Brutal: A painting of British soldiers shooting civilians in Amritsar on April 13, 1919

Jallianwala Bagh

One of the worst political crimes of the twentieth century was committed in Punjab during 1919. Popular resentment had been accumulating in Punjab since the beginning of the War (World War I), mainly due to the ruthless drive – by the British — for recruiting soldiers and forced contribution to the war fund. Gandhiji’s call for a country-wide hartal to protest against the Black Acts received a tremendous response from Punjab on March 30 and again on April 6.

The agitated mood of the people and Hindu-Muslim solidarity demonstrated on the hartal (strike) days and on April 9 celebration of the Ramnavami festival made the Lt.Governor Michael O’Dwyer’s administration panicky.

Gandhiji’s entry into Punjab was banned: two popular leaders of Amritsar. Kitchlew and Satya Pal, were arrested. These provocations led to hartals and mass demonstrations in Lahore, Kasur, Gujranwala and Amritsar.

In Amritsar, the police firing on demonstrators provoked some of them to commit acts of violence. The next day the city was handed over to Brigadier-General Dyer. Dyer began his regime through indiscriminate arrests and ban on meeting and gatherings.

On April 13-the day of Baisakhi festival – a meeting was called in the afternoon at the Jallianwala Bagh a ground enclosed on all sides. Thousands of people, many of whom had come from surrounding villages to the fairs in Amritsar and were unaware of the ban order, gathered in the meeting.

Suddenly Dyer appeared there with troops and without any warning to the people, ordered firing on the completely peaceful and defenceless crowd. The fusillade continued till Dyer’s ammunition ran out. Atleast about a thousand people, if not more, are estimated to have been killed. This cold-blooded carnage, Dyer admitted later, was perpetrated ‘to strike into the whole of Punjab’. The massacre stunned the people and became a turning point in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.

Rabindranath Tagore’s Wrote a Strong Letter of Protest to the Viceroy, dated May 31, 1919, renouncing his Knighthood
“….The disproportionate severity of the punishments inflicted upon the unfortunate people and the methods of carrying them out, we are convinced, are without parallel in the history of civilised governments…. The accounts of insults and sufferings undergone by our brothers in the Punjab have trickled through the gagged silence, reaching every corner of India and the universal agony of indignation roused in the hearts of our people has been ignored by our rulers,-possibly congratulating themselves for what they imagine as salutary lessons….the very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen, who, for their so called insignificance, are liable to suffer a degradation not fit for human beings….”

The Hunter Committee

The Hunter Committee was appointed by the British government. Halfway through its proceedings, the Hunter Committee had also suffered the setback of being boycotted by Indian nationalists, represented by the Congress, because of the government’s refusal to release Punjab leaders on bail.

Of the eight, the Hunter Committee had three Indian members. The conduct of the Indian members is a study in principled independence and courage.

Example of the Cross Examination of General Dyer

Brigadier Reginald Dyer was in charge of British troops and ordered the massacre in Amritsar

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘You took two armoured cars with you?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Those cars had machine guns?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘And when you took them you meant to use the machine guns against the crowd, did you?”
Dyer: ‘If necessary. If the necessity arose, and I was attacked, or anything else like that, I presume I would have used them.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘When you arrived there you were not able to take the armoured cars in because the passage was too narrow?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Supposing the passage was sufficient to allow the armoured cars to go in, would you have opened fire with the machine guns?’
Dyer: ‘I think, probably, yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘In that case the casualties would have been very much higher?’
Dyer: ‘Yes.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘And you did not open fire with the machine guns simply by the accident of the armoured cars not being able to get in?’
Dyer: ‘I have answered you. I have said that if they had been there the probability is that I would have opened fire with them.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘With the machine guns straight?’
Dyer: ‘With the machine guns.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘I take it that your idea in taking that action was to strike terror?’
Dyer: ‘Call it what you like. I was going to punish them. My idea from the military point of view was to make a wide impression.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘To strike terror not only in the city of Amritsar, but throughout the Punjab?’
Dyer: ‘Yes, throughout the Punjab. I wanted to reduce their morale; the morale of the rebels.’

Chimanlal Setalvad: ‘Did it occur to you that by adopting this method of “frightfulness” –excuse the term-you were really doing a great disservice to the British Raj by driving discontent deep?’
Dyer: ‘I did not like the idea of doing it, but I also realized that it was the only means of saving life and that any reasonable man with justice in his mind would realize that I had done the right thing; it was a merciful though horrible act and they ought to be thankful to me for doing it. I thought I would be doing a jolly lot of good and they would realize that they were not to be wicked.’

This erudite exchange on the pointed killings ordered by Dyer on April 13, 1919 – the Jallianwala Bagh massacre– took place during the hearings of the Hunter Committee. The hearings took place in Lahore on November 19, 1919. These questions were part of a detailed and rigorous cross examination of General Dyer. It was Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, a lawyer from Bharuch, Gujarat based in Bombay who had conducted this particular cross-examnation.

The bullet marks are still visible

Setalvad’s cross examination followed Lord Hunter’s and that of one more British member. Dyer had already admitted to Lord Hunter that although ‘a good many’ in the crowd might not have heard of his ban on the public meeting, he had ordered the firing at Jallianwala Bagh without giving any warning. He went further when he said before the Committee that, although he could have ‘dispersed them perhaps even without firing’. He felt it was his ‘duty to go on firing until (the crowd) dispersed’.

An eight-member committee headed by Lord William Hunter, former solicitor general in Scotland constituted the Inquiry Committee. Apart from Setalvad, then Vice Chancellor, Bombay University,  two other Indians were part of the Committee. Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Pandit Jagat Narain, Member of the Legislative Council of the Lt. Governor of U.P. and Sultan Ahmed Khan, Member for Appeals, Gwalior State.

Lord Hunter, Justice Rankin and WF Rice, Add. Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department, Major-General Sir George Barrow, Commanding the Peshawar Dn and Smith, Member of the Legislative Council of the Lt. Governor of U.P. were the members. The questioning was done, in turn, by eight members.

Following up on the admissions by Dyer to the two British members before him, Setalvad probed Dyer on the two armoured cars that he had been forced to leave out. Dyer’s callousness stood exposed: even after the firing had left almost 400 dead and many more injured, when asked by Setalvad if he had taken any measures for the relief of the wounded, Dyer replied, ‘‘No, certainly not. It was not my job. But the hospitals were open and the medical officers were there. The wounded only had to apply for help.’

All three Indian members of the Hunter Committee displayed a remarkable degree of independence faced with sharp differences with the British members. The differences arose over the recording of conclusions.

The Hunter Committee ended up giving two reports – the majority report by the five British members and the minority report by three Indian members.

Both reports indicted Dyer, in no uncertain terms. The differences were in in the degree of condemnation, in so far as Jallianwala Bagh was concerned.

The report by the British members’ report condemned the action by Dyer on two counts: that he opened fire without warning and that he went on firing after the crowd had ‘begun to disperse’. Though his intention to create a moral effect throughout Punjab was ‘a mistaken conception of duty’, the British members thought it was ‘distinctly improbable that the crowd would have dispersed without being fired on’. Even the British members of the Hunter Committee, rejected the official stand that Dyer’s action had ‘saved the situation in the Punjab and averted a rebellion on a scale similar to the (1857) mutiny’.

The minority report, drafted by Chimanlal Setalvad, on behalf of all the Indian members was not only more severe in general. It specifically condemned Dyer for ‘suggesting that he would have made use of machine guns if they could have been brought into action.’ Members expressed strong anguish at the fact that even after the crowd had begun to disperse, Dyer had continued the firing ‘until his ammunition was spent.’

Citing Dyer’s own admission in cross examination, the Indians disagreed with the opinion expressed by the British members of the Committee that the crowd was unlikely to have dispersed without the firing. In conclusion, the Indian members of the Hunter Committee described Dyer’s conduct ‘as inhuman and un-British and as having caused great disservice to British rule in India’.

Faced with both reports, the then Viceroy of India, Chelmsford conceded that Dyer ‘acted beyond the necessity of the case, beyond what any reasonable man could have thought to be necessary, and that he did not act with as much humanity as the case permitted’. Dyer had no option but to resign and return to England in disgrace.

Apologists for the Raj in Britain however, bought into Dyer’s claim that it was this bloody firing by Dyer that had saved the Raj in India. This not only reduced the punishment meted out to Dyer, he was also treated as some sort of a hero on his return.  In fact, the inquiry itself could only be instituted only after in indemnity law had been passed protecting Dyer and other recalcitrant officers from criminal liability.

Setalvad had been knighted by the British monarch, just a few months before the Jallianwala Bagh inquiry. He was then vice-chancellor of Bombay University. In his memoirs published in 1946, Recollections and Reflections, Setalvad disclosed that within the British and Indian members of the Hunter Committee had developed ‘a sharp cleavage of opinion’.

(Large portions of this article have relied upon excerpts from the autobiography of Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Recollections and Reflections; Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was the great grandfather of Teesta Setalvad )

The post Bloodbath on Baisakhi: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, April 13, 1919 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on: 11 Apr 2016

On his 189^th Birth Anniversary, April 11, we bring to you excerpts from Jyotiba Phule’s path breaking work, severely criticising Brahminism and the Caste System

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827

If a Bhat happened to pass by a river where a Shudra as washing his clothes, the Shudra had to collect all his clothes and proceed to a far distant spot, lest some drops of the (contaminated) water should be sprayed on the Bhat. Even then, if a drop of water were to touch the body of the Bhat from there, or even if the Bhat so imagined it, the Bhat did not hesitate to fling his utensil angrily at the head of the Shudra who would collapse to the ground, his head bleeding profusely.

On recovering from the swoon the Shudra would collect his blood- stained clothes and wend his way home silently. He could not complain to the Government Officials, as the administration was dominated by the Bhats. More often than not he would be punished stringently for complaining against the Bhats. This was the height of injustice!

It was difficult for the Shudras to move about freely in the streets for their daily routine, most of all in the mornings when persons and things cast long shadows about them. If a `Bhat Saheb’ were to come along from the opposite direction, the Shudra had to stop by the road until such time as the `Bhat Saheb’ passed by – for fear of casting his polluting shadow on him. He was free to proceed further only after the `Bhat Saheb’ had passed by him.

Should a Shudra be unlucky enough to cast his polluting shadow on a Bhat inadvertently, the Bhat used to belabour him mercilessly and would go to bathe at the river to wash off the pollution. The Shudras were forbidden even to spit in the streets. Should he happen to pass through a Brahmin (Bhat) locality he had to carry an earthen-pot slung about his neck to collect his spittle. (Should a Bhat Officer find a spittle from a Shudra’s mouth on the road, woe betide the Shudra!)…….

[[The Shudra suffered many such indignities and disabilities and were looking forward to their release from their persecutors as prisoners fondly do. The all-merciful Providence took pity on the Shudras and brought about the British raj to India by its divine dispensation which emancipated the Shudras from the physical (bodily) thraldom (slavery). We are much beholden to the British rulers. We shall never forget their kindness to us. It was the British rulers who freed us from the centuries-old oppression of the Bhat and assured a hopeful future for our children. Had the British not come on the scene (in India) (as our rulers) the Bhat would surely have crushed us in no time (long ago.)]]

Some may well wonder as to how the Bhats managed to crush the depressed and down-trodden people here even though they (the Shudras) outnumbered them tenfold. It was well-known that one clever person can master ten ignorant persons
(e.g. a shepherd and his flock). Should the ten ignorant men be united (be of one mind), they would surely prevail over that clever one. But if the ten are disunited they would easily be duped by that clever one. The Bhats have invented a very cunning method to sow seeds of dissension among the Shudras. The Bhats were naturally apprehensive of the growing numbers of the depressed and down- trodden people. They knew that keeping them disunited alone ensured their (the Bhats’) continued mastery ever them. It was the only way of keeping them as abject slaves indefinitely, and only thus would they be able to indulge in a life of gross indulgence and luxury ensured by the `sweat of the Shudras’ brows. To that end in view, the Bhats invented the pernicious fiction of the caste-system, compiled (learned) treatises to serve their own self-interest and indoctrinated the pliable minds of the ignorant Shudras (masses) accordingly.

Some of the Shudras put up a gallant fight against this blatant injustice. They were segregated into a separate category (class). In order to wreak vengeance on them (for their temerity) the Bhats persuaded those whom we today term as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (tillers, peasants) etc. not to stigmatise them as untouchables.

Being deprived of their means of livelihood, they were driven to the extremity of eating the flesh of dead animals. Some of the members of the Shudras community today proudly call themselves as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (peasants), gold-smiths, tailors, iron smiths, carpenters etc, on the basis of the avocation (trade) they pursued (practised), Little do they know that our ancestors and those of the so¬called untouchables (Mahars, Mangs etc.) were blood-brothers (traced their lineage to the same family stock).

Their ancestors fought bravely in defence of their motherland against the invading usurpers (the Bhats) and hence, the wily Bhats reduced them to penury and misery. It is a thousand pities that being unmindful of this state of affairs, the Shudras began to hate their own kith and kin.

The Bhats invented an elaborate system of caste-distinction based on the way the other Shudras behaved towards them, condemning some to the lowest rung and some to a slightly higher rung. Thus they permanently made them into their proteges and by means of the powerful weapon of the `iniquitous caste system,’ drove a permanent wedge among the Shudras.

It was a classic case of the cats who went to law! The Bhats created dissensions among the depressed and the down- trodden masses and are battening on the differences (are leading luxurious lives thereby).

The depressed and down­trodden masses in India were freed from the physical bodily) slavery of the Bhats as a result of the advent of the British raj here. But we are sorry to state that the benevolent British Government have not addressed themselves to the important task of providing education to the said masses. That is why the Shudras continue to be ignorant, and hence, their ‘mental slavery’ regarding the spurious religious tracts of the Bhats continues unabated. They cannot even appeal to the Government for the redressal of their wrongs. The Government is not yet aware of the way the Bhats exploit the masses in their day to day problems as also in the administrative machinery. We pray to the Almighty to enable the Government to kindly pay attention to this urgent task and to free the masses from their mental slavery to the machinations of the Bhats.

I am deeply beholden to Shri Vinayak Babji Bhandarkar and Rao Saheb Shri Rajanna Lingu for their continued encouragement to me in the writing of this treatise.

(From the Introduction to ‘Slavery’ by Mahatma Jyotiba Phule)
­­­­­­­

The post Jyotiba Phule’s Trenchant Critique of Caste: Gulamgiri appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Coronation …

“By the beginning of 1673 the idea of a public coronation began to materialize, and when preparations were fully completed, the event took place at fort Raigad, on Saturday 5 June 1674, the day of the sun’s entering the constellation Leo.

The orthodox Brahman opinion was not favourable to Shivaji’s claim to be recognised as a Kshatriya by blood, although he had proved this claim by action. More than a thousand years had passed since such a ceremony was last performed, and on that account men’s memories had been entirely dimmed. All ancient learning of the Deccan had migrated to Benares after the invasion of Ala–ud–din Khilji and the Muslim conquest of the Deccan.

Ancient families noted for hereditary learning like the Devs, the Dharmadhikaris, the Sheshas, the Bhattas, the Maunis, had left their hearths and homes at Paithan, with all their sacred books, and opened their new university of letters on the bank of the holy Ganges. The ignorant unthinking folks of Paithan had now no voice of authority left in them. Benares now began to dominate Hindu thought and learning. So Shivaji had to negotiate with Gaga Bhatt of Benares, a learned representative of that school of Hindu law–givers. He was invited to Raigad to arrange the details in such a way as to suit the needs of the present moment as much as to conform to ancient usage.”

(New History of The Marathas, Govind Sakharam Sardesai).

(Archived from the October 2001 issue of Communalism Combat)

The post The Story of Shivaji’s Coronation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What would Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi have made of a society, which has turned its back so soon on his attempts to usher in a culture of progress, science, and tolerance in a fundamentally violent society where the lives of the traditionally disadvantaged castes were nasty, brutish and short? An extreme example is provided in Nisha Pahuja’s documentary The World Before Her, in which Prachi Trivedi, 24, a stocky Durga Vahini, women’s youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, activist who fiercely says: “Frankly, I hate Gandhi.” Probably his lifelong adherence to Jesus’s maxim of turning the other cheek would have made him accommodative of her antagonism also.

This culture of forgiving, which the Mahatma advocated made him a moral exemplar for statesmen and world leaders such as Rev. Martin Luther King, Nelson ‘Madiba’ Mandela, Rev. Desmond Tutu and Rev. Jesse Jackson. “Prior to reading Gandhi, I had concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy and the ‘love your enemies’ philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict, a more realistic approach seemed necessary.

But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.” – Stride Toward Freedom {p.96-97}, Martin Luther King; who warmed to the Mahatma post-Montgomery.

Decades later, in an address at the unveiling of the Gandhi Memorial on June 6, 1993, in Pietermaritzburg, Mandela was to declare : “He negotiated in good faith and without bitterness. But when the oppressor reneged he returned to mass resistance. He combined negotiation and mass action and illustrated that the end result through either means was effective. Gandhi is most revered for his commitment to non-violence and the Congress Movement was strongly influenced by this Gandhian philosophy, it was a philosophy that achieved the mobilisation of millions of South Africans during the 1952 defiance campaign, which established the ANC as a mass based organisation. The ANC and its alliance partners worked jointly to protest the pass laws and the racist ideologies of the white political parties.”

In the domain of economics, where Gandhian views are considered antediluvian and Luddite, there is a necessary and differing Occidental academic opinion. Delivering the Gandhi Memorial Lecture at the Gandhian Institute of Studies at Varanasi in 1973, Dr. EF Schumacher, the humane socialist economist, narrated this story: “A German conductor was asked who he considered as the greatest of all composers. ‘Unquestionably Beethoven’ was his answer. He was then asked ‘Not even Mozart?’ He said ‘Forgive me. I thought you were referring to the others.’

Drawing a telling parallel Schumacher said the same initial question might be put to an economist as to who was the greatest. The reply invariably would be ‘Definitely Keynes.’ ‘Would you not even consider Gandhi?’ ‘Forgive me; I thought you were referring to the others.’”

And in the Orient, Masanobu Fukuoka, the Japanese author of One Straw Revolution, which inspired many to convert to Natural Farming too was inspired by Gandhi. In Fukuoka’s words: “I believe that Gandhi’s way, a methodless method, acting with a non-winning, non-opposing state of mind, is akin to natural farming. The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.”

Such striving for a life of ethical rectitude can be glimpsed from this episode from My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi mentions the bitter fight he had with Kasturba over her refusal to clean the latrine, wanting a ‘bhangi’ to do it instead. When Kasturba refused to give in, Gandhiji did the job himself. This brings to mind the anecdote of a chance visitor catching President Abraham Lincoln polishing his own shoes: “Mr. President, you are polishing shoes?” “Of course, I do my own,” answered Lincoln innocently, “So, whose do you polish?”

Mahatmaji’s culture of secularism needs special mention. The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry, which opposes any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organise opposition parties, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom.

Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.

Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of religion and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is allowed dominant status, minority opinions are jeopardised. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows polyphony or multiplicity of voices. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions {political or educational} are also a violation of the separation of powers principle.

A repeated usage of the term occurs early in Gandhi’s writings and speeches in 1933. Later, on January 27, 1935, Gandhi, addressing some members of the Central Legislature, said that “even if the whole body of Hindu opinion were to be against the removal of untouchability, still he would advise a secular legislature like the Assembly not to tolerate that attitude.” {Collected works}. On January 20, 1942 Gandhi remarked while discussing the Pakistan scheme: “What conflict of interest can there be between Hindus and Muslims in the matter of revenue, sanitation, police, justice, or the use of public conveniences? The difference can only be in religious usage and observance with which a secular state has no concern.”

In September 1946, Gandhi told a Christian missionary: “If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern!”

A part of his conversation with Rev. Kellas of the Scottish Church College, Calcutta, on August 16, 1947, was reported in Harijan thus: “Gandhiji expressed the opinion that the state should undoubtedly be secular. It could never promote denominational education out of public funds. Everyone living in it should be entitled to profess his religion without let or hindrance, so long as the citizen obeyed the common law of the land. There should be no interference with missionary effort, but no mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as it did during the foreign regime.” This was subsequently reflected in Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.

Gandhi observed in a speech at Deshbandhu Park, Calcutta on August 22, 1947: “Religion was a personal matter and if we succeeded in confining it to the personal plane, all would be well in our political life… If officers of Government as well as members of the public undertook the responsibility and worked wholeheartedly for the creation of a secular state, we could build a new India that would be the glory of the world.”

On Guru Nanak’s birthday on Nov 28, 1947, Gandhi opposed any possibility of state funds being spent for the renovation of the Somnath temple. He reasoned thus: “After all, we have formed the Government for all. It is a ‘secular’ government, that is, it is not a theocratic government, rather, it does not belong to any particular religion. Hence it cannot spend money on the basis of communities.”

Six days before Gandhi was felled by a Chitpavan Brahmin, he presciently wrote: “A well-organised body of constructive workers will be needed. Their service to the people will be their sanction and the merit of their work will be their charter. The ministers will draw their inspiration from such a body which will advise and guide the secular government.”

Both Gandhi and Nehru favoured territorial nationalism, clearly demarcating themselves from the Hindu Mahasabha, which would define nation or nationality on the basis of religion.

Perhaps Gandhi’s greatest achievement in the historic Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22 was the amazing participation of Muslims, which lent it an inclusive and mass character. This, in turn ensured communal harmony, rending to shreds the till then successful snare of the British in playing off the two communities against each other. In fact, so pronounced was Muslim support to the cause of the freedom struggle that history is our witness that in some places two-thirds of these arrested were from that community.

This remarkable spirit of the man who could bend the societal arc of his time to the moral compass of his conscience was best grasped by a little known Australian-born British classical scholar and public intellectual. “Persons in power,” Gilbert Murray prophetically wrote about Gandhi in the Hibbert Journal in 1918, “should be very careful how they deal with a man who cares nothing for sensual pleasure, nothing for riches, nothing for comfort or praise, or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous and uncomfortable enemy, because his body which you can always conquer gives you so little purchase upon his soul.”

There is a reason for this reminder to ‘persons in power’. As per reports on December 25th at a function in Patna organised by a former Union minister in Modi’s cabinet folk singer Devi was stopped from singing Gandhi’s favourite Bhajan, ‘Raghupati raghav raja ram’, when she reached the stanza ‘Ishwar Allah tero naam’. She was allegedly forced to apologise by BJP workers at Bapu Sabhagar auditorium gathered to celebrate the 100th birth anniversary of former Prime Minister Vajpayee. Following the apology, it is further reported that the audience chanted “Jai Shri Ram” in full volume.

These bigoted hatemongers will yet come to realise that the syncretic teaching of Gandhi, mirroring the composite ethos of our accommodating shores, which still resonates in the hearts of his beloved daridra narayans and narayanis, will prevail forever. For the flame that was lit on that funeral pyre in 1949 is and will be the lingering light of the innumerable flickering chirags that brightens lives across India.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Gandhi, the Flame Eternal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We shall make an attempt to debunk the more “popular myths” associated with Bose through his own writings and correspondence. The three primary myths to be debunked are about one, Nehru and Bose’s relations, two, Bose and Patel’s relations and three, why and how Bose’s appropriation by the majoritarian communal forces reflects a greatest irony.

‘The rift between Nehru and Bose’

It is one of the most favourite pastimes of various right wing organizations to pit Bose against Nehru in their attempt to show how they were antagonistic to each other. However, the reality is contrary to what is being portrayed. Subhash Chandra Bose had been deferential to CR Das and Motilal Nehru since his inception in politics. With the passage of time, Subhash and Jawaharlal came to be seen in a similar light, both representing the left wing within the Congress. Both of them surged ahead as icons and the favourite leaders of youth. Their popularity could be gauged from the fact that the charismatic youth leader of the time, Bhagat Singh, himself wrote an article on the two titled, ‘New Leaders and their Different Ideologies’ in Kirti magazine in 1928. The two had opposed the dominion status of the Nehru Report and had been adamant to amend this clause at the Calcutta session of the Congress in 1928. The All India Congress Committee passed Gandhi’s resolution that, if the British did not accede to their demand for Dominion status within two years, then a call for complete independence should be given, by 118 votes. Subhash got 45 votes in his favour.

A meeting of the left wing within the Congress had taken place in Lucknow in 1928 attended by both Nehru and Bose. After the meeting both of them began organising branches of the Independence League all over the country. (Subhash Chandra Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: The Indian Struggle, 1935, pp.136-137) The first All Bengal Conference of Students was held in August 1928 at Calcutta presided by Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.137) The Independence League was formally inaugurated at Delhi in November and according to Bose it attained the importance that it did largely because of Nehru’s association with it. (Bose, 1935, p.152)

At the time when the Gandhi-Irwin pact was about to be signed, Bose hoped that Nehru would be successful in getting Gandhi to agree to more favourable terms for the nation. He wrote that there was no one with sufficient personality to force their views on Gandhi except Jawaharlal Nehru. (Bose, 1935, p.181)

The difference between Bose and Nehru regarding Gandhi was that while both were deferential to him, Nehru was not ready to break with him, unlike Subhash. We shall see this more vividly as we move forward. The relations between Nehru and Bose were extremely friendly during this time and as argued by Rudrangshu Mukherjee in his Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives (2014), Bose had started to think of Nehru as an elder brother and mentor but Nehru was perhaps unaware about the change. Bose took great care of Kamla Nehru during her treatment in Europe and regularly kept himself updated regarding her health despite his peripatetic nature of stay. (Letter from Bose to Nehru dated October 4, 1935, p.121, Bunch Of Old Letters). He was also with Nehru in his hour of bereavement and wrote a letter to him to that effect on 4th March 1936 (Bunch Of Old Letters, p.166).

On his return to India, Bose was detained and shortly imprisoned. This did not go down well with the youth of the nation and their admiration for Bose was given expression by Nehru who declared the day, May 10, to be celebrated as Subhash Day. (Rudgranshu Mukherjee, Nehru And Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p. 213)

In Bose’s letter to Nehru dated June 30, 1936 he expressed his concern for Nehru’s health and went on to advise him a couple of things regarding his priorities as Congress President.(Bunch Of Old Letters, p.195) The two had grown e quite close and spoke in almost one voice over all matters of the Congress. When the infamous Tripuri incident took place and he saw no cooperation forthcoming from his Working Committee, Bose resigned. At the time, he wrote a letter to his nephew. This letter which is quoted by almost all the accusers as “evidence of Nehru’s malice towards Bose” should be read in context and in entirety. Though the letter says, no one had done more harm to me than Nehru in my cause, this comment was meant in the context to the Tripuri incident. This emerges from the fact that Bose despite his admiration for Gandhi was ready to part ways with him which Nehru was not. Rudrangshu Mukherjee points out that at this time Bose even invited Nehru to discuss the situation (Rudrangshu Mukherjee, Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives, 2014, p.243)

We must also not forget that Nehru was made the chairman of the Planning Committee during Bose’s tenure as Congress President and Nehru makes it a point to mention this. (Nehru, Discovery Of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.412)  When the news of Bose’s death reached Nehru, he was moved to tears, one of the very few occasions when he cried in public. He even donned the lawyer’s coat after 25 years to defend the INA prisoners alongside Bhulabhai Desai. Nehru contrasts Bose’s heroic resistance from Japan with the lethargic attitude of a few Congressmen. (Nehru, Discovery of India, Classic Reprint, 2010, p.521). Bose on his part named one of the battalions of his army after Nehru. They had their differences but those were probably very few and their mutual respect and admiration was tremendous. As Rudrangshu Mukherjee highlights, it is their friendship, the partnership they had, which has been overlooked by historians.

‘Patel and Bose did not see eye to eye’

There can hardly be any misconception as great as this, for which, often, historians have been responsible. Bose and Patel had their differences and often quite sharp ones but they greatly admired each other. When Patel had become the ‘Sardar Patel of India’ after the Kheda satyagraha, Bose referred to his achievement at Kheda as a “glorious victory.”(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.168). While Bose was closer to Nehru, when Nehru was made the president of Congress in 1929, Bose wrote in his Indian Pilgrim that the general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. (p.169) The Karachi session, apart from vital interjection/inclusion of the section/chapter on fundamental rights, was notable for the unity displayed by Gandhi, Patel, Nehru and Bose. (Rajmohan Gandhi, 1991, p. 204)

Rajmohan Gandhi also narrates an incident which displays Patel’s curiosity to learn from Bose as well as a competitiveness between the two through Mahadev Desai’s diary. Mahadev Desai notes in his diary on May 29, 1932 that Patel asked him a question which he found interesting, even amazing. He asked who was Vivekananda?  Mahadev Desai thought that this thought might have risen because of Bose claiming Vivekananda his inspiration in an article in Leader. He suggested Romain Rolland’s books on Vivekanand and Ramkrishna Paramhans. While the latter part is correct, it appears to have transpired in June and not on May 29. Also, Mahadev Desai himself offers this suggestion to Patel and not on any particular query raised by Patel. If this fact, what was said is true, then Rajmohan Gandhi might have used a different version of Mahadev Desai’s diary –one which may be in physical existence —as against the one accessible on the Internet.

Vithalbhai Patel (Sardar’s brother) was in Austria where he met Bose. Vithalbhai’s health had been on a decline and in September 1933 it reached a position where he had to be attended by doctors most of the time, aound the clock. As his last but not insignificant political act, Vithalbhai Patel along with Subhash Chandra Bose signed a joint statement against Gandhi’s passive resistance stating that he had failed as a leader and India now needed new methods for its independence. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, pp.1217-1218) Vallabhbhai Patel was in prison at this time but he was deeply attached to his brother despite a few bitter memories which marred Vithalbhai’s move to Europe. Vallabhai rote multiple letters to Vithalbhai. It was probably the close monitoring (surveillance) by the the British that ensured these letters never reached Vithalbhai who thought that his brother had probably neglected him. (GI Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, 1950, p.1226) Bose who had this remarkable gift of nursing and doting on the ill, looked after him extremely well. Gandhi remarked on this aspect; observing that Bose had outdone himself in his care of Vithalbhai.

Vithalbhai made his Will at the Clinique de Linegeure, Gland in which he wrote that three fourth of his estates were to be used by Subhash for India’s political upliftment and publicity work on behalf of India’s freedom struggle. He appointed Dr. P.T. Patel and G.I. Patel as executors of the Will.(G.I. Patel, Vithalbhai Patel: Life And Times, Volume 2, pp.1250-1251) GI Patel further mentions that though he asked Bose for the original Will several times, he could only muster a copy of the Will that he sent to GI Patel. GI Patel met Vallabhbhai in Nashik prison and showed him the Will. Vallabhbhai subjected the Will to cross examination enquiring why Vithalbhai’s signature was not attested by a medical person when he was in failing health. Since he would not have been able to dictate the Will in one go because of his illness, why was the original handwritten copy not produced? He was also suspicious as to why all three men who attested Vithalbhai’s signature were Bengalis and two of them merely students when eminent people like Bhulabhai Desai and others were present nearby.

Despite this fact we must keep in mind that Gordhanbhai Patel and not Vallabhbhai Patel moved the Bombay High Court in January 1939. Bhulabhai Desai, Chimnalal Setalvad and Motilal Setalvad represented GI Patel and others whereas PR Das (CR Das’s brother) and Manekshaw represented Bose. Justice B.J Wadia held that the reference in the Will to objects on which Subhash was to spend Vithalbhai’s money was vague and thus invalid. Vallabhbhai Patel announced that the money would go to Vithalbhai Memorial Trust. Subhash Chandra Bose appealed against the judgement but Justice Sir John Baumont and Justice Kania reaffirmed Justice Wadia’s ruling. (Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel:A Life, 1991, p.237)

Now studying the relation between the two, Rajmohan Gandhi tells us about the Haripura session of the Congress at which the relation between Patel and Bose seemed free of friction and consensus marked the session’s decisions (Patel: A Life, 1991, p.265). When Khare had accused Patel of malicious intent towards him in side-lining him, Bose had defended Patel in this episode. Similarly, when the Muslim League headed coalition government fell in Assam, Patel backed Subhash who said Congress should make a bid to power as against Azad and Prasad’s opinion on the matter.(Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life, 1991, p.277) When life was made difficult for Bose as president at the Tripuri session Sarat Bose (Subhash Chandra Bose’s brother) wrote to Gandhi that Patel had a hand in the mean, malicious and vindictive propaganda against Bose.( Patel: A Life, p.281) While Patel was apprehensive of Bose’s candidature for President at Haripura, at Tripuri, Patel and others were simply toeing the line of Gandhi.

When Subhash was leading the INA, Vallabhbhai claimed Subhash as a colleague and fellow-fighter and was willing to help the personnel and dependents of the INA. He also headed the Congress Committee set up to assist relatives of those in a members killed by the Allies. (Patel: A Life, p.348)

Thus, we find that despite all their differences Bose and Patel had immense respect for each other and assisted each other for the attainment of the goal of Indian independence.

‘Bose was closer to Hindu communalists’

This myth emanates from the fact that Bose had gone on a hunger strike in support of the Durga Puja celebration in Burmese jail. The entire episode is reproduced in Bose’s own book An Indian Pilgrim’s chapter 7, “In Burmese Prisons.” Bose wrote that “in October 1925, our national religious festival — the Durga Pujah …falling …, we applied to the Superintendent for permission and for funds to perform the ceremony. Since similar facilities were given to Christian prisoners in Indian prisons, the Superintendent gave us the necessary facilities, in anticipation of Government sanction.” (An Indian Pilgrim, pp.123-124) The Government, however, refrained from giving sanction and censured the Superintendent, Major Findlay, for acting on his own steam. Thereupon, Bose was forced to commence a hunger-strike in February 1926. Three days after the hunger-strike began, the Calcutta paper, Forward, published the news of the hunger-strike and also the ultimatum Bose had sent to the Government. Bose further wrote that, “about the same time Forward published extracts from the report of the Indian Jail Committee of 1919-21. Before this Committee a high official of the Prison Department, Lieutenant Colonel Mulvany, had given evidence to say that he had been forced by his superior officer, the Inspector-General of Prisons of Bengal, to withdraw the health reports he had sent of some state-prisoners in his jail and to send in false reports instead.”(An Indian Pilgrim, p.124) T.C. Goswami, a Swarajit member of the Legislature, moved an adjournment motion in the house over the hunger strike in Mandalay jail. This alongside the disclosures of the report and Lieutenant Colonel Mulvany’s evidence ensured that after 15 days of hunger strike Subhash Chandra Bose carried the day. This clearly shows, he was rooting for fundamental rights of freedom and appealing to reason as he gave the example of the cultural rights enjoyed by Christian prisoners.

Like Gandhi and Nehru, he too was a staunch believer of Hindu-Muslim unity and believed in the shared cultural heritage of India. His appeal for the demolition of the Holwell monument and celebration of July 3, 1940 as Sirajuddaula Day was not just a tactical move to gain Muslim League support but came from a deep conviction in Hindu -Muslim unity that he firmly believed in. He named one of the battalions of the INA after Maulana Azad. He accorded a place of honour to General Shahnawaz in the INA and adopted as the slogan of the army, Jai Hind, a secular slogan praised by Mahatma Gandhi himself. The man had no bigoted bone in his body.

Conclusion

Bose was a charismatic leader of the national movement who gave his all for the freedom of the nation. He might have had differences with people but was not an enemy with anyone. None of the leaders of the national movement acted with malicious intent against one another. They were all fellows in arms often with different views but with a common aim. These facts need to be reiterated frequently and often in the public domain so that myths regarding the national movement and the a-historicity of those myths can be countered.

(The authors are both PhD candidates at the department of history, Aligarh Muslim University-AMU)

Related:

Second killing of Bhagat Singh & Subhash Chandra Bose by the Hindutva Gang

India’s Post Truth Era in ICHR’s Book on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

PM Modi to attend Subhas Chandra Bose’s 125th birth anniversary celebrations in Kolkata

The post Debunking “Popular Myths” through a study of Bose appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is worth noting that over 200 million Muslims and Christians have resided in India for centuries. They share a common culture with Hindus, work in the fields, and celebrate their festivals together. While Hindus are the majority in India, the combined population of Muslims and Christians is approximately four times greater than that of the United Kingdom, which ruled over India for two centuries.

Historical records show that Christianity’s presence in India dates back over two thousand years, and Islam reached India’s coastal areas centuries before the arrival of Muhammad ibn al-Qasim in Sindh in the 8th century. Yet Hindu-Right forces led by the RSS and the BJP are not willing to accept Christianity and Islam as part of the so-called “Indic” religion. However, they often define “Indic” in terms of elite Brahmin culture and exclude the cultural practices of the majority of Hindus as “impure.”

Continuing the communal approach to history, Hindu-Right forces have been spreading false narratives among the people that the original inhabitants of this country are only Hindus, while Muslims and Christians are “invaders.” Even though Brahminical literature and intellectuals are intolerant of the egalitarian principles of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, they prefer not to outright reject them publicly for political reasons but to appropriate them slowly. The act of appropriation is not easy for them. The Hindu Right, in order to divert attention from the caste inequality within the Hindu fold, tries to demonize Islam and Christianity as “alien” to Indian tradition.

However, history is not with the RSS and the BJP. It tells us that two thousand years ago, the Christian society was established in India. Since ancient times, India’s relations with Arab, Jewish, and Roman traders have been strong. According to tradition, Saint Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus, arrived in Kerala in the year 52 and founded Christianity. Two hundred years after this event, many Christians fled Syria and settled in India, later called Syrian Christians. It is a historical fact that Oriental and Syrian Christian communities have been living in India for thousands of years and have no connection with the imperialist countries of Europe. Their services are as much for the country as the majority, yet the RSS and the BJP continue to call these religions foreign.

Apart from Christians, the BJP and RSS have biases against Muslims. They are trying to erase Islamic culture from Indian history. The NCERT’s proposed seminar is part of the same ‘saffronisation’ project. This communal narrative demonizes the medieval period as a “dark” period for Hindus because Muslims became rulers. It is true that Muslim rulers exploited the working classes, both Hindus and Muslims, and lived on their taxes. Hindu rulers, too, were not lenient in their exploitation of Hindu and Muslim peasants and workers alike. However, during the medieval period, the process of intermingling various cultures intensified, and a refined form of composite culture emerged. Many popular Hindu texts were written in the medieval period, and many religious texts of Hindus were translated during the same period.

Credible historians do not agree with the narrative of the victimization of Hindus during the medieval period. For example, Prof. Romila Thapar has criticized the history-writing method of “RSS and Hindutva ideologues for whom the past has only to do with Hindu history of the early period and the victimization of Hindus under Muslim tyranny in the medieval period.” Prof. Thapar has shown the intellectual dishonesty of the Hindutva writers who are at the forefront of “speaking of Hindus being enslaved for a thousand years by Muslim rule” but are dead against any talk of how “caste Hindus” have “victimized the lower castes, Dalits, and Adivasis for two thousand or more years.” While Prof. Thapar rejects the communal narrative that Hindus were victimized by Muslim rulers, she has shown that the medieval period was a period of cultural intermingling when the Bhakti and Tantric traditions in India emerged in the north (On Nationalism, Aleph Book, New Delhi, 2016, pp. 11-16).

Moreover, the egalitarian ideas of Islam also confronted caste society and gave much relief to Dalits and lower castes. Historian Sulaiman Nadvi (1884–1953)—who was associated with the establishment of Jamia Millia Islamia—has shown that before the coming of Islam, education was denied to the lower castes, but things began to change under the egalitarian influence of Islam. Furthermore, the term “Hindu” has roots in Arabic and Persian, with hundreds of Persian and Arabic words integrated into everyday Indian language.

Even the claim of Hindus being the authentic people of India is historically untenable. Prof. Romila Thapar has shown that the process of unification and homogenization of the “Hindu” religious community took place in the modern period. As she put it, “There were in pre-modern times a conglomerate of communities, identified by language, caste and ritual, occasionally overlapping in one or the other of these features but rarely presenting a uniform, universalising form. What is often mistaken for uniformity, namely Brahminical culture, was only the culture of the elite” (The Politics of Religious Communities in Cultural Past: Essays in Early Indian History, Oxford University Press, 2000, New Delhi, p. 1097).

To associate India with any particular religion or culture is highly problematic. In everyday life, the influence of Christianity and Islam can be seen in various aspects of Indian life, including language, customs, rituals, food habits, education systems, agriculture, architecture, music, technology, and philosophy. Calling Hindus an “indigenous” community in opposition to Christians and Muslims is highly problematic. Yet, public institutions such as NCERT continue to propagate such a communal narrative.

Despite this deep influence, the sub-themes of the seminar overlooked the substantial impact of Christianity and Islam. It is concerning that a premier educational body like NCERT, responsible for textbooks from class one to twelve, continues to display such bias and myopia in its approach. This biased perspective is indicative of the influence of right-wing forces in our public institutions.

If one goes through the brochure of the NCERT, the tone and tenor are coloured by self-glorification and jingoism. “India’s talent is capable and sufficient for running the entire world.” It further says that the purpose of such a seminar is to instil a sense of pride in the youth and act accordingly so that India again becomes a “world leader” (Vishwa Guru). Our criticism of such an approach does not mean that we are not recognizing the positive contribution of Indians, but it does not serve any purpose if it is over-hyped. The democratic approach is to work in cooperation and with an egalitarian spirit, rather than leading others or being led by them. The concept of master (Guru) and disciple (Chela) is mediated through power. The history of any invention and tradition would reveal that it has been shaped by many forces. It carries the stamps of different traditions and regions. Nothing is born in isolation, nor does it grow in isolation. Yet, the RSS and the BJP are adamant about proving that the “pure” Indic tradition remains “untouched” by the “foreign” and “corrupt” influence of Christianity and Islam.

The NCERT brochure continues to make unsubstantiated claims. For example, it asks researchers to explore writing papers on how “India’s knowledge tradition and its implementation” have been successful during the COVID [pandemic]. The brochure claims that “India has come forward for the welfare of the entire world.” Let the people living in foreign countries testify how far the Indian government came to their help. We living in India can speak for ourselves. For example, I myself heard cases of people running for medicine and oxygen cylinders in the national capital New Delhi, not to talk of the remote areas where health facilities are worse.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the extent to which migrant laborers, mostly coming from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal, suffered cannot be expressed in words. In the absence of public transport, Adivasi workers left for their homes running along the railway tracks. However, some of them could not meet their family members and got crushed by the running trains. The plights of workers have not found a place in the themes of NCERT’s national seminar.

Worse still, during the coronavirus pandemic, minority Muslims were demonized for spreading coronavirus by the establishment-backed Hindu right forces. As a result, hundreds of Muslims, on charges of being members of Tablighi Jamaat, were arrested across the country. Are these not examples of mismanagement and the failure of the governments to stand with the people, who have elected them to power for their own welfare? According to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO), 4.7 million people died in India during the coronavirus pandemic, ten times more than the official data. Yet, the organizers of the seminar are inviting the participants to praise their political masters for “leading the welfare work” across the world. Can such a politically designed and communally oriented meeting contribute to knowledge formation? I leave this question to you.

While Islam was excluded from the themes of the seminar, the organizers were happy to quote a few lines from the famous Tarana-e-Hindi penned by the eminent Urdu poet and philosopher Allama Iqbal. In Tarana-e-Hindi, the nationalist poet-philosopher Iqbal defended and praised Indian civilization, which was demonized by the colonizers. But see the irony: while the Hindu Right is fond of quoting Iqbal when he showers praises on Indian Civilization and calls Lord Rama Imam-e-Hind (Leader of India), they have not spared the same Iqbal and removed a theme from the political science syllabus of Delhi University. Justifying the erasure of poet-philosopher Iqbal, they have called him a “fanatic” Muslim and “the Father of Pakistan.” Look at the narrow-mindedness of Hindu Right forces. While the RSS and the BJP want to become “Vishwa Guru” in knowledge, they are tearing off the chapter on Iqbal from the syllabus, about whom the whole world is curious to do further research.

Rejecting the Indian tradition in toto is as harmful as celebrating it uncritically. If one reads the brochure of the NCERT seminar, one is misled to believe that everything great and positive in the world that has happened has taken place in Indic tradition, particularly in the ancient period. The communal approach to history has divided Indian history into three parts and called the ancient period the Hindu period and the medieval period the Muslim period. Such a communal construction was done by colonial historians, including James Mill. The RSS and the BJP, which call themselves nationalist forces, have often been at the forefront of upholding and carrying forward the communal narrative. The RSS and the BJP are not comfortable talking about deep social inequality in the ancient period because it pricks their narrative of the glorious Hindu period. In the NCERT brochure, there was no reference to caste-based discrimination. Similarly, there was no talk of gender disparity. The division of Hindu society into varnas and castes and how the working-class Shudras were not only exploited but also demonized in subsequent literature are all missing in the brochure. The conflicts between Buddhism and Brahminism and Devas and Asuras have been erased too.

For quite some time, NCERT has been in the news for toeing the establishment line and making decisions under political pressure. Intellectuals have often alleged that it works under RSS and BJP pressure. Last year in June, Professor Suhas Palshikar and Professor Yogendra Yadav, the chief advisors of the political science book, sent a letter to the NCERT director calling the changes in the NCERT books “arbitrary” acts. They wrote a letter after NCERT deleted several progressive contents without consulting them. The list of deleted items from the NCERT textbooks is long, but here are some of them: a few lines from the political science book that discuss the 2002 Gujarat Violence have been deleted; similarly, the report by the Human Rights Commission on it and then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s call to the Gujarat government to follow “raj dharma” without discriminating people based on caste and religion, have been removed; the reference to Gandhi being disliked by Hindu extremists and the identity of his assassin Nathuram Godse as a Brahmin have been erased as well. Even the references to ghettoization as a result of anti-Muslim Gujarat violence have been deleted from NCERT sociology books. The chapters on the Mughal Court, Central Islamic Lands, the Cold War, and the era of one-party dominance discussing the early phase of the Congress party have been torn off.

According to a recent report in The Indian Express (June 16, 2024), the Class 12 political science book of NCERT erased the references to the 16th-century old Babri Masjid, which was illegally demolished in broad daylight on December 6, 1992, by Hindu Right forces. The newly printed textbook calls Babri Masjid “the three-dome structure,” which was built “at the site of Shri Ram’s birthplace in 1528.” It was also written in the new chapter that the structure has “visible displays of Hindu symbols and relics in its interior as well as its exterior portions.” However, no historian with any credible record of research can uphold these communal fabrications, which are being injected into our children.

In light of these concerns, intellectuals should express dissent against the communal conceptualization of the NCERT seminar and call upon members of civil society to raise their voices in protest as a demonstration of our intellectual integrity. Please remember that the penetration of the communal forces is fast taking place at other institutes as well. Therefore, a collective fight needs to be waged to uphold India’s pluralism, secularism, and social justice. Upholding such values and rejecting sectarian approaches is not just essential but also our Constitutional duty. Such a communal approach to Indian tradition is not only an act of intellectual dishonesty but also a conspiracy to weaken people’s solidarity.

(Dr. Abhay Kumar earned a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is working on a book about Muslim Personal Law. Contact: debatingissues@gmail.com)

The post Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This perception is an add-on to the other such ‘social common sense’ that Muslim invaders destroyed the Hindu Temples and spread Islam by force. Incidentally the propagation of these understandings began with the introduction of communal historiography by the British and later picked up with big gusto by the communal streams, Muslim communalism and Hindu Communalism. While the propagation of myths propagated by Muslim League against Hindus is playing havoc in Pakistan, in India it is RSS which has played this up, leading to Hate against Muslims in our society to the extent that Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel had to write this about RSS, “All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.”

When Modi was mouthing that Nalanda was burnt by foreign invaders, this falls in the same category of falsehoods which are used to spread the Hatred against Muslims. Nalanda had a glorious residential University, spread out in a large area in Rajgir Bihar, built by Gupta’s in the sixth century. It was a Buddhist centre as Archaeological evidence shows. Primarily it was for study of Buddhist philosophy, in addition Brahminical scriptures, mathematics, logic and health science were also taught. Its tradition of open discussion and logic were so high that it attracted students and scholars from various destinations. It was supported by the Kings, later with the coming of Pala and Senaa dynasty its patronage was reduced and withdrawn. Patronage was redirected to new Universities, like Odantpuri and Vikramshila in particular.

This was the beginning of the decline of Nalanda. Who set fire to the great library housing millions of books, Manuscripts and rare collections? While it is being attributed to Khilji, particularly after the coming of the British, there is no single primary source mentioning this. Khilji’s primary goal was to loot and plunder. On route from Ayodhya to Bengal he did attack Kila-i-Bihar thinking this is a forte with wealth. On the way he plundered wealth and killed people. Nalanda was not on the route, rather far away from the route, and he had no reason to attack a university. Most of the primary sources related to history of that time do not mention Khilaji coming to Nalanda. Tabakat-a-Nasiri written by Minhaj-e-Siraj has no mention on these lines. Two Tibetan Scholars, Dharmaswamin and Sumpa were keenly studying the history of India, particularly related to Buddhism, in their books also; Khilji is not mentioned as the one who either came to Nalanda or burnt it. Taranath, another well-known Buddhist scholar from Tibet also does not mention any such fact.

Interestingly Buddhist structures of importance like Ajanta, Ellora, and Sanchi stupa were also not the subject of ire of ‘invaders!’ Nor do the Indian historians Jadunath Sarkar and R C Majumdar endorse Nalanda being destroyed by Khilji. So how it got burnt and lost its historical importance. Many stories abound apart from the Khilji destroying it, being most prevalent.

Prof. D. N. Jha, the authority on Ancient Indian History in his essay, ‘Responding to a communalist’ in compilation of his essays (Against the Grain, Manohar 2020, pp 185 onwards) gives an excellent summary of the relevant part of the book ‘History of Buddhism in Indian’ by Tibetan monk Taranath. “During the consecration ceremony of the Temple built by Kakutsiddha at Nalendra [Nalanda] ‘the young naughty Shamans threw slops at tirthika beggars (Brahmins, added) … Angered by this one of them went for arranging livelihood and the other sat in the deep pit and engaged himself in ‘Surya Sadhana) …He performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around which resulted in the miraculous fire.”

History of Indian Logic p. 516, cited by D R Patil, ‘The Antiquarian Remnant’ in Bihar says that this incidence refers to the actual scuffle between Buddhist and Brahmanical mendicants. The latter propitiated the Sun God, performed a sacrifice and threw the living ambers and ashes from the sacrificial pit to Buddhist temples. This is what led to the burning of the great collection of books at that time.

We also need to register that this was a period when the attacks against Buddhism were coming up as the resurgence of Brahmanism was coming up in a big way. After the period of Ashoka when India became Buddhist in large measure, the notions of equality ruled in a big way. Due to this the Brahamanical rituals declined leading to a big dissatisfaction among Brahimins. A bit later when Ashoka’s grandson Brihdrath was ruling, his commander-in-chief Pushyamitra Shung murdered Brihdrath and became the ruler unleashing an anti-Buddhist persecution.

All reliable sources point to the fact of Brahmins burning the library as revenge. Bringing in Bakhtiar Khilji fits into the general Islamophobic propaganda against Muslims and at the same time hides the true story of persecution of Buddhism during that period.

What we need to preserve from the Buddhist period is a spirit of free debate and logic as the underlying base of education. In present times our universities are being stifled by the imposition of a culture of obedience and subordination in the matters of academia. The knowledge cannot be imbibed or developed under such conditions. If we can learn this from the tragic history of the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism in India, it will be a crucial aspect of the development of academia in the country.

The post Nalanda Mahavihar: Did Bakhtiar Khilji Destroy it? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For over four decades the resonant voice of Ameen Sayani was the voice of Indian radio entertainment. On Radio Ceylon’s Geetmala and then All India Radio or Akashwani’s Vividh Bharti, Sayani’s radio hours brought us the pick of Hindi film songs interlaced with his attractive commentary in Hindustani. A child of the freedom movement, born into a family that hailed from Gujarat and was especially influenced by Gandhi, Ameen Sayani journeys through 60 years of India’s experiment with public broadcasting, culture and entertainment.

I was initiated into radio broadcasting at the age of seven by my elder brother Hameed who was a very fine broadcaster with the English section of All India Radio (AIR), Bombay. He used to take me along with him for smaller programmes and gradually I started lending my voice to radio plays and later on, to other broadcasts. It was not until 1949-50 that I shifted towards full-fledged broadcasting in Hindustani. I was a student from the Gujarati medium, then an English broadcaster and later I graduated towards broadcasting in Hindustani.

In expanse, my career has spanned decades of broadcasting. Geetmala was aired on Radio Ceylon for 38 years after which, in 1989, it started as a half-hour programme on Vividh Bharti. The material was the same in both but the songs were reduced in length for the half-hour version. On Radio Ceylon the entire song was played but as reception of Radio Ceylon became difficult in later years, I shifted to AIR. Vividh Bharti ran until quite recently, 1993-94. In fact, we celebrated Geetmala’s 42nd birthday on Doordarshan through a 31-episode series. I was also producing programmes and commercials for seven or eight countries across the world, countries like the UK, Mauritius, Fiji and Canada, Swaziland and Dubai.

The atmosphere at All India Radio in those days, pre and post-independence, was special. A motto hung over the entrance of the building: “Bahujan Hitai Bahujan Sukhai” – for the benefit of the people, for the happiness of the people – this was the proclaimed aim of broadcasting. AIR had, in those days, an army of the best writers, performers, musicians, and the best producers. The cream of talent used to gravitate towards AIR and it was considered a matter of great pride to be able to participate in any AIR programme. This was through the late forties and early fifties when AIR was perhaps one of the finest broadcasting organisations in the world, on par with the BBC.

They broadcast fabulous plays and features backed by first-rate newsreaders. Though the formal name, Akashwani, was adopted later, AIR was indeed like an akash wani (broadcast through the skies). Anything that was broadcast on radio was the absolute last word. It carried weight and creativity.

It was only about a decade after independence that AIR started receiving the first shock waves of bureaucratic and political interference that slowly began to affect its functioning. The first shock came of course with partition, the greatest tragedy we faced. Partition took the best of our talent away; many writers and producers migrated to Pakistan.

Finally, after all that bloodshed, on the night of August 14-15, with the hoisting of the national flag for the first time, I heard Nehru’s great “Tryst with Destiny” speech. Less than six months later, in January 1948, it was the shattering news of Gandhiji being killed that AIR broadcast on its airwaves. For us in the Sayani family, passionately fond of and devoted to Gandhiji, for me, growing up in the laps of the great leaders of the freedom movement, it was a very personal tragedy. Why this man, who was so peaceful, so non-violent, a man who spread love and goodness and goodwill? Why did anybody have to kill him off? As a schoolboy, my reaction was one of pain and bewilderment.

At the New Era School in Bombay, where I studied for seven years, I learnt Gujarati from the Balpothi (primer) from kindergarten onwards. These formative years were critical. Our school song, for instance, it was in Gujarati and its words, which made a lasting impression on me, embodied a fantastic concept of unity – love, affinity, neighbourliness and humility – it’s all there. I remember at New Era we also had a four-line motto that was, in fact, a four-language motto because it had all the four main languages of Maharashtra! The first was English, the name of the school, which was in English, the second was a Gujarati line, the third line was in Marathi and the fourth line was in Hindi. This is how it went: “New Era, Nau Jawan Badho Aage, Aami Jagat Che Nagreek Ho, Bharat Bhumi Jai Jai Ho (New Era; Youth, forge ahead; We are citizens of the world; Hail, hail to India)”.

So this fusion has always been part of my life and a part, I think, of the life of all Indians. As I keep saying, if we had been more inclusive and creative on the issue of language there would have been less separateness, less tension, we would have engendered an ability to understand the other. The maulvi saheb who used to teach me taught me about the opening prayers in the Koran, “Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alamin”, which means, Praise be to Allah, lord of the worlds – master of the entire universe, not only the god of Muslims. Similarly, in the Rig Veda you will come across a line, “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” – there is only one truth, we look at it from different points of view. There is also a famous Sanskrit saying, “Vasudeva Kutumbam” – the whole world is one family.

As a schoolboy and a keen listener of the radio, I remember listening to all the beautiful film songs in all the farmaishi (request) programmes. The farmaishi list would be about a mile long and in school all of us youngsters used to wait in the common room hoping that our names and choice of song would sometimes feature. What music it was, the golden years of Hindustani music!

Slowly, with the golden age of Hindi cinema producing songs and music of incredible quality, I shifted over to broadcasting film music. I started with Radio Ceylon where thanks to my brother I got my breakthrough. Initially, it was difficult, as I had to speak neither English nor Gujarati but Hindi and I did not know Hindi or Urdu very well.

I inched my way into broadcasting in Hindustani with determination and hard work. I did have a background of written Hindustani. My mother was a shishsya (student) of Gandhiji and he had instructed her to start a regular publication, a fortnightly on adult education for neo-literates. Inspired and guided by him, she began it from our home and ran it for several years. Gandhiji had instructed her to start it in three scripts, the Hindi script (which is the Devanagari script), the Urdu script and the Gujarati script, which were the three main scripts used in Maharashtra. What vision! What simplicity of integration! Whilst three distinct scripts were used, each line read the same in simple, spoken Hindustani. It sounds trite and obvious but it was this vision that made Gandhiji what he was. It was an incredible stroke of genius from Gandhiji and reflected his awareness of the importance of a common language, a simple language that can bring people together, through which they can communicate with each other, which can build up a sort of affinity and integrate people into one whole body of people.

You see, in those days the only lingua franca was English and although Hindi, Urdu, were widely used and simple Hindustani was being promoted quite a bit, it was not officially the Indian language. I remember that at a very important session of the Congress Working Committee (CWC), Gandhi proposed that Hindustani be the national language, not Hindi. But at a subsequent CWC session after his death, by a majority of just one casting vote from the president, Hindi was chosen instead of Hindustani. Thereafter, we began to use a language that was barely understood by millions of our people.

So when the challenge of broadcasting in Hindustani was thrown at me, I found that my mother’s publication and its basis in and affinity with Hindustani helped me to slip into the role of broadcaster quite easily. Through Radio Ceylon I was communicating not only with Indians and the whole of Asia, Radio Ceylon used to be the popular radio station as far as the east coast of Africa. As producer and presenter of Geetmala, my main programme, I was learning how to speak simple Hindustani. I already knew how to write it but I was learning the correct accent of speech and the communication and nuances along with my listeners, using rich material that my mother used in Rahbar (Showing the Way), the magazine she published from our home right up to 1960. I used a lot of the material she used, the philosophy of life that this fascinating experience, the publication of Rahbar, provided, to link my Geetmala programme between songs, thematically.

My own experience with the Hindustani language, my learning it, grew with my programme and with my listeners. My listeners would write back with their choice of film songs and their views, sometimes in Marathi or in Punjabi or Gujarati or Telugu or Bengali. Gradually, as the programme grew in popularity, Hindustani was the language that the listeners shifted to.

My listeners and I grew together with a simple, common denominator language that was a tremendous connecting point between them and me. I believe that if the simple language of Hindustani had been our national language, many of our complications as a nation would not have arisen.

There is a very simple saying in Hindustani that has been part of my life and also an intrinsic part of the leadership of early India, “Todo Nahi, Jodo” – Don’t break, Unite.

All my life in broadcasting, which spans four decades, that’s what I’ve been trying to do, simplify concepts and communicate them with social relevance as connections between songs.

Why break up this beautiful nation, why break up this lovely conglomeration of cultures, of philosophy, of social habits, of colours, taste and attitude? There is no country anywhere in the world with so many diversities, so many colours and so much variety.

Instead of getting all that dynamite together, moulding it into an actual Saare Jahan Se Achcha, Hindustan Hamara (Our India, Unequalled in the entire universe), we have been breaking it, dividing its people. What is the point of the Sensex booming if our farmers are committing suicide? There are two or three main reasons for this disparity, this tension, this hatred. We do not know our own faith or religion and neither do we know the faith practices of our neighbours. I can say this because of my experience in holding the listener through Geetmala; my programmes always had an undercurrent of social relevance. No entertainment can ever exist or succeed without being close to life and no socially relevant programming can ever be successful unless it has a little or lots of bits of entertainment, a little bit of lure. So there has to be a mix, of both good and bad. Whether calamity or great achievement, both always got talked about on my programme.

For instance, man’s first step on the moon, Armstrong taking the first step, I made a whole programme on Geetmala, weaving this theme through everything with couplets referring to the moon, references to the moon, what repercussions this would have on us and so on. If there was a famine or calamity or a great leader died or a big festival, it was reflected somewhere in the programme and interspersed with songs or listeners’ comments.

In all my broadcast programmes, communication for me was the essence. I never let my listeners feel that I was preaching any kind of integration because integration can never be preached. For example, during the emergency, the government introduced its 20-point programme when an order was issued to both Doordarshan and AIR to make programmes on the 20-point programme! There were hundreds of proposals but none saw the light of day. Another time, there was this bureaucrat who called all of us producers and directed us to produce a television programme on humour! I remember saying, Sir, humour is always the soul of all conversation, you can put humour into as many things as you like, why do you say that you want only a humorous programme? Say you want an interesting programme. How interesting programmes are made is the producer’s lookout. If you like it, take it, if you don’t like it, don’t take it but don’t put a kind of maniacal handcuff on them, it will not work. Good work originates from within.

All India Radio still has the potential, it has the physical potential, it also has a tremendous number of excellent people still there and if they were allowed to come together and work in a conducive and creative manner it could have tremendous scope and reach, giving the new FM channels (whose chatty styles are quite interesting, actually) a run for their money.

So as a broadcaster I would narrate anecdotes, poetry, which spoke of my experience of our people, the goodness, sweetness, beauty, gentleness, affinity, getting together is the big thing for me. This is what I tried to do everywhere, I can’t pinpoint that I did this or that for integration. Everything I was saying was for integration.

When we started the programme it was as an experiment and I got to have a go at it because I was the juniormost in the group and they were only going to pay 25 rupees to the person who presented, produced and scripted the programme and even checked the mail it received! After the very first broadcast, we got 9,000 letters in response and I went mad checking them. Within 18 months, when the weekly listeners’ mail jumped to 65,000 letters a week, it became impossible to faithfully monitor so we decided to convert it into a simple countdown show.

We used our unique way of rating the most popular songs. First, we tied up with the 20-25 major record shops all over India that used to receive clear reports of popularity ratings and sales. We then discovered that we could still miss accurate ratings because there was often about a fortnight’s gap between demands for records (78 format) being expressed and stock being delivered. We then started depending upon the farmaishi list but realised at the end of six months that a lot of pulls and pushes were influencing this selection – film producers, music directors, who bought postcards in bulk and sent them to us (postcards, some ostensibly from Pune, some from Delhi, some from Kanpur, some from Madras, had actually been posted from one post office in Kalbadevi, Bombay, the postal franking showed us!).

So finally we hit upon a very good idea – lining up several small groups of listeners from all over India who were writing to us very regularly. They had formed radio clubs and they met every week, listened to the programme together and engaged in other related activities. So I started encouraging them and we built up as many as 400 clubs all over India, which used to regularly send us their weekly or fortnightly ratings and numbers. We used these as a basis to be collated with sales reports from record shops and voilà, we got 99.9 per cent accurate ratings.

Coming back to my form of communication, my method was simple, my language was simple. See, I feel communication must be straightforward, honest, understandable and simple. There should be no double meanings; there should be no kind of equivocation as they say. It should be a direct matter of one heart to another. You say what you mean and the other person understands what you are saying. There are two things wrong with our country, our lack of understanding of each other’s faiths coupled with our very confused communications. Especially official communication. I have also started a movement on the need for a national anthem that is understood by one and all.

(As told to Teesta Setalvad.)

Archived from Communalism Combat,  February 2008  Year 14    No.128, Culture

The post The sound of music appeared first on SabrangIndia.

March the 23rd (2016) is the 85th anniversary of the martyrdom of three of India’s great revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, who were hanged at Lahore for working to overthrow the colonial, ‘firangee’ government. The British government thought that with the physical elimination of these freedom fighters their ideas and dreams of a secular and egalitarian independent India would also dissipate and disappear. The rulers were patently wrong as these revolutionaries and heir ideals continue to be an integral part of the people’s memory, their exploits sung far and wide in people’s lore.

On this 85th anniversary of their martyrdom we should remember, and not overlook the fact, that though it was the British colonial powers who hanged them, there were at the time organisations like Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Muslim League in pre-1947 India which not only remained alien to the ideals of these revolutionaries but also maintained a criminal silence on their hanging.

It is both comic, ironical and shocking therefore that, of these three communal outfits, it is the RSS — which consciously kept itself completely aloof from the anti-colonial struggle –that has, of late, laid claim to the tradition and contributions of these great revolutionaries. Literature is being produced and the discourse too seeks to appropriate them with false a-historic linkages to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.

During the NDA I regime when its two senior swayamsewaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishan Advani ruled the country, they had made the astonishing claim that Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the RSS met Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1925 and continued attending meetings with these revolutionaries and even provided shelter to Rajguru in 1927 when he was underground after killing Sanders.[i]

In 2007, for the first time in its history, the Hindi organ of the RSS, Panchjanya came out with a special issue on Bhagat Singh. In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras, known as Balasahab Deoras, the third chief of the RSS, narrated an incident when Hedgewar saved him and others from following the path of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Interestingly, this appeared in a publication of RSS itself:
“While studying in college (we) youth were generally attracted towards the ideals of revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. Emulating Bhagat Singh we should do some or other act of bravery, this came to our mind often. We were less attracted towards Sangh (RSS) since current politics, revolution etc. that attracted the hearts of youth were generally less discussed in the Sangh. When Bhagat Singh and his companions were awarded death sentence, at that time our hearts were so excited that some friends together [we] vowed to do something directly and planned something terrible and in order to make it succeed decided to run away from homes. But to run away without informing our Doctorji [Hedgewar] will not be proper, considering it we decided to inform Doctorji about our decision. To inform this fact to Doctorji was assigned to me by the group of friends.

“We together went to Doctorji and with great courage I explained my feelings before him. After listening to our plan Doctorji took a meeting of ours for discarding this foolish plan and making us to realize the superiority of the work of Sangh. This meeting continued for seven days and in the night from ten to three. The brilliant ideas of Doctorji and his valuable leadership brought fundamental change in our ideas and ideals of life. Since that day we took leave of mindlessly made plans and our lives got new direction and our mind got stabilized in the work of Sangh.”[ii]

Moreover there is ample proof available in the documents of the RSS that establish that the RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad and their associates. There are passages in theBunch of Thoughts [collection of speeches and writings of Golwalkar treated as a holy book by the RSS cadres] decrying the whole tradition of martyrs:
“There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.”[iii]
Golwalkar goes on to tell the RSS cadres that only those people should be adored who have been successful in their lives:
“It is obvious that those who were failures in life must have had some serious drawback in them. How can one, who is defeated, give light and lead others to success?”[iv]

In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

In fact, Golwalkar’s book has a chapter titled ‘Worshippers of Victory’ in which he openly commits to the fact that he and RSS worship only those who are victorious.
“Let us now see what type of great lives have been worshipped in this land. Have we ever idealised those who were a failure in achieving life’s goal? No, never. Our tradition has taught us to adore and worship only those who have proved fully successful in their life-mission. A slave of circumstances has never been our ideal. The hero who becomes the master of the situation, changes it by sheer dint of his calibre[sic] and character and wholly succeeds in achieving his life’s aspirations, has been our ideal. It is such great souls, who by their self-effulgence, lit up the dismal darkness surrounding all round, inspired confidence in frustrated hearts, breathed life into the near-dead and held aloft the living vision of success and inspiration, that our culture commands us to worship.”[v]

Golwalkar did not name Bhagat Singh but according to his philosophy of life since Bhagat Singh and his companions did not succeed in achieving their goal they did not deserve any respect. According to his formula the British rulers would and should be the natural object of worship as they were able to kill revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

It is difficult to find a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs of the Indian Freedom Movement than this.

It will be shocking for any Indian who loves and respects the martyrs of the Freedom Movement to know what Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS, “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.”[vi]

‘Shameful’ is too mild a word to describe the attitude of the RSS towards these young freedom fighters, who had sacrificed their all in the struggle against the British colonial powers. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadurshah Zafar, had emerged as the rallying point and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857. Golwalkar while making fun of him said:
“In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India had given the clarion call—Ghazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/Takhte London tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (As long as there remains the least trace of love of faith in the hearts of our heroes, so long, the sword of Hindustan will reach the throne of London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows that.”[vii]

What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country is obvious from the following statement as well. He had the temerity to ask the great revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the motherland the following question (as if he was representing the British masters):
“But one should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest of the nation. It is borne by the experience up to now that this fire in the heart is unbearable to the common people.”[viii]

Perhaps this was the reason that RSS produced no freedom fighter, not to mention no martyr in the movement against the colonial rule. Unfortunately, there is not a single line challenging, exposing, criticising or confronting the inhuman rule of the British masters in the entire literature of the RSS from 1925 to 1947. Those who are familiar with the glorious Freedom Struggle of India and sacrifices of martyrs like Bhagat Singh must challenge this evil appropriation of our heroes by the Hindutva camp which betrayed the liberation struggle. We should not allow these communal stooges of the British rulers to kill Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev once again.

(The author taught political science at the University of Delhi. He is a well known writer and columnist)

The post Bhagat Singh, the Tradition of Martrydom and Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Narendra Modi Government, by organising Birsa Munda Jayanti, tried to woo the Adivasi community ahead of the 2024 elections. Modi is more concerned about Adivasi votes than touching the core issues of their lives.

The Adivasi community is unhappy as the Narendra-Modi Government observed the day as a pride day for the scheduled tribes (Janjatiya Gaurav Divas). Moreover, theAdivasi people are disappointed to see that the real issues of the community such as water, forest, land, resources, culture and religion, have been ignored in the din of “the celebration”.

The Adivasi community has even raised a core objection to the naming of the official function. Adivasis, particularly those from central India, are not comfortable to be identified as Janjatiya (tribe). Nor do they like to be called Vanvasi (the forest dwellers). Remember that the RSS has been working for decades in Adivasi areas. The saffron organisation with a clearly supremacist agenda, has been accused of trying to create a division among Adivasis on religious lines, pitting Sarna Adivasi against Christian and Muslim Adivasis.

However, Adivasi scholars and activists have expressed their opposition to the category of “tribe” as it originated from the writings of colonial anthropologists. Similarly, the term Vanvasi, according to them, is an RSS invention, which is being used to forcefully assimilate the Adivasi community into the Hindu fold. Instead of the terms “tribe” or Vanvasi, the Adivasi community wants to be called nothing else than Adivasi.

The real reason why the ruling classes are not comfortable with the term “Adivasi” is the fact that they do not want to call any community as the indigenous peoples. In their appropriationist (and communal) understanding, all Hindus are “indigenous” and it is the Muslim and Christian minorities are “foreigners”. By doing so, they want to forge a constructed, communal majority, an agenda which is opposed by the Adivasi community.

The ruling elites fear that if the scheduled tribes are officially identified as “Adivasi”, their claim for protection and autonomy from the state’s intervention for being an indigenous community will get a boost.

However, the right to self-determination has been one of the core agendas of the Adivasi community, which they have inherited from the legacy of Birsa Munda. To dilute this, the state intellectuals have often reduced the Adivasi question to the debate around the extent to which they have been assimilated within the Hindu society.

Unlike the ruling elites and the state intellectuals, the Indian Constitution has made several provisions related to autonomy of the Adivasi community. The Constitution also gives Adivasis the protection from any encroachment on their lands, resources and culture. But these constitutional provisions have barely been implemented by the executives. Post-independence governments have so far followed the top-down approach, leading to alienation of the Adivasi community. This is why it took Indian Parliament, 56 years after Independence and the enactment of the Vth and VIth Schedules of the Constitution. The Modi Government has further alienated the Adivasi community by enacting laws that deny absolute access of Adivasis and other forest dwellers to land and resources nurtured by them for centuries.

But unlike the top-down approach, the struggles of Birsa Munda were primarily aimed at achieving self-determination and autonomy for the Adivasi community. He was aware of the fact that the British colonial rule, which was facilitated by the native elites including landlords and money lenders, was depriving the Adivasi community of its lands and forests.

Eminent historian professor Sumit Sarkar (Modern India) has argued that tension arose in the Adivasi areas soon after British rule introduced commercialization and brought in laws to promote landlordism. From the late nineteenth century, the colonial state began to take over the forest zone, causing further anger among Adivasis. As a result, there were several violent outbursts against the exploiters. Birsa Munda-led Ulgulan (great tumult) in 1899-1900 was one of them.

The Adivasi community was outraged to see the colonial policies, which increased taxes on timber and grazing. Moreover, there were increased instances of police exactions. Moreover, colonial policies restricted the domestic production of toddy. There was a restriction on shifting cultivation, which was resisted by Birsa Munda.

Birsa Munda was the son of a sharecropper. He got some education from a Christian missionary. He later took part in movements against the taking over of the wasteland by the forest departments. Later colonial rule crushed Birsa’smovement as he was jailed where he died. there Almost one century after his death, Birsa’s fighting spirit continued to inspire the Adivasi community.

According to the 2011 Census, the Adivasi community constitutes around 8.6 per cent of the total population. The Adivasi population is indeed found both scattered in some regions as well as concentrated in other regions. But the largest chunk of the population, which is estimated to be over 85 per cent, live in central India. It is this region which is rich in all mineral resources and forest products. The largest concentration of the poor people are found in these natural resource-rich regions. For the exploitation of the Adivasi community, the development paradigm of the country is much to blame.

Even after the end of colonialism, post-colonial Indian policy did not end the process of colonisation of the Adivasi areas. While the entry of the poor Adivasi into the forest areas to gather forest products for livelihood is seen as an “encroachment” in a democratic and socialist country, the massive exploitation of the natural resources by the corporate forces with the assistance of the state machinery and the police is seen as good for the development of the country. It is this exploitative policy which Birsa Munda opposed at the beginning of the twentieth century. But the official function to celebrate the legacy of Birsa Munda tries to appropriate him by projecting him as a “hero”, “god”, and “nationalist” leader against British rule, while hiding his core concerns.

But the historical fact is that Birsa Munda fought against dikus or the outsiders. It is this revolutionary politics of Birsa Munda that the current regime does not want to touch.

(Dr Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. He has taught political science at NCWEB Centres of Delhi University. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)

The post How Not To Remember Birsa Munda  appeared first on SabrangIndia.