled by the government’s globalisation policies. The national trade unions showed scant regard in addressing the grievances of Mumbai’s textile workers. As a result of this lack of interest, the larger issue of textile policy reform was not addressed.

The mill sethia gauged the situation to perfection and welcomed their businesses to slide. Capital was used for diversionary purposes, machinery was not repaired, equipment was not modernised. The mills were allowed to turn sick. However the sprawling mill properties, obtained at concessional rates for industrial use, fetched huge amounts of money for the owners. When the mills became unproductive, the sethia s requested the government to allow them to sell the land in order to revive the mills. Unhesitatingly, the government allowed this. Needless to say, the money from the sale of land was not invested in the textile industry. Instead, high-end housing complexes and shopping malls came up on the 600 acres (240 hectares) of mill land.

During the strike, the majority of the private mill owners had sub-contracted cloth production to Bhiwandi, the power loom centre on the outskirts of Mumbai. Therefore, the mill owners were less keen on running the mills after the strike was over. Citing the ‘losses’ their business incurred during the strike, the mill owners sought the state’s permission to sell a ‘surplus’ portion of the mill lands in the real estate market to generate interest-free capital.

Despite workers’ opposition, the Maharashtra state eventually introduced the Development Control Regulations (DCR) 58 in 1991. For the first time, DCR 1991 permitted the mill owners to sell parts of mill lands in the real estate market for the revival of the textile mills and payment of workers’ dues. This provision was misused by several mill owners.

None of the mill owners who utilised the provisions of DCR 1991 invested their land sale profits in modernising the sick textile units and clearing workers’ dues. A few mills violated the norms entirely. For instance, the Phoenix Mills sought permission for ‘workers recreation’ centres but instead constructed an expensive commercial bowling alley and mall. Given the violations of DCR 1991, the Maharashtra government further amended the DCR 58 in 2001. The DCR 2001 permitted the mill owners to use the entire mill land for the non-industrial purpose.

This decision created the ground for the final closure of the textile mills most of which were over a century old. The pressures of the real estate market, an ever-growing service sector economy and the need to cater to the necessities of the city’s elites, the upper-middle classes and the ‘new’ middle class played a prime role in hurrying execution of the closures.

For instance, Lower Parel, an area identified with the working classes, is now renamed Upper Worli to create a new sense of identity for the new middle class. This has gradually pushed a large section of the working classes and the lower middle classes from the central parts of the city to the extreme suburbs or even their own villages..

Over the years, the mills gradually shut down, and with the unions in state of turmoil not much was achieved for the mill workers.

A most comprehensive and balanced report was brought about by Lok Shahi Hakk Sanghatana and ‘Giragaon Bachao Andolan’ on ‘Murder of the Mills’ .which undertook a classical case study of Phoenix Mills. Classically the reports illustrate the connivance or conspiracy of the politicians with the mill owners in facilitating selling of mill land, how every step was undertaken to give a crippling blow to the mill workers and an economic model incorporating culture of globalisation and promoting luxury.  “Behind the golden promise of a globalised Mumbai lie massive financial frauds committed in the name of workers’ livelihood and urban development, devastating job losses and the various tactics used by employers to pressure and dismiss workers, forcing them into insecure employment in the informal sector, destitution, and often crime. We hope to demystify the deindustrialisation of the city, the closures of its industries and the change in its political and cultural economies — a process which is by no means the work of impersonal “market forces”, but the very real coercion of workers by venal employers and vested interests.”

“The denial of wages to the workers, many of whom have been residents of Girangaon for generations and have been working in the mills since early in the century, is a denial of their rights legal and constitutional, but also cultural and human. Demoralised, most of the workers have submitted to this strategy of the management and accepted the misleadingly named Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) packages of Rs 50,000 to 2,00,000 in compensation for their lost jobs, a pittance compared to the security and livelihood offered by constant employment that was once their right. In the meanwhile, the management and their agents have subcontracted production of textiles to the informal powerloom sector in the urban hinterlands in Bhiwandi, Malegaon and Ichalkaranji, while stamping and packaging the cloth produced in powerlooms at the mill godowns before sending them to market. This phenomenon of outsourcing or subcontracting of production, is becoming more commonplace in almost every industry in the country, and is behind the spate of industrial closures throughout the city.”

Since the late 1980s protests by the working classes in Mumbai have substantially nullified. Industrial actions from the late 1980s and 1990s demonstrate  that while workers protest did attract solidarity from the artists, writers and leaders of opposition parties (in some cases ruling party too), it did not crystallise  into the working classes occupying  centre stage in politics.

Struggle resurgence

There was a minor bout of surge of unionisation when workers of 10 closed mills bonded together and formed the Bandh Girni Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti (Shut Mills Workers Action Committee) in 1989. Their objective was to reopen the mills and re-employ the 25,000-odd jobless workers. They succeeded in enabling a large number of workers to get their dues. The majority of them were apparently given cheap houses in lieu of jobs, but the Samiti was unable to achieve its main goal of reviving the textile industry. Formidable powers obstructed the reopening of the mills. Some most praiseworthy struggles were undertaken by the Bandh Girni Sangarsh  Commitee from 1991 formed under the initiative of the Indian Federation of Trade Unions which was later converted into the Girni Kamgar Union.It organised an impactful black flag takeover of a closed mill in February 1992 and drew in thousands of workers on the streets in protest. Also organised a most impressive protest at a Bowling company in August 1999.Although resorting to legalism it built a strong base for workers to wage battles for their basics rights.

Strong currents of legalism of the Bandh Girni Sangarsh Commitee, weakness of penetration of revolutionary currents as fractions, fragmentation of working class and lack of revolutionary political consciousness were obstacles in the mill workers posing a challenge to their adversaries. Still I can never forget the heart rendering service of Meena Menon,convenor of Girgaum Bachao Andolan and Datta Ishwalkar.

Today we have to resurrect spirit of 1982 Mill workers strike in a new form, when globalisation has created a complete metamorphosis  of production , separated workers at work places , multiplied powers of the management  and nullified workers striking power at an unparalleled scale. New methods have to be devised of organising workers, particularly contract labour, with respect to changes in digital age. Imperialist culture has to be confronted at it’s hardest point. Today organised labour is on the brink of extinction, with corporates having complete monopoly.

Harsh Thakor is a freelance journalist who has covered mass movements around India ad extensively studied movement o Mumbai Mill workers. Owes gratitude to research of writer Hub van Werch in ‘The 1982-83 Bombay Textile Strike and the Unmaking of a Labourers’and Sumit Mhaskar

Courtesy: countercurrents.org

The post Commemorating 40th Anniversary Of Mumbai Textile Workers Strike appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Celebrations of the farmers’ struggle anniversary continue along Delhi borders and other protest sites across India on November 26, 2021. Thousands of people near the national capital gathered in front of protest venues to mark the 12 months of demonstrations and hundreds of martyrs.

Umbrella organisation Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) farmers at Ghazipur border shared visuals of temporary barricades set by the city administration in preparation of the huge influx of peasants. However, the mass mobilisation marched ahead regardless, as seen in pictures and videos shared on SKM’s social media handles. A queue of tractors and other vehicles made a  beeline for Delhi.

“A battle won. Now it is the turn of the Yogi government. Assure legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price [MSP] to farmers, arrest Union Minister Ajay Mishra and compensate and rehabilitate farmer martyrs,” said AIKS General Secretary and SKM leader Hannan Mollah at Ghazipur.

“The fact that such a long struggle has to continue is a clear reflection on the insensitivity and arrogance of the Centre towards its toiling citizens. Over the course of 12 months, crores of people took part in one of the largest and longest protest movements across the world,” said SKM leader Balbir Singh Rajewal in a press release.

Similarly, SKM member and farmer leader Vikas Cesar, on Friday, addressed Tikri border protesters saying, “Even after the repeal of the three laws, the struggle has not ended. Until MSP is legally guaranteed, martyr families are not compensated and rehabilitated and FIRs against farmers are repealed, we will continue to dissent.”

So far, farmer unions have remained united in their stand that the call for repeal of the three laws alone will not satisfy the struggle. On Thursday, farmer leader Rakesh Tikait demanded that the motion to repeal the laws be discussed on the first day of the Winter Session of the Parliament. Addressing a Maha Dharna in Hyderabad, Telangana he urged farmers and supporters to persist with the same pressure on the government to accept other farmers’ demands like the withdrawal of the Electricity (Amendment) Bill as well as penal provisions of legal regulation related to Delhi air quality.

Accordingly, women blocked national highways in Vijaypura – Bhagewadi area amidst police prevention on the following day.

Meanwhile, Karnataka’s farmers observed huge tractor rallies in Chikballapur district. Highways in Chamarajanagar, Hospet and Shimoga districts were jammed as well while mammoth crowds assembled at Srirangapatna highway and Bengaluru-Mysore highways.

Apart from the Government’s decision and Cabinet ratification of repeal of the three anti-farmer laws, the movement achieved several victories for the farmers, common citizens and the nation at large. The movement created a sense of unified identity for the farmers, cutting across regional, religious or caste divisions. Farmers are discovering a newfound sense of dignity and pride in their identity as Farmers, and their assertion as citizens. It has deepened the roots of democracy and secularism in India.

In Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, farmers protested alongside trade unions. Tractor rallies were held in Raipur and Ranchi. Earlier, the SKM also said that solidarity actions from across the globe will begin from Friday.

Leaders will now gather on November 27 at the Singhu border to discuss future actions.

Related:

Kranti ka Naqsha: Mapping a year of the Kisan Andolan
Union Cabinet completes formalities for repeal of contentious farm laws
Lucknow Mahapanchayat: Droves of farmers celebrate first victory
Welcome repeal of laws but other demands pending: SKM to PM Modi
Farmers struggle to continue until all demands are met: SKM
Allow legal guarantee to MSP and empower farmers: Varun Gandhi to Modi 

The post Farmers’ movement: 12 months and still going strong! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Exactly 36 years have passed since the highly toxic chemical methyl isocyanate (MIC) leaked from a storage tank in Bhopal’s Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant killed around 25,000 people and injured nearly 550,000 people on December 3, 1984.

Three and a half decades later, the latter continues to demand justice from India’s judiciary and governance with the help of the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghthan (BGMUS) and the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS.)

“The year 2020 has been an extremely traumatic period for Bhopal gas victims. The struggle for justice, which gas-victims had been relentlessly waging for the previous 35 years, was itself a testimony to the failure of the Indian State to mete out justice in all these years,” said a joint press statement released by the two groups.

Victims were hopeful of an appropriate conclusion to the whole ordeal following an order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on December 18, 2019 directing the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Secretary to assess measures taken by the central government towards victims’ health care and disaster-related medical research. However, instead of improved medical care, gas-victims were removed from the Bhopal Memorial Hospital & Research Centre (BMHRC) in 2020 to make room for potential Covid-19 victims.

“The Madhya Pradesh government took a decision to oust victims of a previous disaster from the hospital that was established exclusively to take care of their health needs in order to make way for potential victims of a new disaster, thereby, leaving the victims of the previous disaster in the lurch,” the groups’ statement said while pointing out that the state government had no jurisdiction to remove patients from a central-government hospital.

The BGPMUS and BGPSSS spent the better part of March and April fighting for the restoration of the BMHRC. However, despite their success, there was hardly any improvement in the quality of medical treatment for gas-victims, who are most vulnerable to an attack of coronavirus. Further, no efforts were made to upgrade the institution into a teaching hospital that would attract the requisite number of super-specialists or provide necessary equipment and medicines.

“According to available reports, while surviving gas-victims constitute less than one-fourth of the current population of Bhopal, more than half the COVID-19 victims in Bhopal are suspected to be from among gas-victims,” said the BGPMUS and the BGPSSS.

Groups condemned the central and state governments as well as the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for their apathetic attitude towards victims’ gas-related ailments 36 years after the disaster. They also criticised the ICMR for failing to properly restart Bhopal-disaster-related research in 2010.

“Neither the ICMR nor the state government has any idea of the number of gas-victims suffering under each category of disease arising from respiratory, ophthalmic, gastrointestinal, neurological, psychiatric, and other problems. What is equally shocking is that even 36 years after the disaster, most of the gas-victims seeking treatment continue to be classed as suffering from temporary injury to deny them compensation for permanent injury. Increasing cases of cancer and genetic disorders are matters of grave concern,” they said.

Apart from the medical failures, the two groups also opposed the state government’s decision to stop monthly pension of Rs. 1,000 to widows of gas-victims from December 2019 onwards. President of the Gas Peedith Nirakshit Pension Bhogi Sangharsh Morcha Balkrishan Namdeo made representations to the Madhya Pradesh government and held dharnas to restore the pension to the 5000-odd widows.

Similarly, the BGPMUS and the BGPSSS filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on July 31. The lack of pension is an especial blow to the BGPMUS established by activist Abdul Jabbar, who spent a lifetime demanding relief and justice for survivors and families of victims. Jabbar passed away last year.

Under Jabbar’s guidance, the organisation worked for the rehabilitation of victims. Having lost his mother and brother during the incident, Jabbar had written a petition seeking relief and advocated for prematurely discharged or rejected survivors at Gas Relief hospitals. Almost every person involved in the incident asked for his help for getting medicine or processing papers for compensation or pleading with a claims court judge who had flippantly rejected papers. 

Yet, the situation only seems to worsen for gas-victims as court cases regarding the incident remain pending. The curative petition filed by the Indian government on December 3, 2010 to challenge the unjust settlement of about Rs.705 crores in 1989 and to seek additional sum of Rs.7,728 crores as compensation has remained in limbo ever since January this year. This in turn also postponed the hearing of the Special Leave Petition (SLC) seeking enhancement of settlement sum by a factor of five considering the severity of the incident.

“Failure to dispose of the pending Curative Petition and the SLP has effectively denied the gas-victims several thousands of crores of additional compensation that they are legitimately entitled to for over a decade,” said the two groups.

Their final and most earnest request has been for safe drinking water and compensation to all victims of contaminated water and toxic waste. Due to administrative apathy, there is still no assessment of the total impact of the toxic waste leaked into Bhopal’s soil and water during UCIL’s operation from 1969 to 1984. However, a preliminary study “Assessment and Remediation of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Areas in and around M/s Union Carbide India Ltd., Bhopal” conducted by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) shows that “the total quantum of contaminated soil requiring remediation amounts to 11,00,000 MT [metric tonnes.]”

Although petitions and cases have been filed regarding the matter, the subject of gas-victim grievances has been ignored by the Union and the people of India for far too long.

“On the thirty-six anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, the gas-victims still fervently hope that all those who have the power to render justice to the gas-victims will not be found wanting in fulfilling their obligations,” said the BGPMUS and the BGPSSS.

Related:

Bhopal Gas Tragedy:Is the already forgotten tragedy of 1984 going to be forever erased from memory?
Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 31 years and counting
Remembering 35 years of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy – World’s Worst Industrial Disaster
Bhopal gas tragedy victims lose a true friend

The post 36 years on, Bhopal Gas tragedy survivors still await justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Al Jazeera provides a graphic account of the Srebrenica genocide.

On July 11, 1995 at 16:15 General Ratko Mladic (now a convicted war criminal) entered Srebrenica with Serb forces, including paramilitary units from Serbia, claiming the town for Serbs. Strolling through the streets with the TV cameras rolling, Mladic announced that there will be “revenge against the Turks”.

Panicked residents in the enclave fled to the UN Dutch Battalion base only to find that the 400 lightly-armed peacekeepers were unable to defend them. Serb forces had inherited much larger resources of the former Yugoslav army, the fourth largest in the world at the time.

On that day, thousands of Bosniak men start to make their escape through the woods, forming a column and hiking some 100km in an attempt to reach free territory controlled by the Bosnian army.

The journey was known as the death march, as they were ambushed, shot at and attacked by Serb forces. Less than a quarter of them survived.

Over the course of six days, more than 8,000 Bosniaks were killed. Women and small children were deported.

In an attempt to conceal the killings, Serb forces transported the dead bodies with bulldozers and trucks and buried them in numerous locations, leaving the victims’ remains fragmented and crushed.

Human bones can be found as far as 20km apart, making it difficult for families to give their loved ones a proper burial.

What led to the massacre?
Genocide is not committed by a small group of individuals, rather a large number of people and the state all contribute to genocide.

The idea of a Greater  Serbia (including the territories of Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, Montenegro and other neighboring countries) dates back to the 19th century, and was revived following the death of Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito in 1980.

With the decline of the Communist bloc, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian nationalists saw a chance to mobilise the masses in support of establishing a homogenous Serbian state.

In Milosevic’s famous address to a crowd in Belgrade in 1989, he presented himself as the savior of Serbdom and Europe. It enforced the notion of “us [Serbs] vs them”.

Bosniaks were typically called Turks, Balije (a slur for a Bosnian Muslim) and branded as terrorists and Islamic “extremists”.

A plan to destroy Bosnia and “completely exterminate its Muslim people” was drawn up as early as the 1980s by the General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army, according to Vladimir Srebrov, a politician who cofounded the SDS party with convicted Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadzic.

One document, written by the army’s special services including experts in psychological warfare, stated that the most effective way to create terror and panic among the Bosniak population would be by raping women, minors, and even children.

How genocide was organized?
Organized from Belgrade, Serbia, weapons were distributed to the Serb population by the truckload throughout 1990 and 1991 in Bosnia, according to Al Jazeera.

“Weapons and military equipment were even flown in by military helicopters to Serbian military officers. It is said that by the end, almost no Serbian house was without an automatic gun,” according to a UN report from 1994.

“The pretext for the arms deliveries and the rearmament was that this was necessary for the defence against ‘the enemies of the people’ – the Muslim extremists.”

As Serb troops arrived in each town, they killed non-Serbs, often after torturing them. Bosniak properties were confiscated.

As many as 50,000 Bosniak and Croat women, girls and young children were raped in Bosnia from 1992- 1995.

In Prijedor, a city in western Bosnia, Bosniaks were forced to wear white armbands to be clearly identified and tie white flags to their doors.

Across the country 200,000 people were deported to concentration  camps where they were tortured, starved and killed.

Others living under siege, such as in Sarajevo and Mostar, starved while being targeted by snipers and heavy shelling.

Srebrenica, which was known as the world’s biggest detention camp, was under siege for three years, before it fell to Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995.

Serb troops separated boys and men aged between 12 and 77 from the rest of the population and took them to fields, schools and warehouses to be executed.

International Court of Justice
The systematic murder of over 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) in Srebrenica by Serb forces in July 1995 was ruled as an act of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice.

Theodor Meron, the presiding judge at the ICTY, stated in 2004 that “by seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed a genocide.”

“They targeted for extinction of the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of Bosnian Muslims in general,” he said.

Serbian General Vladimir Lazarevic, Bosnian Croat Dario Kordic and Bosnian Serb Momcilo Krajisnik were convicted for “horrific crimes against humanity”, yet they were given a hero’s welcome upon release from prison with government officials in attendance, the report noted. Fourteen Serb war criminals were convicted of genocide and other crimes at the ICTY including former Military Commander Radislav Krstic, former President of Republika Srpska Radovan Karadzic, and Bosnian Serb Military Leader Ratko Mladic.

“All three, as  senior officials and commanders, participated in ethnic cleansing and campaigns harming millions and devastating communities. The mentality that can regard those men as heroes is difficult to understand,” Meron wrote.

The systematic murder of over 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) in Srebrenica by Serb forces in July 1995 was ruled as an act of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice.Denial of facts established in the Tribunal’s judgments are widespread in the education system throughout former Yugoslavia, the report noted, where students are taught “widely different and irreconcilable versions of the recent past”.

International Court of Justice
Theodor Meron, the presiding judge at the ICTY, stated in 2004 that “by seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed a genocide.”

“They targeted for extinction of the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of Bosnian Muslims in general,” he said.

Serbian General Vladimir Lazarevic, Bosnian Croat Dario Kordic and Bosnian Serb Momcilo Krajisnik were convicted for “horrific crimes against humanity”, yet they were given a hero’s welcome upon release from prison with government officials in attendance, the report noted. Fourteen Serb war criminals were convicted of genocide and other crimes at the ICTY including former Military Commander Radislav Krstic, former President of Republika Srpska Radovan Karadzic, and Bosnian Serb Military Leader Ratko Mladic.

“All three, as  senior officials and commanders, participated in ethnic cleansing and campaigns harming millions and devastating communities. The mentality that can regard those men as heroes is difficult to understand,” Meron wrote.

Canadians launch petition to ban Srebrenica genocide denial
Denial of facts established in the Tribunal’s judgments are widespread in the education system throughout former Yugoslavia, the report noted, where students are taught “widely different and irreconcilable versions of the recent past”.

An online petition has been launched in Canada by the Institute for Research of Genocide (IRGC), requesting the Canadian government to enact a law making Srebrenica genocide denial a punishable offence.

If the petition is adopted, Canada would join nine other countries in Europe including Switzerland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Macedonia in prohibiting genocide denial.

Canada has already adopted two resolutions recognizing the Srebrenica genocide, launched by the IRGC.

However, its Director Emir Ramic noted that the process of adopting the first resolution took five years as the Conservative Party – under the influence of the Serbian and Russian lobby – had rejected the resolution.

He told Al Jazeera that the threats intensified as discourse changed from denial to glorification and triumphalism.Ramic’s work with the institute has made him a target of death threats and verbal abuse for years by genocide deniers.

However, he says it has made him all the more determined to make sure a law is enacted banning the denial of Srebrenica genocide. If adopted, Canada would make a major contribution in the fight against genocide denial worldwide, Ramic told Al Jazeera.

“Denying the genocide in Srebrenica is very dangerous. We need to learn from history, recognise [what happened in Srebrenica] and call it by its real name,” he said.

“The aggression and genocide in Bosnia have shown that … there aren’t adequate mechanisms in place to protect freedom and human rights.””Human rights are under attack worldwide,” Ramic added. “Bosniaks, as the only people in Europe who survived aggression and genocide [since the Holocaust], are exposed to unacceptable discrimination not just in the motherland, but in the Diaspora as well.”

“We’ve seen this with Holocaust denial, we’ve seen this with denial for Rwanda and of course with Srebrenica,” said Parliamentarian Brian Masse on the necessity of a law.

“It’s very hurtful for the victims and families of the survivors to continue to wrestle with something based on facts, so the initiative will help in preventing denial and create awareness that we will never forget.”

On April 24, 2015,  the House of Commons passed a motion to include the Srebrenica genocide, and Srebrenica Remembrance Day as part of “Genocide Remembrance, Condemnation and Awareness Month” every April. Earlier on October 19, 2010, the House of Commons passed a motion to recognize July 11 annually as Srebrenica Remembrance Day in Canada.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Chief Editor of the Journal of America (www.journalofamerica.net) email: asghazali2011 (@) gamil.com

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post 24th anniversary: Srebrenica genocide remembered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

RSS claims that it opposed Emergency promulgated by Indira Gandhi  heroically and suffered immensely for resisting Emergency. But there are dozens of contemporary narratives which dispute and decry this claim of the RSS. We will be referring here to such two narratives by a veteran thinker and journalist of India, Prabhash Joshi  and TV Rajeswar, former Intelligence Bureau [IB] chief  who was the deputy chief of IB when Emergency was imposed. They recounted the days of Emergency (or state terrorism) when RSS surrendered to the repressive regime of Indira Gandhi, assured her and her son, Sanjay Gandhi to enforce faithfully the draconian 20-point programme announced by the Emergency regime. Large number of RSS cadres came out of jails by submitting MAAFINAMAAS (mercy petitions).

Despite all this betrayal thousands of RSS cadres continue to get monthly pension for persecution during Emergency. The BJP ruled states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra decided to award a monthly pension of Rs 10,000 to those who were jailed during the Emergency period for more than a month and Rs 5000 to those who were jailed for less than a month. This rule took care of the financial interest of those RSS cadres who might have submitted mercy letters completing only one or two months’ jail term. For securing such a fat pension there was no such condition that the beneficiary should have been in  jail for the whole period of the Emergency.

Interestingly, in the case of anti-British freedom struggle there has not been even a single RSS cadre to claim the freedom fighter pension. It may be noted that nobody remembers hundreds of Communist youth, branded as Naxals who were killed in fake encounters during the Emergency. Interestingly, Shiv Sena , the Hindutva co-traveler of the RSS openly supported the Emergency.

The narrative by Prabhash Joshi appeared in the English weekly TEHELKA on the 25th anniversary of the Emergency.[i] According to him even during the Emergency “there was always a lurking sense of suspicion, a distance, a discreet lack of trust” about RSS’ joining the anti-Emergency struggle. He went on to tell that “Balasaheb Deoras, then RSS chief, wrote a letter to Indira Gandhi pledging to help implement the notorious 20-point programme of Sanjay Gandhi. This is the real character of the RSS…You can decipher a line of action, a pattern. Even during the Emergency, many among the RSS and Jana Sangh who came out of the jails, gave mafinamas (apologies). They were the first to apologise. Only their leaders remained in jail: Atal Behari Vajpayee, LK Advani, even Arun Jaitley. But the RSS did not fight the Emergency. So why is the BJP trying to appropriate that memory?”

Prabhash Joshi’s conclusion was that “they are not a fighting force and they are never keen to fight. They are basically a compromising lot. They are never genuinely against the government”.

TV Rajeswar, who served as Governor of Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim after his retirement from service, in his book, ‘India: The Crucial Years” [Harper Collins] corroborated the fact that “Not only they (RSS) were supportive of this [Emergency], they wanted to establish contact apart from Mrs Gandhi, with Sanjay Gandhi also”.[ii] Rajeswar in an interview with Karan Thapar disclosed that Deoras “quietly established a link with the PM’s house and expressed strong support for several steps taken to enforce order and discipline in the country. Deoras was keen to meet Mrs. Gandhi and Sanjay. But Mrs. Gandhi refused.”[iii]

According to Rajeswar’s book, “RSS, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organisation, was banned in the wake of the Emergency. But its chief, Balasaheb Deoras, quietly established a link with the PM’s house and expressed strong support to several steps taken to enforce order and discipline in the country. Sanjay Gandhi’s concerted drive to enforce family planning, particularly among Muslims, had earned Deoras’s approbation.”[iv]

Rajeswar also shared the fact that even after Emergency the “organization (RSS) had specifically conveyed its support to the Congress in the post-emergency elections.”[v] It will be interesting to note that even according to Subramanian Swamy in   the Emergency period, most of the senior leaders of RSS had betrayed the struggle against the Emergency.[vi]

The contemporary documents in the RSS archives prove the narratives of Prabhash Joshi and Rajeswar truthful. The 3rd Supremo of RSS, Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras wrote the first letter to Indira Gandhi within two months of the imposition of Emergency. It was the time when state terror was running amok. In letter dated, August 22, 1975 he began with the following  praise of Indira:

“I heard your address to the nation which you delivered on August 15, 1975 from Red Fort on radio in jail [Yervada jail] with attention. your address was timely and balanced so I decided to write to you”.[vii]

Indira Gandhi did not respond to it. So Deoras wrote another letter to Indira on November 10, 1975. He began his letter with congratulating her on being cleared by the Supreme Court of disqualification which was ordered by the Allahabad High Court, “All the five Justices of the Supreme Court have declared your election constitutional, heartiest greetings for it.” It is to be noted that opposition was firmly of the opinion that this judgment was ‘managed’ by the Congress. In the course of the letter he declared that “RSS has been named in context of Jaiprakash Narayan’s movement. The government has also connected RSS with Gujarat movement and Bihar movement without any reason…Sangh has no relation with these movements…”[viii]

Since Indira Gandhi did not respond to this letter also, RSS chief got hold of Vinoba Bhave who supported the Emergency religiously and was a favourite of Indira Gandhi. In a letter dated January 12, 1976, he begged that Acharya should suggest the way that ban on RSS was removed.[ix]  Since Acharya too did not respond to Deoras letter, the latter in another letter without date wrote in desperation,

“According to press reports respected PM [Indira Gandhi] is going to meet you at Pavnar Ashram on January 24. At that time there will be discussion about the present condition of the country. I beg you to try to remove the wrong assumptions of PM about RSS so that ban on RSS is lifted and RSS members are released from jails. We are looking forward for the times when RSS and its members are able to contribute to the plans of progress which are being run in all the fields under the leadership of PM.”[x]

Riding the juggernaut of the rulers, specially the autocratic ones has been an old practice in RSS. It was the reason that no leader and cadre of RSS participated in the anti-colonial freedom struggle. In fact, the RSS worships brute force and totalitarianism. The most prominent ideologue of the RSS, 2nd boss of the organization, Golwalkar decreed as back as 1940 that “The RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.”[xi]

The former President of the Indian Republic, Pranab Mukherjee was invited by the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat as the chief guest in 2018 at the graduation ceremony of its new recruits who would be working over-time to convert India into a Hindu state. Pranab Mukherjee was indicted as one of the top leaders of Congress for Emergency excesses. Shamsul Islam

June 25, 2019.

notoinjustice@gmail.com

For some of S. Islam’s writings in English, Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu & Gujarati see the following link:
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

Facebook: shams shamsul

Twitter: @shamsforjustice

[i] http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=op070205And_Not_Even.asp
 
[ii] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rss-backed-indira-gandhis-emergency-ex-ib-chief-264127-2015-09-21
 
[iii] Ibid.

[iv] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ib-ex-chiefs-book-rss-chief-deoras-had-backed-some-emergency-moves/

[v] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RSS-backed-Emergency-reveals-former-IB-chief/articleshow/49052143.cms
 
[vi] https://medium.com/@hindu.nationalist1/double-game-of-senior-rss-leaders-during-emergency-74abc07a4fa8

[vii] Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras, Hindu Sangathan aur Sattavaadi Rajneeti, Jagriti Prkashan, Noida, 1997, 270.

[viii] Ibid., 272-73

[ix] Ibid., 275-77.

[x] Ibid., 278.

[xi] MS Golwalkar, Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, vol. I, 11.]
Shamsul Islam is a retired Professor of University of Delhi.Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post On 44th Anniversary of the Emergency in India, How RSS Betrayed the Anti-emergency Struggle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Pinterest

This week marks 312^th anniversary of the martyrdom of the two young sons of Guru Gobind Singh and his mother.

 
The tenth master of the Sikhs had laid the foundation of the Khalsa, a sect that was dedicated to fight against state oppression of the Mughal rule and determined to challenge the caste-based divisions practiced by orthodox Hindus.
 
Guru Gobind Singh was born 350 years ago to father Guru Teg Bahadar and mother Mata Gujri. Teg Bahadar was the ninth Guru of the Sikh faith that was founded by Nanak. Sikhism is based on the principles of egalitarianism and social justice. Guru Gobind Singh was very young when he lost his father, who laid down his life for human rights and religious freedom by coming to the defence of Kashmiri Hindus who were being forcibly converted to Islam by the Mughal Empire.
 
Mata Gujri brought up young Gobind Singh with courage following the execution of her husband. Guru Gobind Singh who led the community as the tenth Guru had resolved to fight against state violence by raising a force of committed men who ended caste barriers to give a united challenge to the enemy. For this Guru Gobind Singh had to face the dual threat from the Mughal government and Hindu kings who could not tolerate people from the so called low castes being empowered with the formation of Khalsa army. So great was this perceived threat that they even tried to incite the Mughals against Guru Gobind Singh.
 
During the year 1705 he had to fight a very tough battle in which he lost his two elder sons, Ajit Singh and Jujhar Singh, while Mata Gujri and his two younger sons Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh were separated from the entire family. The three of them were handed over to a Muslim governor of Sirhind state by a treacherous Hindu servant who deceived them after being bought over by the enemies. Mata Gujri was thrown into jail alongside her grandsons.
 
Both Zorawar Singh aged nine and Fateh Singh aged seven were pressurised by the Mughals to embrace Islam to save their lives. Undeterred by these warnings, they accepted death with dignity and were bricked alive. Upon receiving the news of the merciless killings of her grandsons, Mata Gujri also died in the prison.
 
Today when state repression spreads everywhere and we see no end to bigotry, the episode of the great sacrifices made by Guru Gobind Singh, his parents and sons has become even more relevant.
 
All we need to understand is the real message behind this powerful story rather than letting communal forces misinterpret this history for their ulterior motives. It’s a shame that right wing political parties such as the Hindu supremacist BJP that governs India continues to appropriate the Sikh history in an attempt to polarise Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims, whereas the Sikh gurus and their families fought against repression and not any particular religion. Rather they had some good Muslims on their side as several hostile Hindus joined hands with the Mughal Empire.
 
The growing incidents of violence against Muslims and Christians under the BJP government(s) would instead have forced the gurus to revolt against the current regime if they were still among us. They would never have compromised with a government whose supporters frequently  terrorise minorities with impunity and force Muslims and Christians to embrace Hinduism in the name of Ghar Waapsi – which is nothing but a well-organised religious conversion (through force and intimidation).
 
Apart from this, the current regime is no different from the then tyrannical Mughal government that killed two small children and let their aging grandmother die in the jail. Activists like Prof. GN Saibaba who are being incarcerated despite being ninety percent disabled below waist for standing up for the oppressed people is a classic case of the brutality of the Indian state. The under- age Kashmiris continue to be arrested and attacked by the Indian forces in the name of war against terror in the valley where uprising for right to self-determination has been going on for years. Even in Punjab during the Sikh insurgency in 1980s the under age children on the militants and their parents were subjected to killings and torturers. Only recently, Jagtar Johal, a young Sikh activist from UK was detained and tortured in Punjab on the allegations of murdering of right wing leaders.  
 
The story is relevant internationally too as this week we saw the arrest of 16-year-old Ahed Tamini – a Palestinian activist who slapped an Israeli soldier for continued repression of her people and the occupation of her homeland by the state of Israel. The indigenous activists in North America also face highhandedness of the state for opposing extraction of natural resources from their traditional lands without informed consent.
 
Those who believe in the philosophy of Mata Gujri and her young grandsons must come together to raise voice for those who are being persecuted for showing resistance against repression anywhere in the world and defeat the forces of bigotry.
 
 

The post Sacrifices of Mother & Young Sons of Guru Gobind Singh Very Relevant Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.