Word ‘anti-national’ has been more in vogue for the last few years. Simply put, all those who are criticising the RSS and its progeny, are labeled as ‘anti-national’. As the fountainhead of Hindutva Nationalism, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is becoming stronger, and it has been trying to link patriotism and religion. While hailing Hindus for their loyalty to this nation, the subtle hints are being circulated about Muslims in particular that they are more loyal to Pakistan. 

In cleverly worded articulation, (HT Jan 02, 2020) the chief of RSS, Mohan Bhagwat said that Hindus are patriotic by nature due to their religion.  He also twists a sentence of Gandhi to state that Gandhi’s patriotism had its origin in Hindu religion, “All Indians worship motherland. But Gandhi said my patriotism comes from my religion. So if you are a Hindu then you will be an automatic patriot. You may be an unconscious Hindu, you may need awakening, but a Hindu will never be anti-India.”

Before analysing the subtle hints hidden in this formulation let’s understand that when RSS began, its major ideologue M.S. Golwalkar was forthright in praising the Nazis and recommended the treatment for Muslims and Christians (Foreign religions, according to RSS) on the lines which were used by Nazis for Jews. Now for the last few decades, as RSS is becoming more powerful through it multiple organizations like BJP, VHP, ABVP, Vanvasis Kalyan Ashram, and through its infiltration into different wings of state, media and education, it is using more subtle language, while communicating the same Hindutva nationalist ideology. The meaning and content remains the same, which Golwalkar had outlined in ‘We or Our Nationhood Defined’, but the presentation is well decorated, subtle to the extent of confusing many in the society.

As far as Gandhi is concerned, for him religion was a personal matter. He did call himself as sanatani Hindu, but his Hinduism was liberal and inclusive. His religion had more to do with moral values. He derived his spiritual strength from all the religions, “I consider myself as good a Muslim as I am a Hindu and for that matter, I regard myself as equally good a Christian or a Parsi”. (Harijan, May 25 197, page 164). There is respect and inclusivity for people of other religions in his practice of Hinduism. This is in total contrast to exclusivist, narrow understanding and practice of Hinduism of RSS, which is continuously raking up issues to frighten and intimidate people of other religions. As Gandhi’s practice of his religion was liberal and inclusive he could lead the people of different religions in the struggle against British rule.

He also did not connect religion to nationality, or for that matter to patriotism. In that sense patriotism, love for one’s country and countrymen, is not rooted in the religion but in the ‘Nationhood’ which is not an outcome of religion for that matter. His use of word religion has two levels. One is the popular notion of customs, identity, faith etc. and second the morality inherent in the teachings of religion. Though he is very clear that morality is the core of religions, the likes of RSS or for that matter even the Muslim communalists (Muslim League etc.) take his use of the word purely at the level of rituals, holy places etc. only.

The ideologues, who are a part of Hindutva nationalist outlook, close to RSS mindset, are burning the midnight oil to dig fragments of sentences, not only from Gandhi and other national icons to present as if the values of these makers of ‘India as a nation’ had ideas similar to that of RSS. In the process they retain the RSS ideology while trying to get more legitimacy by showing their similarity to the great icons of India’s freedom movement and the process of ‘India as a nation in the making’.

So now the formulation is that Hindus are naturally patriots, they can’t be anti national. The other side of this is that the nationalism and patriotism of those belonging to other religions is suspect, subject to certification by those who have a monopoly of being patriots and nationalists, those claiming to represent Hindus.

This totally bypasses the great contributions of Muslims and Christians in the making of modern India. Where do you place the millions of Muslims who followed Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who stood not only against British rule but also against the concept of partition of India? Where do you place the likes of Shibli Nomani, Hasrat Mohani, and Ashfaqullah Khan? How do you value the contribution of Allahbaksh who was instrumental in organising the conference of Muslims to oppose the resolution for separate Pakistan by Mohammad Ali Jinnah? There were innumerable organisations formed by Muslims who rubbed shoulders with participants in the struggle for freedom movement.

In Independent India people of all religions have contributed with equal zeal in the making of modern India, in all the fields of industry, education, sports, culture and what have you. Are they not patriots or nationalists?

On the other side this formulation of Mr. Bhagwat is a clever defense of the one trained in its shakhas who murdered Gandhi, Nathuram Godse. How do we label those who participated and led in demolition of Babri Mosque, which was called a crime by the Supreme Court? As per Bhagwat, do acts of killing of Gandhi, Kalburgi, Dabholkar, Gauri Lankesh and Govind Pansare fall in the category of patriotic acts? Where do so many Hindus involved in spying, smuggling, black marketing etc. are to be placed?

Interestingly as RSS is making a show of paying respect to Gandhi, at the same time its trained pracharaks and fellow ideologues and many of its affiliated organisations are openly paying respect to Nathuram Godse. This Gandhi anniversary tweets praising Godse were aplenty, mostly from Hindus. That just shows the ideological manipulation capability of the multithreaded hydra, RSS. Only such an organization can simultaneously make the show of paying obeisance to Gandhi while quietly enhancing the ideology which led to his murder.

* The writer is a human rights defender and a former professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT Bombay). 

Other pieces by Dr. Puniyani:

Bid Curb Inter-faith marriages: Ruse to Restrict Women’s Freedom

Charlie Hebdo Cartoons and Blasphemy Laws in Contemporary Times

Was Mughal Rule the period of India’s Slavery?

Kashi- Mathura: Will temple politics be revived?

Scapegoats and Holy Cows

Freedom of Religion: Indian Scenario

The post Patriotism, Religion and RSS Ideology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Setting aside an order by the Additional District Magistrate against allowing protests in Maharashtra’s Beed, a division bench of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court said that those protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) “cannot be called traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose one law”. The order was passed by justices MG Sewlikar and TV Nalawade on February 13, 2020 is an unequivocal victory for Article 19(1) which is the Right to Freedom of Assembly. It is this cardinal, fundamental principle that is guides people’s and citizens right to protest in a democracy.

The Bombay HC (Aurangabad bench) said that an agitation cannot be suppressed only on the ground that people are agitating against the government. It also asked the bureaucracy to “keep in mind” that when people believe that a “particular Act is an attack on their rights… they are bound to defend that right”. The judgement clearly underlined that it is not for the Court “to ascertain whether the exercise of such right will create a law and order problem”.

Granting relief to petitioners who were seeking permission to sit at a location for an indefinite agitation, the Court noted they had given an undertaking that no slogans would be raised against the country, any religion, or the unity and integrity of the nation.  “The submissions made show that there will be no question of disobedience of provisions of CAA by such agitation. This Court is expected to consider the right of such persons to start agitation in a peaceful way. This Court wants to express that such persons cannot be called as traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose one law. It will be an act of protest and only against the government for the reason of CAA,” the division bench ruled on Thursday.

The judgement came was delivered on a petition filed by a 45-year-old Beed resident, Iftekhar Shaikh, challenging an order by a police inspector last month refusing permission for an agitation based on an order by the additional district magistrate. The Court said the order by the magistrate refers to a letter by the District SP on agitations by political parties for many causes, including against the CAA. The SP had written that such agitations could lead to a law and order problem. The order said that the agitations include those by farmers due to damaged crops, others due to increase in price of commodities, and against the CAA.

The HC held that one of the clauses of the order prevented “sloganeering, singing, beating drums”. “It can be said that though the order on face appears to be against everybody, in reality the order is against persons who want to agitate, to protest against the CAA. At present, such agitations are going on everywhere and there was no whisper of agitations of other nature in this region. Thus, it can be said that there was no fairness and the order was not made honestly,” the Court said.

It said the Constitutional validity of the CAA was being heard in the Supreme Court and hence it would not comment on it. “When we are considering a proceeding like the present one, we must keep in mind that we are a democratic republic country and our Constitution has given us rule of law and not rule of majority. When such an Act is made, some people, maybe of a particular religion like Muslims, may feel that it is against their interest and such Act needs to be opposed. It is a matter of their perception and belief and the Court cannot go into the merits of that perception or belief,” the Court said.

It said courts had to examine whether these persons have the right to agitate and oppose a law. “If the Court finds that it is part of their fundamental right, it is not open to the Court to ascertain whether the exercise of such right will create law and order problem. That is the problem of a political government. In such cases, it is the duty of the Government to approach such persons, have talks with them and try to convince them,” the Court said.

It said the authorities cannot be of the perception that only one particular community or religion had an interest in opposing the law, stating that their own order said members from all communities were agitating. “…many persons of all the communities may feel that it is against the interest of mankind, humanity or basic human values. We need to remember the Constitutional and legal history when we consider the provisions of the Constitution,” it said.

Referring to the freedom struggle and the agitation against the British led by Mahatma Gandhi, including the Khilafat Movement, the Court said the movement was in solidarity with and support to the cause of Muslims of another country, even though no Indian Muslims were affected in seeking to preserve the authority of the Ottoman Sultan.

“India got freedom due to agitations which were non-violent and this path of non-violence is followed by the people of this country till this date. We are fortunate that most of the people of this country still believe in non-violence. In the present matter also, the petitioners and companions want to agitate peacefully to show their protest,” the Court said.

It said that the bureaucracy needs to be “sensitive” in matters of dissent by giving proper training on human rights. “The bureaucracy needs to keep in mind that when citizens who believe that a particular Act is an attack on their rights which were achieved by the freedom struggle, and when it is against the provisions of the Constitution which people have given to themselves, they are bound to defend that right. If they are not allowed to do so, the possibility of use of force is always there and the result will be violence, chaos, disorder and ultimately the danger to the unity of this country,” the Court said.

It said that people from all religions supporting the minority community shows that “we have achieved fraternity to a great extent”. It said that the grounds put forward by district authorities that the agitation could lead to a possible problem of law and order cannot be considered by the court, “particularly for reason that it involves the exercise of fundamental right”.

Citizens across the country have been asserting this fundamental right to protest over the past two and a half months ever since the Modi 2.0 government passed the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 in Parliament on December 9 and 11. This law coupled with the now to be implemented National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) threatens a vast section of Indians who may be arbitrarily excluded from that right to have rights: citizenship!

The authorities submitted in court that permission will be given to those who want to agitate peacefully.

The entire judgement of the Bombay HC may be read here:

The post Don’t label anti-CAA protesters ‘traitors’, people bound to defend rights in a democracy: Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The notes are PDF copies of a document and all bear the logo of the NRC authority. They appear to be dossiers on specific people and groups. The people named include senior journalists, activists and social welfare organisations. The objective of the notes appears to be to incite ill will and possibly even violence against those named.

But, alarmed at the misuse of its logo and brand for such a despicable purpose, the NRC authority has issued a clarification categorically stating that it has absolutely nothing to do with the extremely wicked and shockingly vile note. The clarification says, “It has come to the notice of the NRC authority that a document naming some journalists as being involved in anti-NRC propaganda is being circulated in social media etc. from around 17^th August 2019. On this matter, it is clarified that NRC authority has nothing to do with its creation or circulation.”

The clarification may be viewed here:

 It is however, noteworthy that there are more than one documents in circulation, all of which appear to have mischievously misused the NRC logo and brand. While CJP secretary Teesta Setalvad and Assam program coordinator Ali Zamser find their names in the list of anti-NRC journalists, there are two more dossiers specifically targeting CJP’s work in the state and singling out Teesta Setalvad. The only purpose behind such documents is to generate hate and fear for people engaging in humanitarian work and possibly even provoke people to act against them.
 

The post Not behind document calling CJP anti-national: NRC Authority appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: youthkiawaaz.com

In prevalent terminology, this statement could have been labelled ‘anti-national’ and newsrooms and twitter, if not actual streets would have been set aflame by ‘patriots’. But in Modi’s India, all ‘anti-nationals’ are equal but some ‘anti-nationals’ are more equal than others. In another time and era of course, a statement like this could have been dismissed as looney and summarily laughed off, but this is 2019 and RSS, the mother ship to which both Hindu Mahasabha and the BJP belong, is in power.  ‘Intellectuals’, of the ‘urban naxal’ variety may also defend Shri Kaushik’s freedom of speech, enshrined ironically in the19th article of the Indian constitution, thanklessly of course, because such gracious favours may never be reciprocated.

Shri Chandra Prakash Kaushik has also in the past grappled with the vexing issue of how much PDA (Public Display of Affection) is too much PDA. He has in the past issued threats to marry off any couple who is found on the street on Valentine’s Day after his fellow travellers thrash them for indulging in ‘immoral’ and ‘Un-Indian’ behaviour. Perhaps as a wedding gift. 

Hindu Mahasabha leaders are also known for killing cardboard cut-outs of Mahatma Gandhi with air-guns and what could only be tomato ketchup (instead of hitting the gym). 

Technically though, the Hindu Mahasabha is only celebrating the memory of an act perpetrated by their ideological forefathers.

They have also in the past fought amongst themselves over erecting Godse statues publicly or privately. Naturally, should Godse be celebrated in the open or behind closed doors seems like a valid point of confusion for Hindutvawadis, much like the act of engaging in PDA. 

However, there is yet another theory about comic antics of the loony right. The hydra headed RSS is known to have mastered the art of double speak. Its many front organisations, speaking in many tongues, offer a multitude of hate filled venom couched in nationalism. This is a well crafted strategy that not only addresses a large audience but also slowly legitimises hate by putting it out in many shades, largely unchallenged. 

The comedians on the loony right may neither be loony not comic in reality. Either ways, nobody’s laughing anymore.

The post Hindu Mahasabha Leader makes ‘Anti -National’ statements, gets away with it. appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The approval comes right after the re-election of the Modi government at the centre, and is being seen by many as a repressive move. To understand the implications of the proposed law and what it specifically imeans for democratic rights, the Indian Cultural Forum spoke to some eminent academics and writers.

Nandini Sundar, Professor of Sociology at the Delhi School of Economics, said that such an ordinance would have a “chilling effect on all research, teaching and activity in the university. Even if “anti-national” activities are not defined, the target is quite clear – anything that is critical or questioning the current government will be considered as “anti-national”.” Sundar pointed out that the government prescribing such rules for universities is extremely dangerous, and added that “if people are engaged in anti-national activities there are other laws to deal with that.” 
Reacting to the draft ordinance, writer and scholar Ganesh Devy said, “Universities are meant for generating thought and meaningful social questions…This kind of “fatwa” is the end of the university system.”

The universities would be given a year to enforce the law. Many feel that this is a part of the larger attack on academic institutions since the current regime came to power in 2014. The Modi-led government, accused time and again of curbing debate and saffronising education, is opposed to the very idea of a university. The draft ordinance, they think, is another step in the same direction. 

Ghanshyam Shah, sociologist and former Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, is of the opinion that the ordinance defeats the very purpose of a university. He says: “University is meant for free and open discussion. And nothing is sacrosanct as far as the discussion within the university campus is concerned. Now this “anti-national” – one wonders what is meant by that. Anything I might want can make an “anti-national”. I want development for dalits and I might be accused to be an “anti-national” because you are not talking about India’s upliftment, but dalit upliftment. So any opposition or any criticism of those in power would be then “anti-national”.”

Echoing a similar concern, Abha Dev Habib, Professor of Physics at Delhi University, points out: “Academic institutions may be funding or conducting various research projects – how will you scan whether what they are doing is ‘national’ or ‘anti-national’? By scanning every seminar? By scanning every research project? I don’t understand the need for such a bill.” She sees the move as contrary to the basic requirements of fruitful research and academics: “If you want to really do well in research or in knowledge production, then the universities – whether public or private – need to have the freedom to think in a new manner, and it may not be an easy task… We must understand that anything new in science came only through questioning what existed and challenging superstitions.”

According to her, there is also a direct connection between the unfolding projects of the Adityanath-led UP government and the agenda of establishing an academic stranglehold. She says, “If you look at what has happened over the last five years in Uttar Pradesh, and the kind of violence that has happened against dalits and women, and how the focus has been shifted to the cow…they want to have a greater control over these processes through control over universities – through a greater control over what is taught and how it is taught.”

Eminent historian Uma Chakravarty claims that the draft law is of a piece with some of the worst forms of authoritarianism historically. She says, “It is like from the McCarthy era in the US where they imagined “un-American” activities and hauled hordes of people from the universities and from the cultural world and slapped such accusations against them. They aunched a huge witch hunt against those whom they identified as “un-American” for their supposed communist sympathies. It didn’t matter whether they were or they weren’t communist. The process amounted to a farce. It wasn’t even any legal procedure — they called someone to testify, that person will then know other people, and they will be asked to come and testify, and then basically they lost their jobs, they moved away quite often from America to go and teach in other universities. They were terrible times. Even people like Charlie Chaplin went away from Hollywood. I am reminded, as a historian, of this kind of thing. It is a targeting of the universities where, according to the ruling regime, there should be no critical thinking, no independent thinking and you can create a bogey of nationalism and charge others with “anti-national” activities. You could be stuck in court and meanwhile your careers would be destroyed. I am reminded of the McCarthy era in America in the late 40s — their version of hysteria against the so-called communists. It is basically a witch hunt.”

While Uma Chakravarty invokes the migration of dissenting academics to other countries, Debaditya Bhattacharya, Assistant Professor at the Kazi Nazrul University, thinks that a different kind of journey may be playing out in India today. Locating the draft ordinance in the situation of public universities under the Modi regime, he says: “This is a clear move to bring the axe down on private universities because the public universities are already on their way to becoming privatised. Over the past five years, we have seen that public universities have been hollowed out of any kind of defence or even any potential for defence. Now that they have been neutralised and sanitised, the private universities have to be the next target.”

The move from public to private has been the result of a systematic persecution of voices in public universities. He says further: “Because of the larger policies that have been played out in terms of non-filling of vacancies, along with public university spaces becoming increasingly intolerant spaces, a lot of good people who were either working as contractual faculties within the public university, have either moved to private universities or have moved abroad.” He cites Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Hyderabad Central University, Allahabad University and IIT Chennai as instances of this unfolding tragedy. 

The “exodus”, as he terms it, naturally results in policies like the draft ordinance. He says, “People who have been students of public universities, people who have been trained to think about public initiatives, who have been taught to think about the order of the day, have all moved into private universities. Which is why there has to be a clamp down on private universities now.” 

It seems, on the view of these academics and writers, that the draft ordinance brings together communalism with full-blown privatisation. While the full implications of the law will only be gauged in practice, the draft ordinance sounds an ominous note in the increasingly dismal situation of the right to democratic dissent in India. Response to it must also be, therefore, to the larger onslaught on democracy and dissent.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Academics and Writers Respond to the UP Private Universities Ordinance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The offence of sedition has always been at the center of controversy, given its impact on freedom of speech. However, during this election season the debate was given a new angle, with the Home Minister Shri Raj Nath Singh and the BJP President Shri Amit Shah promising to make the offence more stringent. On the other hand, the Congress in its election manifesto had promised to scrap the section from the statute books. I aim to answer the above controversy (i.e. whether the law on sedition should be made more stringent or scrapped?) in the present post.

The post shall first explain Section 124-A (‘Section’) and how the Courts have interpreted it. This shall be followed by a discussion on the actual implementation of the section by the government machinery. The article shall conclude by discussing whether the provision should be made more stringent or not. What is Sedition? The offence of sedition is defined in Section 124-A as the expression by words (spoken or written) or visible representations that excites disaffection or generates hatred against a government established by law. The punishment for the offence ranges between three years to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of India laid down the test for the application of the Section in the locus classicus of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar [A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 955 (India)].

The Court held that the Section is applicable when: An individual commits an act which creates disaffection/hatred against the government established by law; and The act is committed with the intention to create public disorder by violence or cause incitement to violence. The exception to the above is a bona fide criticism of government actions, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred [Explanation 2, § 124-A].

These phrases are explained below. Government established by law: The phrase government established by law means either the central government or the state government. It does not include the persons who for the time being are engaged in carrying on the government machinery. For instance, if an individual criticizes and raises slogans against the army, she/he cannot be booked under the Section as the ‘army’ does not constitute a ‘government established by law’ but is only engaged in carrying on the government machinery [Bilal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431; Balbir Singh Saini v. State of Haryana, 1988 SCC Online P& H 616]. Similarly, an individual cannot be booked under the section for criticizing the Prime Minister or her/his actions.

The Court in Javed Habib v. Govt. of NCT Delhi [2007 SCC Online Del. 891], dealing with such a challenge remarked, “Where the leader of a political party becomes the head of the government, any criticism of the person and his policies as head of the political party or Government cannot be viewed as sedition.” (5) Intention to create public disorder by violence or cause incitement to violence: The second requirement of the Section is that the alleged act is committed with the intention to create public disorder or cause incitement to violence. The Court’s threshold of incitement to violence and creating public disorder is very high. In cases where an individual merely utters certain provocative statements, without eliciting any violence or response, the Section is not attracted. For instance, on the eve of Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards, two individuals raised slogans such as ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ and ‘Raj Karega Khalsa’. The Court here held that the individuals could not be booked under the Section as their acts were mere ‘casual raising’ of some slogans without the intention to incite people to create disorder [Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1785]. On the contrary, where an individual commits visibly violent acts which make clear her/his intention to create public disorder the Section is attracted. For instance, the Section was applicable where the accused kidnapped several hostages with a view to secure the release of his associate, who had been detained for the offence of Hijacking an Air Craft, killing of innocent passengers and collection of Arms and Ammunition [Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461]. Similarly, the Section was attracted when an individual in a poem titled ‘Srujuna’ called for violence and overthrowing of government with arms [P. Hemalata v. Govt. of AP, 1976 SCC Online AP 197]. Given the rise of social media, the Courts have started looking at online activities of the accused individuals i.e. Facebook messages, statuses etc. to identify whether the accused had an intention to cause public disorder and incite violence [Arvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC Online P&H 762 at par. 11]. Bona fide criticism of the Government:

The Section itself allows for bona fide criticism of the government action and policies. Therefore, strong words used by an individual to express disapprobation of the government actions, for ameliorating the conditions of the people, would not attract the Section. The only caveat is that such criticism should not result in incitement of public disorder or use of violence. Interestingly, renowned politician Mr. Arun Jaitely was charged under the Section for criticizing the Supreme Court’s verdict in the National Judicial Appointment’s case. Quashing the charges, the Court held, “A citizen had a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government or its measures by way of criticism or comments so long as he did not incite people to resort to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.” [Arun Jaitley v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) SCC Online All 6013].

The bottom line is, as long as one indulges in ‘advocacy’ of an idea even if critical of the government, she/he is protected. However, once the advocacy calls for or results in incitement to violence, the protection is lost and the individual can be charged under the Section. The likelihood of incitement should be real and not remote. Mere use of words like ‘fight’ or ‘war’ does not automatically attract the application of the Section. Actual Implementation of Sedition Law- As discussed above, the Section is attracted only where an act is committed with the intention to cause public disorder or incitement to violence. The threshold for proving the same is very high, making sedition an exceptional offence. However, in practice the government bodies apply the provision in the ordinary course. For instance, as per a study by The Hindu, in Kashmir a lecturer was booked under the Section because he added questions on the unrest in the Kashmir Valley in an examination. Similarly, a Times of India editor was booked under the Section for questioning the competence of police officials and their alleged links with the mafia. In the above cases, none of the requirements of the Section were attracted but the arrests were still made. The reason for such blatantly illegal arrests is to stifle criticism of the government authorities by arresting the dissidents and putting them through a cumbersome legal process. Even if the dissidents are ultimately freed later, the long legal process acts as a punishment and a deterrent. Statistics back the above statement as well.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, between 2014-16, 179 people were arrested under the Section and no charge sheet was filed till the year end. In 2016 alone, 34 individuals were booked under the Section and only one was convicted. Need for a stringent Sedition Law? BJP President Shri Amit Shah during the election season had remarked that we need a stronger sedition law, otherwise how will we send ‘tukde-tukde’ gang members to jail. I humbly disagree with the above statement. First, our Penal Law has several provisions which provide for punishment if an individual commits an offence against the state i.e. waging war against the government or abetting the act of waging war (§ 121, IPC), conspiring to wage war against the government (§ 121A) etc. Furthermore, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 criminalizes acts which support claims of secession or question the territorial integrity of India. Second, the existing law on sedition in India achieves the perfect balance between the right to freedom of speech and that of a stable government. By making the laws more stringent, dissent would be stifled and citizens would be mere yes-men to government actions. Any scope of amelioration by dialogue would be nipped in the bud. Concluding Remarks: Sedition as an offence was created by the British government in its colonies to curb dissent. During our freedom struggle leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and Annie Besant were all booked under this law. While other former British colonies have abolished the law, India continues to have it in the statute books. During the framing of our Constitution, several members of the Constituent Assembly had called for scrapping the law, including Pt. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.

However, these calls were not paid heed to and the law continues to exist. Interestingly, our colonial master i.e. UK which enacted this law has itself scrapped it in 2010 stating that it stifles free speech and has a chilling effect. * Even if scrapping seems to be an extreme step given the peculiar nature of India and its conditions, at least the status quo on the interpretation of sedition should be maintained. Making the law more stringent would although create a facade of nationalism where nobody says anything against the government, the growth of the Indian democracy will be crushed. Justice Menon in Aravindan v. State of Kerala [1983 SCC Online Ker 26] succinctly explained the need for a balanced approach to the Section. He opined, ‘9. A Government which keeps quiet when public peace is endangered from whichever quarter is really abdicating its duties. However, it is also necessary to remember that no opinion or ideas could be suppressed by imprisoning those who hold them. Political advocacy that criticized Government or urged unorthodox ideas, if forcefully presented, would create some possibility that it would lead to undesired action. But then what would be the result of suppressing such political advocacy.

Apart from the fact that such suppression of ideas may merely divert public opinion from serious social problems which need to be heeded, cutting off opportunity for expression is likely to intensify hostility, drive opposition underground, and prevent the solution of problems by reason rather than by force… Groups which advance anti-democratic ideas do not operate in a political vacuum. They are often motivated by fears, grievances or other conditions which the society should understand and confront. All the more in a country like India where the gap between the rich and the poor is so wide and where a large percentage of the population live below poverty line.’ Recently, a Member of Parliament called the killer of Mahatma Gandhi a ‘true patriot’. The statement reminds me of Voltaire’s famous words that ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to death your right to say so.’ Such an approach should be the bedrock of a modern progressive democracy which India aims to be. Therefore, while the statement of the MP is shocking and I condemn it, I disagree with the demands that she should be booked under the Section. The MP had the right to say what she said, even if the majority does not agree with her statement.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Should I Wear My Patriotism On My Sleeve? Analysing The Law On Sedition In India And The Demand For Its Stricter Enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian Cultural Forum interviewed Sandeep Pandey about his book, his expulsion, the agenda of the RSS and the BJP and their interest in saffronising educational institutions and more. 

Daniya Rahman: What happened to you in Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has been happening across campuses ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014. Can you comment on these continuous attacks on education and educational institutions? 

Sandeep Pandey: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is trying to control academic institutions stifling out any other voice. By controlling young minds they want to dominate the narrative in the society and hope to maintain a long term hold on it.

DR: There is a trend of labelling every dissenting voice as “anti-national” and / or “naxalite”. Why do you think that is? What according you does nationalism stand for?

SP: It is easy to discredit anybody or question anybody’s credibility by labelling somebody an anti-national or a naxalite. The idea of nationalism is like that of caste and religion, which is used to divide people. It is artificial. We have to be careful about it. I can be a good human being without believing in caste, religion or nation. It is important to be a humanist or a universalist. And that is sufficient.

DR: You have openly held the RSS responsible for your expulsion. Have you received threats from them or faced any hurdles in releasing the book?

SP: Not now, but when I was leaving BHU, two people associated with the RSS tried to dictate what I should have and should not have taught to the students one evening at the guest house where I used to stay. I confronted them. There is a continuous attempt to make false accusations against me by people associated with the RSS. On 6 February, 2019 after my book went public, there was an article in The Guardian by one Arvind Kumar of University of Chicago, where he calls me a naxalite, even though the Allahabad High Court absolved me of all false charges by giving the judgement in my favour.

DR: Why do you think your book is relevant, given the current political climate?

SP: BJP and RSS are trying to confuse the people by repeatedly raising the issue of nationalism. This approach has two problems. Firstly, it creates strife between neighbours and within minority communities or people who believe in different ideologies. Secondly, the real issues of people like poverty, unemployment, agrarian crisis, corruption, the human rights of marginalised, are brushed under the carpet. My attempt is to make people realise that RSS and BJP are dangerous for our society and people should reject their politics.

DR: Would you like to say something to the readers about why the 2019 General elections are so crucial?

SP: The 2019 Lok Sabha elections will determine whether democracy will survive in this country or not. Already, the Narendra Modi led government has eroded credibility of a number of our institutions and reduced the budget of all essential sectors like education, health care, agriculture.  The Constitution of India is under threat. People have to use this election to save democracy, the Constitution and bring back pro-people politics, which has been derailed.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post “RSS and BJP are dangerous for our society and people should reject their politics” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Forget RSS-run Shishu Mandirs and Muslim madrassas. Textbooks prescribed by even ‘secular’ central and state education boards in the country promote religious, caste and gender prejudice

What we learn and teach about history and how the process of this learning has been crafted or developed, shapes our understanding of the events of the past. This understanding of the past influences our ability to grapple with the present and therefore also the future. Such knowledge, if both rich and varied, can also make and break convictions of both the teacher and the taught.

In 1947, India made a historic tryst with destiny. Independent yet partitioned, after extensive and careful deliberation, we opted for a democratic structure outlined in the Indian Constitution. Whether state –
directed or autonomously ensured, education in such a democratic polity should have been committed to free enquiry, fair and equal access to knowledge, both quantitative and qualitative, inculcation of the right to debate and dissent. The only restrictions and limits to when and at what junctures what kind of information could be shared with the child should have been pedagogical.

In short, the equality principle in any democracy simply must extend to education. In quantitative terms, this means the right of every Indian child to primary and secondary education. UNICEF figures shamefully record how we have failed, having as we do 370 million illiterates (1991), half a century after we became independent. 
But qualitatively, too, the equality principle within the Indian education syllabus, especially related to history and social studies teaching, in state and central boards, is sorely wanting. 

Wedded to the equality principle, the democratisation of our history and social studies syllabus should have meant a critical revision of both the periodisation, approach and content of the material taught because, pre-Independence, history writing under the British was infested with colonial biases. This has not happened. As a result, in most of our texts and syllabi we continue to perpetuate the colonial legacy of portraying ancient India as synonymous with the Hindu and the medieval Indian past with the Muslim. We have, over the years, further accentuated the colonial biases with sharp and more recent ideological underpinnings linked with the rapid growth in the political sphere of the Hindu Right. 

Hate language and hate-politics cannot be part of history teaching in a democracy. But, unfortunately, prejudice and division, not a holistic and fair vision, has been the guiding principle for our textbook boards and the authors chosen by them.

Over the years, our history and social studies texts, more and more, emphasise a prejudicial understanding and rendering of history, that is certainly not borne out by historical facts. Crucial inclusions and exclusions that are explored through abstracts from state board texts, ICSE textbooks and college texts as well, quoted extensively in stories accompanying this essay, bear this out. 

What the RSS and other rabid organisations with a clearly political objective would have us believe about history has been succinctly summed up by the accompanying abstract of an NCERT (National Council for Educational Research and Training) report. The report enumerates instances that clearly reflect the bias of the organisation that has sponsored them.

Hate language and hate-politics cannot be  part  of the history project in a democracy

What is far more worrisome and needs careful and equally studied examination is how the textbooks in use in most of our states under the ambit of the state textbook boards, as well as the texts of prominent national boards, echo the same historical precepts, misconceptions and formulations. Sometimes in a diluted or scattered form, but more often with the same resultant damage.

The dangerous patterns woven through the syllabus in general and the history and social studies curriculum in particular, for the young mind, need to be traced carefully. They reveal how the average Indian text looks at the historical and present question of caste-based discriminations, community-driven stereotypes and, as significantly, what we teach students about the status of women, then and now.

These patterns, distorted and prejudicial as they are, will open our eyes to the process that has actually contributed to mainstream secular space being dominated by the discourse dictated by the Right. We will then begin to understand how certain manipulated discourses and imageries that have been pulled out for public consumption over the past decade–and–a–half find instant and widespread resonance in civil society.

What am I referring to? How come the crude allusions to Muslims as ‘Babar ki aulad’ in the mid–eighties and the charge of ‘forced’ conversions against Christians in the late nineties finds a silent acceptance in the marketplace of popular ideas, and even dominates the media? This is because many of post–Independent India’s textbooks have been unable to offer a clean, holistic, rational and multi–dimensional vision of the past that includes a historically honest portrayal of how different faiths arrived on the shores of this sub-continent. Our textbooks are, similarly and suspiciously, silent on the motives behind thousands of Indians converting to different faiths over generations. Instead, through allusions and exclusions, they strengthen the false claim that in a vast majority of cases these conversions happened under force. 

Are we, as citizens, concerned about whether our education system encourages the creative and thought processes, develops the quality of thinking in our young, whether our attitude to learning and teaching engenders the processes of inquiry? If yes, we need to examine whether our school textsbooks tackle the question of free inquiry, dissent and debate.  We need also to pay attention to specific inclusions and exclusions within the content of these texts.

Other crucial questions also need to be raised.  How do Indian texts specifically deal with the fundamental question of race, origin, culture and faith on the sub–continent?

It is surely impossible to speak about apartheid in the world context without linking it to the birth of South Africa under Nelson Mandela as an independent nation. or to understand slavery in the modern context without knowledge of the role of colonial powers in Africa or, equally pertinently, the whole phenomenon of the American War of Independence and Abraham Lincoln. But do Indian textbooks reflect the ability to examine social inequality, specifically the caste system, as it emerged and was legitimised historically and how it continues to exist today, perpetrating an exploitative and unjust social order? 

Can a young student of social studies really seek to understand the caste system without, first of all, being informed of modern–day social and economic apartheid that 16–17 per cent of the Indian population continues to be forced to live under today? There is hardly any Indian text that honestly and candidly sketches out the indignities that continue to be perpetuated on Indian Dalits today.

The life–sketch of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar is restricted to his contribution as the ‘architect’ of the Indian constitution. The serious challenges he posed to the pre–Independence struggle and the Brahmanical order, or his radical conversion to Buddhism as a method of ‘social and political emancipation’ (10 lakh Dalits converted to Buddhism on October 14, 1948) find scant or no mention at all in ‘secular’ Indian textbooks. 

This blinkered vision of Indian social disparity extends to the fashion in which Dr. Ambedkar is portrayed for the young and the struggles that he led are depicted. On December 25, 1925, Ambedkar burnt copies of the Manu Smruti at Mahad village in Maharashtra. This was a strong political statement against the domination suffered by Dalits, epitomised in this Brahmanical text that has laid down the code of a social order which regards ‘shudras’ and ‘women’ together as deserving of no rights. The incident finds no mention at all in any Indian school textbook, revealing a sharp upper caste bias that has excluded real inquiry into these events and movements. There is no attempt at a critical look at texts like the Manu Smruti that have, since their being written several centuries ago, reflected the attitudes of vested interests. In fact this Brahmanical text itself receives favourable mention in Indian school textbooks.

As extension of the same argument, some of our average Indian textbooks continue to label Christians, Muslims and Parsees as ‘foreigners,’ and moreover depict Hindus as “the minority in most states of the country”. They selectively speak about the “immoral behaviour of Catholic priests in the middle ages” while exonerating the Brahmins and the Indian ruling classes. What is the message that we send out to the growing child with these factual misrepresentations and deliberate exclusions of some historical events and modern day social realities when it comes to the conduct of the Brahmanical elite? 

Our textbooks are, similarly and suspiciously, silent on the motives behind thousands of Indians converting to different faiths over generations. Instead, through allusions and exclusions, they strengthen the false claim that in a vast majority of cases these conversions happened under force

The same college textbook in Maharashtra that speaks at length, and with a fair degree of venom, about Islam and its violent nature is silent on what many ancient Indian kings did to Buddhist ‘monasteries’ and bhikus during the ancient period. (King Sashanka of Assam is reputed to have destroyed several monasteries). What then are the conclusions that a critic needs to draw about the motivation behind these selective inclusions and exclusions?
Exclusion is a subtle but potent form of prejudice. If, therefore, the average Indian textbook is silent on the motivations of many a ‘Hindu’ king who employed officials to raid and destroy temples in the ancient and medieval periods, simply because he could be certain to find wealth there (King Harshadev of Kashmir is one such, referred to by Kalhana in his Rajatarini), is there a not–so–subtle attempt to allow the popularly cherished belief that temple breaking was the ‘Muslim’ rulers favoured prerogative, to fester and grow? 

Rabid observations on Islam and Christianity are overtly visible in excerpts of the books conceived by the RSS and used for ‘teaching’ in the Shishu Mandirs. For discerning observers and educationists, this commitment to indoctrination that pre-supposes injecting small yet potent doses of poison against an ‘enemy other’ is not really surprising when we understand the true nature of the ideological project of these outfits. 

The content of RSS texts has invited sharp criticism by the NCERT committee (see accompanying document). To find blatantly damaging statements within the texts of schools run by the RSS is one thing. But to have ‘secular’ Indian textbooks — ranging from those produced by some state textbook boards, to recommended texts for the study of history at the graduation level, as also some ICSE texts — containing discernible strains of the same kind of caste, community and gender prejudice reflects how mainstream Indian thought has not only swallowed a biased and uncritical interpretation of history but is cheerfully allowing this myopic vision to be passed down to future generations.

Take, for instance, a textbook recommended for the final year Bachelor of Arts students in history in Maharashtra. The chapter titled ‘Invasion of Mahmud of Ghaznavi’ is cleverly used by the author to launch a tirade against Islam itself. The content of this textbook could compare favourably, chapter and verse, with sections of Shishu Mandir texts that, are in other parts, far more direct, having nothing positive to say about Islam or Christianity. 

As critically, how do our history and social studies’ textbooks approach the complex question of gender? What is the underpinning of analysis on critical gender issues within these books? How do our textbooks explain notions of ‘pativrata’(worship of the husband), sati (widow burning), child marriage, burning of women at the stake (called ‘witch hunting’ during the medieval ages), polygamy, polyandry etc. to the child?

There could be no more derogatory references to women than those contained in the Manu Smruti, an ancient Indian Brahmanical text. But it receives uncritical and passing mention in most Indian textbooks.

There is no attempt to outline the oppressive ‘Brahmanical Hindu’ code contained within the Manu Smruti. The code outlined in this text has significantly influenced how women have and continue to be treated within the family structure and in society, as also the base fashion in which treatment to ‘shudras’ has manifest itself in Indian society. 

What were the variegated facts, and, therefore, what is the multi-layered truth behind the emergence of different faiths on the sub-continent? The historical account is not an over-simplified one of Babar ki aulad, armed with swords, forcing reluctant victims to convert and smashing down their temples in the bargain. Unfortunately for proponents of a hate-driven history, facts tell a different story. 

The tale of the often-ruthless methods that Portuguese Christians took to effect conversions in Goa may be more recent but it is by no means the whole story of how Christianity arrived on the shores of the sub-continent and found deep and abiding routes. That is an inquiry that is more complex, more varied and far richer in detail. 

In a Maharashtra college level text, he chapter on Mahmud of Ghaznavi is used as ripe occasion to launch  a tirade against Islam itself

The record of persons opting to convert to different faiths, be it Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity Islam or Sikhism, is a worthy exploration in itself. Honestly told, it could offer vital insights on the impulses of ideas and motives as they have driven humankind over the ages. It is, however, a subject that has been significantly ignored except through banal references to ‘syncretism’ and ‘synthesis’ that are left thematically and conceptually unexplored. 

The subject of shifts and changes to different faiths is educative, simply because if fairly approached, the process will throw up different sets of reasons and varying motivations for these actions, these changes of faith that persons opted for. The differences and variety would depend upon the period when the change took place, the region within India that we would be looking at and, finally, the method employed for the conversion itself.

None of the mainline Indian textbooks really do justice to this subject. We often find a single sentence reference to the fact that Islam first came to the shores of the Malabar coast through the regular visits of Arab traders who enjoyed a long-standing relationship of trade and commerce with India. But the next sentence immediately shifts gear to the other way that Islam came to the Indian sub-continent — through the ‘invasions’ in Sind. From thereon our children are told in graphic detail of the numerous ‘invasions’ but nothing of the coming of Islam through trade and the formations of living communities that resulted. 

Many conversions to Islam or Christianity in the modern period of history have also coincided with the passage of emancipatory laws liberating bonded labour. This allowed oppressed sections the freedom to exercise choice in the matter of faith. These sections, then, exercised this choice, rightly or wrongly, perceiving either Islam or Christianity to be more egalitarian than Hinduism’s oppressive system of caste.

There were several instances of conversions during the second half of the 19th century in Travancore, for instance. Educational endeavours of missionaries and the resultant aspirations to equality of status encouraged many persons of ‘low’ caste to change faith and through this to a perceived position of equality. For example, the first ‘low’ caste person to walk the public road near the temple in Tiruvalla in 1851 was a Christian. Around 1859, many thousands converted to Christianity in the midst of emancipatory struggles that were supported by missionaries in the region: for example, the struggle of Nadars on the right of their women to cover the upper part of their body, a practice opposed by the upper castes!

There are so many fascinating examples. Large-scale conversions to Islam took place on the Malabar coast not during the invasions by Tipu Sultan but during the 1843-1890 period. These were directly linked to the fact that in 1843, under the British, slavery was formally abolished in the region. As a result, large numbers from the formerly oppressed castes, bonded in slavery to upper caste Hindus moved over to Islam, which they perceived, rightly or wrongly to preach a message of equality and justice.

Trade and commerce finds dry and peripheral treatment in our texts as do the impact of technological developments through history. Religious interpretations and explanations often pre-dominate, with little attempt to explain how ideas and thought-processes travelled across continents and borders; the means and modes of communication etc. are hardly explored. 

Our secular texts are completely silent on the ideology that killed the Mahatma despite the fact that the RSS was banned by the government of India following his assassination

Within the Indian sub-continent, this century saw the emergence of different streams of thought that contributed significantly to the struggle for independence against the British. It also saw the emergence on the sub-continent of processes, fully encouraged by the British, of exclusivist and sectarian trends within the broader national movement that chose to articulate their worldview in terms of narrow religious identities.

Within a few years of each other, we saw the birth of organisations like the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, as also the Akali Dal and the Rashtriya Sayamsevak Sangh. This process of the emergence of different communalisms that contributed in no small measure to the final vivisection of the sub-continent, with all its attendant stories of vengeance and horror is extremely selectively dealt with in Indian textbooks.

Put simply, all these texts speak at length about the birth and misdemeanours of the Muslim League, the Muslim communal outfit that contributed significantly to the politics of the period. No mention is at all made to the birth around the same time of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, both Hindu communal outfits that contributed in no small measure to the sharp polarisations and schisms at the time. 

Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination is fleetingly mentioned without the ideology that drove Godse to kill him being mentioned, leave alone explored. The fact that the RSS had to face a ban on the question, too, is blotted out to the young student of modern Indian history.

With these kinds of interpretations and inclusions of historical facts in our regular texts, coupled with the repetitious discourse within civil society that has, in recent times, taken a vicious form—and which selectively heaps the blame for partition squarely on the Muslim— is it any wonder that communities and citizens of the country continue to carry the burden of being dubbed ‘traitors’ and ‘anti-national?’

The young student of history in India, therefore, can without compunction put the entire blame of the partition of the sub-continent on the Muslim League and Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s shoulders. The bias does not end here. While the Muslim League receives detailed treatment in the average Indian text, it does not give a single line to Hindu communal outfits. 

In furtherance of the same theme, there is no attempt to either explain or detail that the Muslim League enjoyed a limited hold over only sections of the Muslim elite and landed gentry; that many hundreds of thousands of Muslims participated actively in the struggle for Independence against the British; that the idea of Partition was backed by a miniscule section of Indian Muslims; that the artisan class which constitutes a large section of Muslims demonstrated actively against Partition.

In short, if you read an average Indian text, be it from the state or central boards, the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS bear no part of the historical blame for Partition. The crime is worse compounded by the fact that Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination is glossed over, often receiving no more than one sentence in explanation. 
The ICSE History and Civics textbook, Part II for Std. X, devotes a whole chapter to the ‘Formation of the Muslim League’. But there is no mention at all of Hindu communal organisations. 

And to top it all, here is what the same ICSE text has to say about Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination: “Mahatma Gandhi toured the hate-torn land of Bengal, trying to put a stop to the communal frenzy and salvage the people from ruthless communal slaughter. While celebrations and riots were still going on the architect of the nation was shot dead on 30th January by Nathuram Godse”. There is no further comment on the assassination, or the ideology that drove the assassin. Neither is there any mention of the fact that the government of India banned the RSS following Gandhi’s murder because of Godse’s close association both with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha. There is no information on the trial of the assassins of Gandhi, the justification by Godse of his act and so on.

Similarly, the Social Studies text for standard VIII of the Gujarat State Board, has a tiny sub-section titled, “The Murder of Gandhi”. This reads thus: “After Independence there were severe communal riots in India. Gandhiji tried his utmost to suppress it. Many people did not like this. Gandhiji was murdered at the hands of Godsay on 30th January 1948. ”

Again, no words of explanation of the ideology that was responsible for the murder of Gandhi though painstaking efforts are made in this and other texts to explain the ideology that partitioned the sub-continent. 

It appears logical and inevitable for the stated political project of the RSS and its Shishu Mandir-style education to offer such an immutable approach, a series of unquestionable absolutes, to the young mind. How else can the RSS organisation, whether it be at the shakha or the Shishu Mandir level, create a social and political atmosphere where selectively half-truths and blatant falsehoods dominate all discourse? How else does one create an environment where critical questions are never asked, leave alone answered? And, worst of all, prevailing social inequalities, indignities and humiliations are left unaddressed. In short, leave the social and economic hierarchy unchallenged?

But the fact that independent and democratic India’s ‘secular’ texts reflect, with sometimes uncanny similarity, the very same disregard for a growing and inquiring mind, apart from being laced with a series of questionable formulations that hide gender, caste and community–driven bias is what requires urgent and specific attention. And remedy.   

(This article has relied heavily on the research work that the writer has 
undertaken as the Co–ordinator of KHOJ, a secular education project)

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 1999, Anniversary Issue (6th) Year 7  No. 52, Cover Story 1

The post How textbooks teach prejudice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post BJP in Cahoots With ISI? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In Mankhurd, a Mumbai suburb, the RSS is faced with a grassroots problem. Undeterred by the local police’s attempt to act at Hindutva’s behest, activists of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha (NBS) in the area have been distributing leaflets in the area and in local trains exposing the fraudulent bid of the sangh parivar to claim Shaheed Bhagat Singh as their own.

When threats did not scare the NBS, the sanghis got the local police, and even the anti-terrorism squad to intervene. The police raided the NBS office, confiscated the anti-RSS leaflets and tried to intimidate the activists. Not to be so easily cowed down, the activists challenged the police to explain under which law of the land it was acting to prevent the NBS from exercising their constitutional right to free speech and democratic dissent.

Recognising the blatant illegality of their act, the police had to back out, for the moment at least. Notwithstanding the continuing veiled threats from the sanghis, the NBS activists have printed a fresh lot of their leaflets in Hindi and Marathi and have resumed distribution of the same in Mankhurd locality and in the local trains.

Written in simple language, the opening para of the leaflet reads: “Brothers and sisters, all over India some people have appointed themselves as the sole custodians of patriotism (deshbhakti) and nationalism (rashtrabhakti). These are the same people who played no role in India’s freedom struggle. These are the same people who had conspired with the British against young Indians like Shaheed Bhagat Singh ready to stake their lives for freedom’s sake. These are the same people who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini and who before independence bowed before the Imperial Queen. Since when have they become the custodians of patriotism”?

Shockingly, they (police) answered that although there is nothing wrong in those pamphlet but people belonging to RSS do not want these pamphlets to be distributed. Finally, when the police could not come up with any substantial argument they had to release me.

Referring to the incidents at JNU and the misconduct of “fascist goons” even inside court premises in open defiance of the Supreme Court’s directions, the leaflet argues that the real reason for the Modi government’s vendetta against the JNU students was simply because “these students were protesting against the anti-student, anti-worker, anti-poor policies of the Modi government”.  What’s happening in India today, the leaflet added was “no different from the lawlessness which had prevailed in Germany and Italy under fascist regimes where too self-proclaimed patriots and nationalists ruled the streets”.

The acute embarrassment of the local RSS-BJP activists at this expose of their inglorious past and devious present may well be imagined. Unable to refute the content of the leaflet, they turned to the local police (The BJP-Shiv Sena coalition is in power in Maharashtra) to silence the NBS activists.

Recounting the developments, NBS activist Virat Choudhary told SabrangIndia:

Naujawan Bharat Sabha (NBS) is a youth organisation which follows the ideals of great martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and its goal is to eradicate social ills like casteism, communalism, etc. from society. We are committed to carry forward the legacy of the great revolutionaries and have been continuously waging struggle against the hateful propaganda of communal groups. Precisely because of this, NBS members have been getting frequent threats from such groups. And now the local police has been acting on the behest of RSS.
 
Recently we decided to publish and distribute leaflets in the area to expose the political designs of RSS and the Modi government.
 
On the night of March 22, Mumbai police cracked-down at the NBS office in Lallubhai Compound, Mankhurd. The three policemen forced the activists to open the gate and started interrogating. They asked the activists to show their identity cards and other documents such as rent agreement. The only reason for their raid at that hour of night was that the pamphlets distributed by NBS were not liked by the RSS people. The policemen took some of the pamphlets and left saying that the activists have to report at Mankhurd police station in the morning.
 
The most disturbing thing was that the police which is supposed to safeguard the people and their democratic rights, was trying to intimidate the NBS activists, forcing them to silence their voices against RSS. Moreover one of the policemen was not even in his uniform. When I asked him for his identity, he gave a vague reply.
 
Clearly, knocking on the door of NBS after midnight and interrogating the activists was aimed at threatening us. In the morning another policemen, again without uniform showed up at the office and asked me to follow him. When asked about his identity, the policeman didn't show his badge or identity card; instead he replied that people call him ‘Kumbar Bhai’.
 
I was mentally harassed and questioned about the pamphlet at the police station for about two hours. The police was pressurising me to handover all the pamphlets to the police. I refused and demanded to be told if there is anything against the law or constitution in the pamphlets.
 
Shockingly, they answered that although there is nothing wrong in those pamphlet but people belonging to RSS do not want these pamphlets to be distributed. Finally, when the police could not come up with any substantial argument they had to release me.
 
But within one hour, two persons from ATS (Anti-terrorism squad) came to NBS's office to ask for rent agreement for verification. They tried to intimidate the activists by indicating that they might have to vacate the room unless the NBS stopped its pamphleteering. As elsewhere, instead of performing its duty, ensuring the masses the freedom of expression and speech, the police is acting unconstitutionally at the behest of the RSS and the ruling party.
 
When there is nothing unlawful in the pamphlets distributed why is police troubling the young activists? What else is the reason behind raiding the office after midnight, if not intimidating them? What is the motive behind ordering them to stop distributing the pamphlets? The whole incident raises serious questions on the role of police and its autonomy. If anything this is suggestive of its unholy alliance with the ruling party.
 
Refusing to be cowed down by the bullying tactics of the police or the continuing veiled threats from the sanghis, NBS activists have printed a fresh lot of leaflets and are back distributing them in Mankhurd.
 
SabrangIndia tried contacting the Mankhurd police today (March 27) to get their version of the entire episode. A phone call on the landline number listed in the directory of the Mumbai police (22926006) was greeted with the response, “this number does not exist.” Attempts to contact the Mankhurd police on two alternate landline numbers provided by the city’s police control room (24783300, 28917286) yielded the same number-does-not-exist response.
 
When contacted this afternoon, Virat Choudhary and his fellow NBS activists were out on action, distributing leaflets on the streets and in the suburban trains.
 
What might the RSS and the local police try next?  

NBS pamphlet can be found here.
 

The post Nailing the sangh parivar’s lies: How the Naujawan Bharat Sabha is doing it appeared first on SabrangIndia.